Sitting of 25 January 1988

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

Imprisonment of a Member
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received two letters—one from the resident magistrate at Belfast petty sessions and the other from the clerk at the petty sessions in Enniskillen — informing me that Mr. Peter Robinson, the hon. Member for Belfast, East, has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of seven days.
I shall cause the text of the letters to be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
Following are the letters:
Dear Mr. Speaker
Peter David Robinson, Member of Parliament for Belfast East, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days.
As that fine has not been paid Mr. Robinson was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully
C. P. McRandal
Resident Magistrate
Dear Sir
At Irvinestown Magistrates Court on Friday 23 October 1987, Mr. David Peter Robinson of 57 Gransha Road, Dundonald, Member of Parliament for Belfast East, was convicted of taking part in a public procession on 27 May 1987 in respect of which the requirements of Article 3 of the Public Order (NI) Order 1987, as to notice had not been satisfied, contrary to Article 3(5)(a) of the said Order. Mr Robinson was fined £20.00 to be paid within 28 days.
2
On the 27 November 1987 a Warrant of Execution was issued in default of payment. I have just been informed that defendant was lodged in H.M. Prison, Crumlin Road, Belfast on Wednesday 29 January 1988.
Yours faithfully
Signed Clerk of Petty Sessions

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the adequacy of existing energy conservation schemes.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I have received a number of representations. On 22 January I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) that there would be continuing role for the energy efficiency office, with no change in its budget for 1988–89. I have asked the EEO to target its work at the most economically attractive sectors and to examine how the contribution from industry and commerce can be increased. I am not committed to extending the present level of funding beyond 1988–89.
    Mr. Knox: What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the potential for further energy savings? Is he satisfied that the existing schemes will enable us to achieve those savings?
    Mr. Morrison: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip did when they were Secretary of State and Minister with responsibility for this Department was a remarkable success story. They heightened awareness enormously in industry and commerce about the efficient use of energy. Doubtless some firms and managements need to learn a thing or two, and we shall direct our efforts to that matter.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I am sure the Minister will agree that British Aerospace has done very well with regard to energy

    3
    conservation. May I tell him of one of its worries—the mooted increase in electricity prices? The local factory at Broughton, which is adjacent to his constituency—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this have anything to do with energy conservation?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir, it is directly related to the matter. British Aerospace at Broughton spends £1 million or more a year on electricity. If the Government increase the price of electricity, the profits of and jobs at British Aerospace in Broughton, which is a factory that the Minister knows well, will be affected. Will the Minister reconsider electricity prices for industry?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have the honour to be his next door neighbour, with the Broughton factory lying on his side of the constituency. I am particularly well aware of the point that he has made, and I agree that the management and labour force have proved to be outstandingly successful. I have no doubt that the company will continue to make commercial and industrial decisions that will ensure that it remains competitive, which is the best way of ensuring the continuation of the labour force.
    Mr. Speaker: Nothing that I have heard leads me to believe that all this has anything to do with energy conservation.
    Mr. Butler: As my hon. Friend will be aware, 2 million lofts remain uninsulated and there are 11 million houses without cavity wall insulation. If we were to press ahead with home insulation schemes, would that not, to some degree, save the need for expensive electricity generating capacity?
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, about 300,000 community insulation projects are carried out per year. Some 3 million houses have benefited from the home insulation scheme since the Government came to power, which is an outstandingly good record.

    Domestic Consumers
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to review the code of practice for domestic customers issued by the electrity and gas industries.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: No, Sir. It is for the Gas and Electricity Consumer Councils to keep the operation of the code of practice under review and, if appropriate, to recommend any changes.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister will be aware that I am returning to a matter that I raised last month. He accepted the figures that I gave that gas disconnections increased by 40 per cent. last year, whereas electricity disconnections decreased slightly. We have had one cold snap— I am not talking politically — and there may be a severe winter. Will he be less complacent and say that the number of disconnections this winter will be reduced, to prevent thousands dying from or being affected by hypothermia?
    Mr. Morrison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to his particular political cold snap. I know that he is concerned about this matter, and I think that at the last Energy Question Time I explained that this is a matter for the Gas Consumer Council. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, under the present code, a commitment
    4
    not to cut off the supply between October and March to pensioner households is something that is abided by, and I am sure he will agree with that.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that as both gas and electricity boards have gained experience of working with the current codes of practice it has been possible for them to look more advantageously at the consumer, as long as the consumer is prepared to contact the gas or electricity boards as early as possible? Indeed, the experience of many of us in our constituency work has been that, provided such negotiations start early enough, many of the problems that the codes of practice were brought into being to prevent are avoidable.
    Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The arrangements in place for both gas and electricity are very welcome to many of his constituents as well as to the constituents of all hon. Members. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, there has been an increase, and the Gas Consumer Council is looking carefully into this at the moment.
    Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that gas disconnections increased by 25 per cent. in 1986 and by 35 per cent. in the first nine months of 1987? Has not privatisation been a massive and major cause of fuel poverty? What level of disconnections will there be after next April, when the 2.5 million households receiving help for heating through social security will cease to receive it? Is it not a case of putting profit before people?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have noticed what has happened to the price of gas since privatisation. In relative terms the price has gone down, and presumably that will lead to a better situation.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people are currently eligible for British Coal's redundant mineworkers payments scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): By 15 January 7,350 men had accepted redundancy under British Coal's industrial redundancy scheme. There have been no compulsory redundancies.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that despite the general welcome to extend RMPS to the Tredomen engineering works in my constituency, there is considerable anger at the decision announced a fortnight ago to close the works? Is the Minister further aware that considerable sacrifices were made by the employees at those works over very many years, including the acceptance of voluntary redundancies? In the light of the present closure, will he reconsider his decision not to extend retrospective payments under the RMPS to those former employees?
    Mr. Spicer: There will be no change of policy on that matter. The work force at Tredomen has accepted that redundancy closure proposition.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, would he like to bring a little joy into Arthur Scargill's life, since his disastrous election at the weekend, and let the country know that he would still be eligible for the mineworkers redundancy scheme?
    Mr. Spicer: Mr. Scargill was elected on the basis of 35 per cent. of the mining work force. If Mr. Scargill pursues his confrontation policies, far from saving jobs, which he professes is his wish, he will threaten jobs.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the figures announced yesterday for the election of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, referred to by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), showed a handsome majority of which any political leader in Britain would be proud? It is time that we stopped this Orwellian fantasy that, because Arthur Scargill has been elected on a reduced majority, just as the Prime Minister was in the last election, somehow or other he has to adopt the policies of his defeated opponent. That is nonsense.
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is right, that Mr. Scargill was re-elected as president of the NUM, although that is only one union representing the miners. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would go on to say that if Mr. Scargill's policies are pursued we could end up with more closures in the mining industry, whereas if, for example, the overtime ban were removed, that could lead not only to fewer closures but to the opening up and development of seams and new pits.
    Mr. Speaker: May I make a plea for hon. Members to stick to the question. There is a later question about this matter on the Order Paper.

    Offshore Supplies Office
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to enhance the export support role of the offshore supplies office.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): The offshore supplies office has recently increased the resources it devotes to supporting the offshore industry in overseas markets. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will be doing all we can to support the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry in its bid to win export orders worldwide.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are enormous export opportunities in offshore supplies? Will he say what he is doing to assist the process?
    Mr. Parkinson: The United Kingdom offshore supplies industry is now a formidable industry employing tens of thousands of people. It supplied nearly £2 billion worth of goods to North sea operators last year. We believe that technology is capable of wide applications in many markets overseas, and my hon. Friend and I will be leading teams of British business men to markets all over the world and supporting them in promoting British exports.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State an urgent question affecting the offshore supplies industry in Scotland? How, in what form and when do Ministers propose to use the golden share in Britoil?
    Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but I have nothing to add to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The golden share exists and it is in the hands of the Treasury Solicitor. The parties bidding for Britoil have been warned that the powers will be used to prevent any of them getting control. When that situation arises, they will be used.

    Nuclear Industry
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the release of information concerning the nuclear industry, in the light of the recent release of documents relating to the 1957 Windscale fire.
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry; I cannot find the answer immediately.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Do not worry. We will talk among ourselves.
    Mr. Parkinson: Do. It would help.
    The latest release of records included no new information on the causes or effects of the fire that was not already in the public domain. Four White Papers were produced within a year of the fire, and altogether some 70 reports have been published.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is justified public and scientific concern to see all the papers—if the Secretary of State can find them, that is —and that there is no justification on national security grounds for withholding them? In view of that tragedy, and the tragedy at Chernobyl, will he ensure, not only that all the papers relating to Windscale are released, but that those relating to the proposed test at Trawsfynydd on 12 February are released now? The safety advice given to the Central Electricity Generating Board by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate should be released and the test called off in the interests of public safety.
    Mr. Parkinson: None of the limited number of papers retained deal with the causes or consequences of the Windscale fire. All the information made available on I January had been in the public domain—for those who cared to read it—for a very long time.
    On the question of Trawsfynydd, which has very little to do with this question, the proper procedures were being followed to get approval for that test. There was a leak from a source which let the information out early with the intention of causing alarm and concern, but there is no need for alarm or concern.
    Mr. Adley: On the question of dangers from energy generation, can my right hon. Friend say now —or will he drop me a note—how many miners have died or had their health destroyed by pneumoconiosis since 1957?
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not know the answer to that question, and I am not sure that it is relevant to this question.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the remaining documents do not deal with the causes or consequences, will the right hon. Gentleman state what they do deal with in terms of a general heading?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, successive Governments have followed a policy of not revealing the details of papers that have been retained. He knows that the procedures for having a retention approved are strict. However, I can assure him that nothing relating to either the causes or the consequences of the fire is contained in the retained documents.
    Dr. Thomas: In view of the continuing public concern about the safety of the nuclear industry, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is prepared to review the

    7
    information procedures of his Department and of the CEGB, especially as applied to the forthcoming test at Trawsfynydd? Does he agree that unless engineers can convince the public, by commonsense arguments, that tests should take place, in a democracy they should not take place?
    Mr. Parkinson: What has alarmed the public is the comparison between the test of safety mechanism at Trawsfynydd and Chernobyl. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I explained it to him at our meeting on Friday —at Chernobyl the reactor was active, safety systems had been switched off and a deliberate experiment was carried out. This is a controlled test of a safety feature. The reactor will not be operative and the safety equipment will be working. What is being proved is that the natural circulation, built into the system and designed to produce cooling, works. That test will take place only if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate approves of the proposals and it is carried out under its monitoring.
    Miss Widdecombe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the open information policy of British Nuclear Fuels plc, and does he agree that it will go a long way to allay public fears about nuclear safety?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. Every incident that takes place, whether reportable or minor, is now recorded, and that information is filed in the Library of the House of Commons. It is also supplied to the local liaison committees and to local Members of Parliament. There is no attempt at concealment. In fact, we have the most open system in the world.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that what causes public concern about the experiments and controls is excessive secrecy and the leaks associated with it? That is what is causing concern at the Welsh plant. Will the Secretary of State confirm the CEGB view that the experiment that is to be conducted there is not necessary to a long-term safety review of the plant? If that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the experiment is being conducted in order not to extend the life of the old Magnox plants, thus reducing the liability of the high decommissioning costs and the effect on the price for the privatisation of electricity?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that I find it hard to follow that convoluted logic. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman that the test is taking place because built into the Magnox system there is a safety measure that is designed to ensure that, even if the fans fail, natural circulation will produce cooling. The test is being proposed under the most strict circumstances to prove that that safety factor works. It is a safety mechanism that is being tested.

    Windscale Fire
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the plans to remove the debris from the site of the 1957 Windscale fire.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: This is a matter for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Plans for carrying out decommissioning work on the Windscale piles, including the removal of fuel and debris, were announced by the chairman of the authority on 5 October 1987. A copy of his statement is in the Library.
    Mrs. Michie: Given that the Government's radioactive waste strategy has had four major setbacks and cancellations since 1981, and knowing the opposition throughout the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland and in my constituency of Argyll and Bute, to nuclear dumping sites, will the Minister explain more clearly the way in which the debris from the 1957 Windscale fire is to be removed, when the work will be completed, how much it will cost and where it is to be stored or disposed of?
    Mr. Spicer: It will be an expensive operation—it will cost tens of millions of pounds.
    It will take some time — anything up to 10 years. Perhaps the hon. Lady is aware of the fact that the longer it takes, the safer it is. We have already found that radioactivity has decreased to 100th of what it was at the time of the accident. The Government have yet to pronounce their final decisions on storage.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister agree that, as with decommissioning nuclear power stations, which the Government have just decided they can leave standing for a hundred years before attempting to decommission them, the safest thing to do with the Windscale reactor is not to touch it, but to keep it under constant monitoring at its present site?
    Mr. Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman may be confusing two phases in the decommissioning process. The one that we are considering here is the removal of fuel and debris from the piles. The question to which the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself is the long-term destruction of the plant. That could well take a considerable period, and he may be right that it may be a good idea to leave that for some time.

    Oil Demand
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the projected level of demand for oil in the United Kingdom over the next five years; and what proportion of this will be met by output from United Kingdom oifields.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The demand for oil in the United Kingdom is expected to remain fairly constant during the next few years. On current estimates of production, the United Kingdom is likely to remain self-sufficient well into the 1990s.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the United Kingdom is likely to remain self-sufficient in oil well into the 1990s is a considerable tribute to the oil exploration companies operating in the North sea? Does he further agree that it underlines the importance of maintaining a favourable tax regime which provides, and will provide, positive encouragement to oil exploration?
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman means subsidies.
    Mr. Morrison: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend said. What the oil companies have achieved in the North sea, both in exploration and development, has been outstanding — and, indeed, unsung up and down the land.
    As for the regime in which the companies operate, it is the economic climate, the tax climate and the entrepreneurial climate that the Government have promoted that have ensured that further exploration and development go ahead.
    Mr. Rowlands: Have not Ministers repeatedly praised the role of the British independent oil companies in the development of the North sea, and especially the role of Britoil? If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman now seek an urgent meeting with the chairman of BP to make it clear that the Government do not believe in the destruction of the integrity of Britoil as a company, and that if BP pursues the matter it will forfeit much of the co-operation that it receives from the Department of Energy?
    Mr. Morrison: Many companies — including, of course, Britoil — have made a major contribution to North sea development.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that my right hon. Friend has made quite clear what the Government's position is in reflecting what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister aware of the assurances given to the House on 31 March and 1 April 1982 about Britoil's independence by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Gray, then Minister of State, Department of Energy? Does he recognise that those assurances contained the statement that the golden share would be part of
    "effective safeguards for Britoil's independence"?—[Official Report, 1 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 450.
    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in present circumstances it hardly looks as though those assurances are being carried through? Does he therefore accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord misled the House as to the efficacy of the golden share when they were looking for support for the privatisation of BNOC in 1982?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House when he was Secretary of State for Energy. My right hon. Friend explained his position, clearly to the Shadow Chancellor — in the present circumstances he reserves the right to use the special share.

    Power Station (Fawley)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive an application from the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct a coal-fired power station at Fawley.
    Mr. Parkinson: The CEGB informs me that it expects to be in a position to submit an application for consent to construct Fawley B shortly.
    Mr. Colvin: I am pleased to hear that comment. The sooner this happens, the better. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting opposition to the Fawley B proposal as we manage to squeeze additional information out of the CEGB and learn a bit more about what it proposes, especially its plans for a coal-importing facility for the redistribution of coal inland over a totally inadequate infrastructure? Should there not be two applications—one submitted by the CEGB to my right hon. Friend for the power station, and a separate application to local planning authorities for the proposed coal importing facility?
    Mr. Parkinson: When the CEGB decides to apply, it has to advertise its proposal to give objectors the right to register their objections. I suspect that that will lead
    10
    eventually to a public inquiry. If the CEGB wishes to build a jetty into the Solent as part of its plans to import coal, it has to apply under the Harbours Act 1964 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for further permission.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Barron — but, this question is about Fawley.
    Mr. Barron: Since there has not yet been an application for consent to construct this second power station, and since it will be several years before most of the building starts, why has the Minister forced up the cost of electricity to consumers and industry from April this year, when the CEGB cannot even spend that money on the proposed power station?
    Mr. Parkinson: There will be a substantial investment programme on generation and transmission in the next financial year. Nearly £1.5 billion will be invested. In the following year an increasing amount of money will be spent on Sizewell B. Some of that additional expenditure will involve Fawley. There is a big investment programme, which will grow every year from now on.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Would it not be much more economic to put a further cable across from France to import nuclear electricity at a very much cheaper price than we could produce it? Is this not a unique and odd place to put a coal-fired power station?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, we need more generating capacity in the south of England to maintain the stability of the system, for purely technical reasons. The possibility of a further link with France has not been ruled out. We may well need both.
    Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State is closing down generating capacity and mines in the northern part of the United Kingdom, and opening new generating capacity in the south. Does he accept that it would make much more sense, and be a cheaper option, to keep the jobs in the northern area and increase investment in transmission, and not go ahead with the investment in the south? Export power, not jobs, from the north to the south.
    Mr. Parkinson: Most of the proposals for building power stations centre on the north. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult his advisers. There is a need to maintain the stability of the system by increasing the supply of power, which is inadequate, from stations in the south. It is a matter, not of transferring jobs from the north to the south, but of improving the system's stability.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss the future of the coal industry.
    Mr. Parkinson: I have no plans at present.
    Mr. Hannam: If and when my right hon. Friend meets a chastened Mr. Scargill, will he remind him that the main reason for his substantial loss of support in the election was his aggressive and militant opposition to the modernisation of the coal industry? Will my right hon. Friend also point out that the one way of losing more jobs in the mining industry is continued industrial unrest and strikes?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. When Mr. Scargill was elected president he promised members of the National Union of Mineworkers that he would preserve jobs and stop closures. Mr. Scargill was elected by 70 per cent. of an electorate of 200,000 on that promise. Yesterday he was re-elected by 54 per cent. of an electorate of 80,000. That is the measure of the damage that Mr. Scargill has managed to do and the failure of his previous promises.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that this question appears to have come from Conservative Central Office as a plant? —[Interruption.] I shall be gentle with the right hon. Gentleman. However, when he meets the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he congratulate him on his prophecy that the present Administration would have a massive pit closure programme? They have brought that programme into operation, and the end result has been that youngsters of 30 have been taking redundancy, never to work again. Moreover, what about the youngsters leaving school in my constituency, who cannot obtain a job at the pit, although they would like to?
    Mr. Parkinson: Conservative Members would say, as would many people in the industry, that militancy, a refusal to negotiate and a determination to resort to strikes and other forms of industrial action have produced the accelerated closure programme—and, by the way, will do so again if that policy is continued.
    Mr. Ashby: If my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Scargill, will he remind him that in Leicestershire only 100 miners voted for him? Will my right hon. Friend also remind Mr. Scargill that Mr. Jack Jones, the leader of the south Leicestershire miners, said that all that Mr. Scargill was trying to do was to continue class warfare—whatever, he said, class warfare could possibly mean in 1988?
    Mr. Parkinson: I heard Mr. Jones this morning, and I thought that he talked a lot of good sense. I remind the House that, if Mr. Scargill's policies had not driven 26,000 people out of his union and into a rival union, he would have been defeated soundly. He now speaks for a minority of mineworkers, because those 26,000 are 20,000 more than his majority.
    Mr. Patchett: May I congratulate Mr. Scargill on his victory, despite the interference of British Coal, the media and members of Her Majesty's Government in the trade union election campaign?
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's final point. The Government have no vote in the election, and kept out of it. The mineworkers made up their own minds and, as I said earlier, instead of having the support of 70 per cent. of 200,000 electors, Mr. Scargill now has that of 54 per cent. of 80,000.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The future of the coal industry is, in some ways, very much the reverse side of the coin that we discussed on question 3 concerning redundancy. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that the re-election of Mr. Scargill is likely to increase those pressures of redundancy, rather than decrease them, because, as he puts it, British Coal is the enemy?
    Mr. Parkinson: Many people believe that Mr. Scargill is as interested in using the union to promote his political
    12
    views as he is in promoting the welfare of his members. Until he puts the politics second and the industry first, the industry will continue to decline.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman got his job back.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not keep interrupting. 1 called him on an earlier Question, and he was out of order then.
    Mr. Eadie: The Secretary of State cannot bandy figures and percentages across the House in this fashion. He knows perfectly well that many Members of the House would settle for 53 per cent. of the vote at an election, bearing in mind that the Government whom he represents did not even get 50 per cent. at the last election. Why does the Minister not put his money where his mouth is, meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, and put on the agenda conciliation and not confrontation?
    Mr. Parkinson: I understand that in four and a half years my predecessor met Mr. Scargill once. That was not because he did not want to meet him, but because Mr. Scargill did not want a meeting. Mr. Scargill should do his talking to the chairman of British Coal. Coal is an industry, and management and labour should get together to promote the welfare of the industry. It is not a political battleground. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make it one.

    Oil Exploration
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the trend in issues of licences for oil exploration for United Kingdom offshore areas since 1979.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: There have been four rounds of licensing over this period, at intervals of approximately two years. A total of 285 licences have been issued.
    Mr. Summerson: In the light of that reply, will the Minister show us the contrast by giving the comparable figures for the period 1974 to 1979?
    Mr. Morrison: The figure for this Government is 285 licences. During 1974 to 1979, 54 licences were issued. The Government have, therefore, issued over five times that number.

  THE ARTS

    Area Museums Councils
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of funding in 1988–89 for the area museums councils.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The grants to the English area museums councils are administered by the Museums and Galleries Commission. It is for the commission to decide the level of grants from within its grant-in-aid. I understand that the increase in the basic grant to the councils in 1988–89 is some 4 per cent.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that although long-term underfunding of area museums councils has been a serious threat to them, there is an even greater threat to them in clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, which is now being considered in another place? That

    13
    clause would prevent local authorities from "promoting homosexuality" and could mean that local authority museums and galleries could not, for instance, put on, promote, advertise and catalogue pictures by David Hockney? Does the Minister approve of that form of censorship and that threat? Will he say categorically that the clause is a threat to area museums councils and local authority museums?
    Mr. Luce: First, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the area museums councils are underfunded. The money that goes to local museums and galleries, including through the rate support grant, amounts to a total of £72 million. That is a substantial sum of money.
    I am not clear as to how the hon. Gentleman's second question relates to his first question. Clause 28 is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Like my colleagues, I support the intention of the clause, but I recognise that it is causing anxiety in the arts world. I have been advised that local authorities seeking simply to provide the public with access to a comprehensive range of artistic and literary material would not be put at risk by that provision.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the amount of money raised through voluntary funding by the Victoria and Albert museum? It is remarkable that that museum, through its own efforts, and separately from public funding, has raised so much money and made such good use of it.
    Mr. Luce: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The more money that is raised by joint funding by the public and private sector, the better. There are many examples around the country of museums that have been very successful in raising more resources from the private sector in addition to the state funding that they receive.

    Greater London Arts
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the chairman of Greater London Arts to discuss the funding of the arts in London in 1988–89.
    Mr. Luce: I visited the offices of Greater London Arts and met the chairman and director last year. I expect to meet them again from time to time this year, and funding will no doubt feature in our discussions.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Is the Minister satisfied that, whereas every other regional arts association is receiving a cut in its grant in real terms, Greater London Arts is receiving a cut in real terms and in cash? What is his message to the clients of GLA who have been asked to submit plans on the basis of a 10 per cent. reduction in their expenditure on account of a £232,000 shortfall due to abolition cuts, and cuts in the Arts Council grant?
    Mr. Luce: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's question, because I do not know where he got his figures. The simple fact is that the Arts Council has not yet reached an agreement with Greater London Arts about the sums of money that will be allocated. GLA is doing an excellent job. It has nearly £8 million worth of taxpayers' money in this financial year to allocate to arts organisations. Despite all the remarks about the South Bank and its achievements, it deserves enormous credit. For the first time since the Festival of Britain in 1951 it is undertaking
    14
    a new festival with artistic collaboration from all types of art. There is £1 million of extra sponsorship from British Commonwealth Holdings. That is a good example of the sort of arts activity in London.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of supplementing official funding for the arts in London might be by way of the Government's new payroll giving scheme? How optimistic is he that that scheme will work? Will he consider holding discussions with his Treasury colleagues before the forthcoming Budget to see whether a little more beef can be put into the scheme, which looks at present as if it might be a bit of a damp squib?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the payroll giving scheme. It is another way — a new way — in which individuals can be encouraged, with tax incentives, to give to charitable bodies, including the arts. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the views expressed by my hon. Friend. I believe that the scheme should not be underestimated and that the maximum number of people should be encouraged to join it. The scheme is now available to the Civil Service, and 300,000 civil servants could take part in it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Let me tell the Minister in response to his inquiry — [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] No, let me tell him that the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney. South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about the cut in the base budget for GLA came from the Arts Council. Is the Minister aware that, because of the cut in the money GLA will be receiving as a result of abolition, there will be a major economic crisis facing the arts in London? Whatever the Minister has done elsewhere in the country, he has clearly failed the arts in London yet again.
    Mr. Luce: Two years ago, when we were debating abolition, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spent his time saying that arts activity on the South Bank would collapse and that arts in London would collapse. The opposite has happened. I have just described to the House the excellent news about the South Bank. It is approaching the matter in an imaginative fashion and the plan for its festival this coming spring is the first since 1951. It is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying.

    Crucible Theatre, Sheffield
    Mr. Caborn: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to visit the Crucible theatre in Sheffield.
    Mr. Luce: I enjoyed my visit to the Crucible theatre in February last year and I admire the work it does.
    Mr. Caborn: When the Minister next visits the Crucible theatre in Sheffield, will he take up the difficult financial position in which it finds itself, particularly after the statement by the Arts Council that over the next three to five years the parity of funding should be equal to that of the local authorities? With the restrictions on the local authorities, that is difficult, if not impossible. Will the Minister also take up the matter of clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, which is going through the Lords? Powerful statements were made last night by Ian McKellen at the Olivier awards, supported by the editor

    15
    of The Observer. The Crucible is a civic theatre and it will be one of those affected by clause 28. In Sheffield it is seen as major censorship of a progressive theatre.
    Mr. Luce: The evidence is that the Crucible is an enterprising theatre. A total of 60 per cent. of its resources is now raised from private sector earnings, and it deserves credit for that. It has 82 per cent. audiences on average, and has had throughout 1986 and 1987. It is a good candidate to negotiate an incentive funding arrangement between itself and the Arts Council and to take advantage of the three-year funding now available so that it can plan a stronger financial base in the next three years.

    Arts Council (Grant)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts how much of the grant to the Arts Council may be carried forward to the following fiscal year.
    Mr. Luce: The Council is allowed to carry over at the end of the financial year a working balance of up to 2 per cent, of its grant-in-aid, subject to agreement with my Office.
    Mr. Butler: I welcome the increased flexibility for the Arts Council. However, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether any money that is left over for the Arts Council at the end of the financial year can be carried forward to next year and used to increase the impact of incentive funding even further?
    Mr. Luce: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. As I said, a working balance of up to 2 per cent, can be carried over, subject to my agreement. The money allocated for incentive funding will be £3.5 million in the first financial year, and that is an example of the flexibility in the arrangements, which will be of some help to arts organisations.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that because of cuts in local authority funding the local authority contribution to the arts will be cut drastically? All that the right hon. Gentleman is doing will not cover that deficiency. Is it not important that any help, even to the extent of carrying forward extra spending, should be specially considered?
    Mr. Luce: The practical evidence from round the country is that local authority support for the arts has been increasing, where local authorities identify arts projects that will be a good investment in their areas. Actual expenditure by local authorities on the arts, including museums and libraries, has been increasing. It is for the local authorities to decide how much to spend. It is their choice.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend, whose achievements are considerable, assure us that he regards 2 per cent, as a precedent, not as a final solution?
    Mr. Luce: The present arrangements allow for a 2 per cent, carryover. It gives some flexibility, especially in incentive funding.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that local authorities need all the assistance that they can get to ensure that the arts are made available to the local communities? The Minister mentioned the South Bank. One of the best exhibitions that has been seen on the South Bank for some time was the Diego Rivera exhibition, which should have been
    16
    shown in every part of the country. Is it not important to ensure that every area has the opportunity to see such fine exhibitions.
    Mr. Luce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the arts are not only for London but for all parts of the country. For example, we have set aside a special sum from the heritage budget and asked the Museums and Galleries Commission to make it easier to enable exhibitions to be mounted in all areas. I warmly support the idea.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Staff Morale
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet trade unions representing civil servants to discuss staff morale in Southend-on-Sea; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I have no plans at present to meet the Civil Service trade unions.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of the serious problems of securing and retaining staff in some of the major Civil Service offices in Southend, solely because of the high cost of housing and other costs, is it not time that the Government and the Civil Service unions began to discuss regional pay which would reflect the cost of living in different areas? Is my right hon. Friend willing to visit Southend, some time reasonably soon, to discuss the problems with those involved and to see for himself the seriousness of the position?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. May I answer his last question first by saying yes, I am prepared to meet the 3,000 or so customs and excise officials in Southend, who are doing an excellent job. Pay and conditions are principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, as my hon. Friend will know, arrangements are being made to offer flexible pay schemes and local pay additions, which would allow up to £600, from additional sources of money, to be spent in the area round London, including my hon. Friend's constituency. Those flexible pay arrangements are the best way to deal with the recruitment and retention problems of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that it might help to retain civil servants in Southend if they were given the same £8,000 housing allowance as the Member of Parliament for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) receives?
    Mr. Luce: I shall not take that point seriously. One sees varying costs of living in the different regions, and the south-east has the highest. A flexible pay scheme that would allow for those variations would be an important move forward.

    Civil Service College
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether there has been any recent increase in the number and range of courses provided by the Civil Service college; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: The total volume of college provision remains fairly constant, but an increasing proportion of courses are run in support of recent initiatives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which professionalism in the Civil Service could be improved is through the provision of external qualification courses? What opportunities are provided for civil servants at the staff college to receive those external qualifications?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The college has a high reputation for achieving results in external qualifications. Some 30 per cent. of college training is related to qualifications of professional and specialist bodies. As I have said, the results are very high indeed.
    Mr. Winnick: What advice is given at the college to senior civil servants who find that the Cabinet Minister whom they are serving is being constantly undermined by hostile press stories coming from his own Cabinet colleagues, as is happening now with the Secretary of State for Social Services?
    Mr. Luce: 1 am not sure whether I follow the hon. Gentleman's question, but very often I do not follow him.
    Mr. Soames: Although the courses provided by the Civil Service college are excellent, will my right hon. Friend consider taking en bloc courses for civil servants at other colleges so that they may have the opportunity to broaden their horizons in colleges outside the Civil Service environment?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has an important point. It is worth noting that the college provides about 5 per cent. of the training of civil servants. About 75 per cent. is internal departmental training, and my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the remaining 20 per cent. comes from external providers. That is an important contribution to the standards of the Civil Service. In addition, many outsiders come in to lecture at the college, and sometimes even to participate.

    Political Activities
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the regulations governing the political activities of civil servants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: New rules on the political activities of civil servants, which were agreed with the Civil Service unions, were announced in the House on 19 July 1984 and introduced in September 1984. It was agreed then that the rules should be reviewed every three years. A review is consequently now taking place, but it is too early to draw any conclusions.
    Mr. Banks: Is it not a fact that the Government are destroying the political impartiality of the Civil Service by using civil servants as Tory stooges? Bernard Ingham immediately comes to mind. When will the Minister address himself to the serious problem of the way in which the Civil Service is being used in a politically partial fashion by the Government, and particularly by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman seems this afternoon to have an even greater capacity than usual to talk absolute nonsense, and that is saying something. My experience over two and a half years as the Minister of State responsible for the Civil Service has led me to believe that
    18
    we have a service of which we can be highly proud. It is professional and the vast majority of civil servants are utterly impartial, and that is the way that it should be.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it not a slander verging on the totally defamatory to call Mr. Bernard Ingham a stooge?
    Mr. Luce: It is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister assure the House that the present review will be conducted openly between the Government and the trade unions, and that any results of the review will be mutually acceptable to both sides?
    Mr. Luce: Yes, I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. It is worth reminding him that the main purpose of the rules is to give maximum freedom to civil servants to take part in political activities, consistent with a need to maintain ministerial and public confidence in the political impartiality of the Civil Service.

    Secondment
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what initiatives he is taking to encourage part-time or short-term periods of secondment between the Civil Service and industry.
    Mr. Luce: Part-time and short-term secondments can play an important part in interchange between the Civil Service and industrial organisations, as can full-time and longer secondments. As an aid to stimulating interchange generally, we published towards the end of last year a promotional leaflet, "The Ins and Outs of Civil Service Secondments", a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of Parliament.
    Mr. Chapman: I appreciate the increase in recent years, and I am aware of the practical difficulties, at least of longterm secondment, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the prospect of short-term or part-time secondment—even if the short-term was only for three to six months — would be benefitial to industry and to the Civil Service? Will he consider particular schemes for short-term secondments?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in this problem. In 1986 there was an increase of 22 per cent. over the previous year in inward and outward secondments, but I am now reviewing the overall targets for inward and outward secondment and I hope to be able to say something about that in a few weeks' time. I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend about short-term attachments. This is something at the senior levels of the service that we are seeking to increase.
    Mr. Wells: Will my right hon. Friend consider what inducements and encouragements he can give to industrial candidates wishing to work in the Foreign Office? He will know that the Foreign Office is able to second its civil servants to industry, but industry cannot reverse the position. Therefore, some incentive is needed.
    Mr. Luce: I shall consider that problem with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and draw his attention to it. Some exchange already lakes place both ways, but, without further notice, I should have to discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Ethnic Communities
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to increase the opportunities offered to members of the ethnic communities employed in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Luce: The Civil Service has a comprehensive programme of monitoring to study the progress of ethnic staff and identify areas for further action. Pilot schemes are currently under way in a number of Departments to monitor promotion boards and ensure that blacks and Asians have every chance of reaching the higher grades by selection on merit.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to seek to increase representation of blacks and Asians in the senior levels of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: It is worth noting that the surveys make it plain that the proportions of black and Asian people in the Civil Service are similar to those in the population as a whole, but, of course, the weak areas are in the higher grades. Certainly, on the basis of selection on merit and equality of opportunity, we are doing everything possible within the service to ensure that they have the opportunity for promotion.

Royal Ulster Constabulary (Stalker-Sampson Investigations)
3.31 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on directions given by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) following the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson.
In November and December 1982, in three separate incidents in County Armagh, six persons were killed and one person was seriously wounded by shooting by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The circumstances of each shooting were investigated by the CID of the RUC and three files reporting the results of these investigations were submitted by the Chief Constable of the RUC to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland for his consideration and decisions.
In relation to the incident which occurred on 11 November 1982 at Tullygally East road, Craigavon, in which three persons, Eugene Toman, James Gervaise McKerr and John Frederick Burns, were killed, the Director directed that three members of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Eugene Toman. These members were subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.
In relation to the incident which occurred on 12 December 1982 at Mullacreevie park, Armagh, in which two persons, Peter James Martin Grew and Roderick Carroll, were killed, the Director directed that one member of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Peter James Martin Grew. This member was subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.
In respect of the other incident which occurred on 24 November 1982 at Ballynerry road north, Lurgan, in which Michael Tighe was killed and Martin McCauley was seriously wounded, the Director concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal proceedings and directed no prosecution.
Upon consideration of the evidence and information in the files initially submitted to him, the Director required further investigations to be undertaken and the results of these reported to him. When the results of such further investigations were reported to the Director, it appeared to him that, in certain of the statements of evidence furnished for his consideration, material and important facts had been omitted, and that matters which were untrue and misleading in material and important respects had been included.
In consequence of this, on 11 April 1984, the Director formally exercised his statutory power to request the Chief Constable to ascertain and furnish to him full information with regard to the circumstances in which false or misleading evidence was provided by any member or members of the RUC. He also requested him to investigate whether there was evidence to suggest that any person was guilty of an offence of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice, or of any other offence in connection with the investigation of the three shooting incidents.
On 24 May 1984, the Chief Constable of the RUC appointed Mr. John Stalker, deputy chief constable of
22
Greater Manchester police, to conduct an investigation. Mr. Stalker was furnished with a full copy of the Director's request, dated 11 April 1984.
On 18 September 1985, Mr. Stalker delivered to the Chief Constable of the RUC an interim report on the investigations that he had conducted up until that date. On 13 February 1986, the Chief Constable of the RUC furnished to the Director Mr. Stalker's interim report, together with the Chief Constable's observations upon it. On 4 March 1986, the Director directed that futher investigations be undertaken.
On 29 May 1986, Mr. Stalker ceased to have responsibility for the investigation that he had undertaken. Mr. Colin Sampson, chief constable of West Yorkshire police, then undertook responsibility for the continuing investigation, assisted by the same team of detectives and by an assistant chief constable from West Yorkshire police. On 22 October 1986, 23 March 1987 and 10 April 1987, reports were delivered by Mr. Sampson to the Chief Constable of the RUC and on the same dates to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
The interim report by Mr. Stalker and the reports that were subsequently delivered by Mr. Sampson together provided the Chief Constable and the Director with the full results of detailed and thorough investigations undertaken by the investigation team of Greater Manchester police, initially under the leadership of Mr. Stalker and subsequently under the leadership of Mr. Sampson.
In regard to the shooting incidents to which I have referred, the Director has considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, and he has re-examined the original RUC investigation files. He has concluded that the evidence does not warrant any further prosecution in respect of the shootings which occurred on 11 November 1982 and 12 December 1982 and which have already been the subject of prosecutions. He has further concluded that the evidence does not warrant any prosecution in respect of either the fatal shooting or the wounding that occurred on 24 November 1982. I have considered the Director's conclusions and I agree with them. He has given directions accordingly.
The Director has, however, concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice, or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest, and he has consulted me accordingly.
I have therefore taken steps to acquaint myself with all relevant circumstances, including matters concerning the public interest and, in particular, considerations of national security that might properly affect the decision whether or not to institute proceedings.
I have informed the Director fully with regard TO my consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice, the Director has concluded, with my full agreement, that it would not be proper to institute any criminal proceedings. He has given directions accordingly.
The Director has arranged to discuss with the Chief Constable and deputy chief constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that, in the future, facts and

23
information reported to the Director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved.
In respect of other matters arising from the investigations, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already informed the House that he would wish, at the earliest opportunity, to make a statement on those issues that affect his responsibilities. Now that the decisions on prosecution have been taken, I understand that he hopes to report shortly to the House.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: We on this side are pleased at last to have had a statement from the Attorney-General, but that is the extent of our pleasure. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the matters concerning the allegal shoot-to-kill policy have been raised repeatedly by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. You will recall the widespread concern that led to the appointment of Mr. John Stalker. You will remember that, in May 1986, he was abruptly removed from the RUC inquiry and was replaced by Mr. Colin Sampson, chief constable of West Yorkshire, who was also asked to inquire into the allegations directed at Mr. Stalker which had led to his suspension. You will recall that that greatly increased some hon. Members' concern about the inquiry into the RUC and the consequent further delays in what had already become a protracted affair.
I have gone briefly through the events to remind the House of what we had to wait two years for, despite repeated Opposition urgings for a statement. In the meantime, there has been growing concern in Northern Ireland, Britain and international circles about the affair. Six men died in 1982. A coroner resigned. A deputy chief constable began an inquiry and then found himself the subject of an inquiry. We have had allegations of RUC cover-ups, of perjury by police officers, of illegal incursions by members of the security forces in the Republic of Ireland. Some questions have been raised about the RUC special branch, about the role of the headquarters mobile support units, about the involvement of MI5 and about the withholding of information from police inquiries by members of the security forces.
In the context of all this, and the long wait for the Government, we have listened with interest to the statement by the Attorney-General. I find it incredible beyond belief that the Government have come to this conclusion. Article 8 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement talks about achieving confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. That article has suffered a grave blow from today's statement, which has also undermined all the efforts of the RUC since Portadown to gain acceptance by the minority community.
We must therefore ask what the grounds of national security are. What are the grounds of public interest which could shield members of the police force, against whom there was evidence of perjury, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, of impeding a police constable in the execution of his duty? All this, yet we are to be denied knowledge of the reasons why the Government have come to this conclusion. It is insufferable, it is a Government of gag that we have had, when we have made effort after effort, to use this particular method.
What we need to know now is if there was a shoot-to-kill policy. We will never know. What is the Government's
24
attitude to the use of lethal force, necessary force or reasonable force? It has been alleged that before his inquiry, Mr. Stalker faced delays, evasions, lies and refusals to act from members of the RUC, bent on obstructing his work. That is the sort of statement that was made. That was the attitude of people at that time. Now the Government seem to support that same degree of hindrance to the work of justice.
We, of course, are in no position to comment on these matters, because we have not seen the reports. Will the Attorney-General therefore publish both the Sampson reports, so that we can form a judgment? Quite honestly, on this matter we do not trust the decision of Mr. Attorney. The question of justice in Northern Ireland is too important a matter. All this undermines confidence in the forces of law and justice. It is a grave blow to peace in that area.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has described this as the decision of the Government.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is down to you.
The Attorney-General: The decision is that of the Director of Public Prosecutions—a decision with which I entirely agree.
As was laid down in a classic statement — —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very serious matter. Mr. Attorney has an absolute right to give his reply.
The Attorney-General: As was laid down in a classic statement by a Labour Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General of the day has the constitutional duty to consider where the public interest lies in relation to any question of prosecution. He is entitled, said Sir Hartley Shawcross, to consult in some circumstances. In some circumstances, he said, "he would be a fool" not to do so. I have consulted. It is the right of those whom I consult to indicate to me matters that in their view bear upon the public interest. The decision is the decision of the prosecuting authority. This is not a decision which requires my statutory consent; it is taken by the Director, and I wholly agree with it.
Secondly—he is entitled to say this—I am told that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not trust me. If he will allow me to say so, I can bear that philosophically. But in the case of a distinguished public servant, Sir Barry Shaw, who has held the office of Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for 16 years and has established standards of unexampled integrity, as anybody in Northern Ireland will confirm, I resent that aspersion.
I was asked whether there is a shoot-to-kill policy, and I was told, "We will never be told." It is plain from my statement that no offence has been disclosed, apart from possible cases relating to perversion of the course of justice. That means that no evidence has been disclosed of any offence—such as incitement to murder—such as would be comprised in what has been loosely called a shoot-to-kill policy.
I have been asked, "What is the Government's attitude to the use of force?" Every police officer in Northern Ireland is subject to the law and will continue to be subject to the law; accordingly, his actions are liable to the most detailed investigation, such as has been carried out by Mr.

25
Stalker and Mr. Sampson. The law relating to the use of force applies to a police officer just as much as it does to any other citizen.
I have been asked, "What are the grounds of national security that are involved?" In conformity with the policy of long standing of successive Governments, I am not prepared to comment on national security. But I will say that national security in Northern Ireland and elsewhere gives rise to considerations that affect the safety of people's lives. In judging the public interest, I, and any prosecuting authority, must balance one harm to the public interest against another. That is one of the tasks that our constitution places on me, among others.
On the other question of whether the report will be published, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, on several occasions, informed the House that, in conformity with the usual practice relating to reports on police investigations into criminal matters, the report will not be published.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, apart from the fact that if he had taken any other conclusion it would have meant overruling the decision of an impeccable public servant in a wholly independent context, to have taken any other course would have meant putting at risk the lives of Crown servants completely innocent of any wrongdoing? To have taken such a course would have been completely unacceptable to the House or the country at large.
The Attorney-General: While I do have power to direct a prosecution and I do have power to direct no prosecution, I gave no direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland; the Director reached this decision, and he did so with my full agreement. I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend about the danger to lives that must be considered in the context of matters of national security.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I welcome the statement in so far as I believe that its conclusion is in the best interests of everyone. However, one cannot be other than dissatisfied with some of the information that is made available to us.
The Stalker-Sampson saga has been most unfortunate. It has been laced with rumours, counter-rumours and allegations that have caused disquiet throughout the community. One is unable to sort out matters concerning Manchester as distinct from those concerning Northern Ireland.
One must recognise that, of the people who were killed, five were accepted and recognised as being members of the IRA. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that members of the security forces face tremendous difficulties in dealing with known terrorists. Part of the difficulty is not, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) suggested, whether or not the police have a shoot-to-kill policy, but rather a recognition of the fact that the IRA has a shoot-to-kill policy and a bomb-to-kill policy. Until there is proper law to deal with these people then, I believe, our security forces will continue to run into the same sort of problem that they faced in Armagh and Lurgan.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that, until we recognise that the civil law is inadequate to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, and until special arrangements are made to take the terrorists
26
off our streets, we may, again and again, see this type of unfortunate situation, which does not help the people whom I represent.
The Attorney-General: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that matters of policy for the criminal law, as distinct from the civil law, in Northern Ireland are not for me, and therefore he will excuse me from answering that part of his question. We will all acknowledge the difficulty to which he refers, which confronts the security forces. I must emphasise that the security forces are subject to the law, as is every other citizen of this country, whether in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in due course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be coming to the House to report on any disciplinary implications arising from his statement and any implications for the discipline and control of the RUC?
The Attorney-General: I am very happy to confirm what I have said in my statement, and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on many occasions in this House—that he will wish to come at an early opportunity to the House and make a statement on those issues affecting his responsibilities that arise out of these reports.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Attorney-General agree that this is, in effect, a very sad day for the North of Ireland? It is sad on three counts. It is sad because six people who were my constituents and who were unarmed were killed in 1982. No inquests have been held, and as a result of this statement—
Mr. Maginnis: They were not your constituents.
Mr. Mallon: I said "as of then"—there have been redrawings of the boundaries since. We will never know the answer to that question. It is sad from the point of view of the communities and the families of those people.
Secondly, does the Attorney-General agree that it is a very sad day for those who believe in the process of justice in the north of Ireland? Make no mistake about it, justice has been dispensed with in this statement to cover up the murky and illegal methods of MI5 and MI6, and the darker elements within the RUC. Will he further agree that that section of the community that has been trying to wean people away from violence and trying to establish confidence in the process of justice and in the process of policing has been dealt a tremendous body blow?
In conclusion, does the Attorney-General agree with the premise that, once one dispenses with justice in a Northern Irish or any other context, one has dispensed with the prospects for peace? Does he not agree that that body blow to the hope for the maintenance of freedom of speech and justice in Northern Ireland, which are indispensable and cannot be separated, have been dealt a serious, if not terminal, body blow by his statement?
The Attorney-General: Northern Ireland is a sad Province; with that, every sensible person in these islands must agree. The hon. Gentleman, whose constituency has more than its fair share of sadness, asked about inquests. Inquests will, of course, be held in due course, and they are no part of my ministerial responsibility.
As to the standards of justice, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in respect of the killings, of which he

27
properly reminds the House, four members of the RUC have been prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions upon the application to their cases of the standard rules and criteria that apply to prosecution decisions. Those standard criteria themselves include reference to the question whether the public interest requires a prosecution.
I therefore reject any aspersion—if such an aspersion is intended—upon the independence and integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the standard criteria require the question of the public interest to be considered. He will know, perhaps with better cause than most, that the public interest in Northern Ireland must embrace questions of national security and that national security in Northern Ireland has connotations that bear upon the safety of a very large number of individuals.
Mr. Michael Mates: In deciding whether this action is acceptable to the House, is it not important to bear in mind that, for 16 years, Sir Barry Shaw has been the most respected Director of Public Prosecutions? He has been widely praised by hon. Members from all parties, including the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and his integrity has never been questioned. Is it not therefore reasonable for us to accept that this decision, difficult as it may be, will have been taken with all the honour that he has applied to his job over the past 16 years?
The Attorney-General: My knowledge of Northern Ireland extends over some five years in my position as a Law Officer, and some hon. Members' knowledge is far greater than mine. Anyone who has that knowledge will concur with what my hon. Friend has said. The office of Director of Public Prosecutions of course calls for immaculate impartiality and integrity, whether that office is held in this country—I should say, in Great Britain—or in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I can only record my own impression. Over the past five years I have never met a single person from any sector of Northern Ireland society or any interest group who has cast a single aspersion upon Sir Barry Shaw's discharge of his responsibilities.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Attorney-General accept that it is not the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland whom we seek to hold to account? It is the Attorney-General whom we seek to hold to account. Notwithstanding his dulcet tones, will he not accept that he has acted in a most high-handed manner? If there is evidence of the perversion of the course of justice, why is that evidence not put before a court of law to be tested? Why should we have cover-up rather than accountability? If there are two concepts—that justice must be done and that it must be seen to be done—why is it that in this case we shall have neither?
The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can escape the consequences of blaming the Director of Public Prosecutions for making a decision that is a dishonest one, by saying that it is not his decision but mine.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: You said that it was your decision.
The Attorney-General: I did not say that it was my decision; nor was it my decision. I will say again, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, that this is a decision for the Director of Public Prosecutions and it was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir Barry Shaw would never accept a decision or trim his own opinion to take a decision that was contrary to what he believed to be right—I do not believe that he would ever do so, but he would certainly not do so without a direction from me, and there has been none.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) asked why we could not have this tested in a court of law. That is a consideration for which I have the deepest sympathy. I have said to the House that, in weighing the public interest, as I am constitutionally obliged to do, and as the Director is obliged to do, one has to balance one harm to the public interest against another. That is not an easy consideration. It is one that causes me the deepest anxiety. Having done that to the best of my ability, it is my duty to announce my decision. —[Interruption.] No, it is my responsibility to announce my resolution of the balancing requirement and to communicate it to the Director. It is for the Director to say whether he agrees with it. The Director has made this decision — that is his responsibility—and it is one with which I wholly agree.
I agree that it is an anxious matter. I should like in all circumstances, wherever it is consistent with the national interest, to have evidence tested in a court of law. In this case, it would not be in conformity with the public interest by reason of the matters to which I have referred in connection with the national security.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Is the Attorney-General aware that his decision will give great satisfaction to the long-suffering and hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland, of all religions, who desire peace and who are facing a war in Northern Ireland that has now been going on for between 18 and 20 years and that the security forces are now facing ruthless terrorists, while working within the rule of law, which I hope everyone in the House respects? Is it not extraordinary that certain apologists for the IRA always challenge the fairness of a guilty verdict in a British court against an IRA terrorist, yet are prepared to make wild and prejudicial—
Mr. Seamus Mallon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that anyone should be described—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a point of order in the middle of a question.
Mr. Kilfedder: The Attorney-General ought to be aware that the police in Northern Ireland can now go back to giving 100 per cent. of their attention to finding those ruthlesss terrorists who murder without mercy.
The Attorney-General: While I note the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction with the outcome of the Director's deliberation, with which I wholly agree, any Attorney-General or Law Officer who discharges his constitutional duty conscientiously must be as little moved by plaudits as by condemnation. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the duty of the security forces—and of course he is right to say that they have dangerous tasks to discharge, but they have to discharge them, and will continue to discharge them, only in accordance with the law.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the content of the Attorney-General's statement that there is evidence that RUC and CID officers perverted the course of justice; that, were it not for the national security considerations, they would have been prosecuted for those offences; and that, simply because of national security considerations, they have not been prosecuted, but if they had been prosecuted and convicted for those offences they would have received severe sentences of imprisonment? Therefore, the least that the community of the North of Ireland can now expect is that disciplinary proceedings be immediately undertaken and pursued to their proper conclusion. The paramount objective must be to restore confidence in the security forces in Northern Ireland, which this silent decision will have abysmally failed to do.
The Attorney-General: I do not wish to add to what I said in my statement to the House. Disciplinary proceedings are plainly not matters within my ministerial responsibility. They fall within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. John Wheeler: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's honest and frank statement to the House — I am sure that among Conservative Members and, indeed, other hon. Members, there is widespread respect for his integrity in his judicial capacity for making decisions—nonetheless, is it not a fact that decisions to question people before the courts in this country rest on the provision of facts that could be presented and would lead to a conviction and that we must have regard to those facts as well as to the national interest?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the outset. On the second part of his question, of course he is right. He will recall that in my statement I said that the Director had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any further prosecution in respect of the three incidents at which killings occurred. I remind the House that four members of the RUC have already been prosecuted at the instigation of the DPP in respect of two of those three killings. It is only in relation to the only other offences disclosed or to the evidence suggesting those offences disclosed in the report, that bear upon perversion of the course of justice, that the Director has concluded that the public interest does not require prosecution.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Does not the Attorney-General realise that wheeling out expressions such as "economy" and "integrity" have no bearing on his own remoteness from the scene in Northern Ireland? Does he not realise that what he said today was so economical in the use of justice that it will itensify the violence in Northern Ireland; that the removal of Mr. Stalker and what that has caused to all kinds of people in our country, many of whom are not connected with Northern Ireland, has made everybody cynical about the Government's lack of real justice on the question of Northern Ireland? At this late stage, may I ask him to make another statement to give more hope, especially to the minority community, that there is some British justice in Northern Ireland?
The Attorney-General: I believe that the record of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland should inspire confidence in the proper standards that obtain there and are applied. The hon. Gentleman chooses to overlook the fact--I remind the House again—that four members of the RUC have been prosecuted for murder in respect of two of the three killings. However, I must reject the assertion that I am wholly remote from Northern Ireland. I do not live in Northern Ireland but I make it my business to go to the Province as often as I can in the discharge of my responsibilities, being Attorney-General for the Province as well as for England and Wales.
Of course I acknowledge the need for confidence, but that does not mean that it would be right for me to waive the ordinary criteria for prosecution decisions and to take no regard of the public interest. That would not be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, nor, in the long run, would it sustain confidence in the system of criminal justice.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British constitution places him personally and ultimately in the seat of judgment on matters of this kind? Is he also aware that the House has complete confidence in his independence, integrity and judgment of the public interest?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the constitutional position. I am the ultimate prosecuting authority in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. In this case I gave no direction. Sir Barry Shaw took the decision, with which I wholly agree.
I am grateful for the latter part of my hon. Friend's comments. It is a confidence that any Attorney-General does his best to earn and he regards himself as constitutionally completely independent in matters affecting his judicial or quasi-judicial jurisdiction in criminal law.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Attorney-General aware that, in my view, we should read his statement carefully—listening is not enough--and we should return to it? Although it may be a trite thing to say, whatever the Provisional IRA does, or the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Ulster Defence Association or anybody else, the men who serve the Crown and this country by working there, must always act in a superior way to those who seek to act not politically but by murder and killing? Therefore, if we question, it is not, as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, that one sympathises in any way with those who kill and murder.
I should like to make my view abundantly clear. I trust Barry Shaw implicitly. He is a fine man who has served Northern Ireland well and with complete independence from politicians of all parties. In any event, we must listen to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he reports on matters that concern us—the mixed role of the intelligence services and the Army, and of the RUC and the Army proper down on the border, where something may well have gone wrong. It is the Secretary of State's job to report on that.
Much has been said about things going wrong on the border; it has been said that there were disagreements between arms of the security service and that there were disagreements between it and the growing special branch of the RUC. It is surely not in the national interest to cover up when something goes wrong. It is in the national

31
interest not to reveal matters that put people's lives at risk. The concern—it is a genuine concern—is that something went badly wrong and people acted in a way that was outwith the law. I want an assurance that there has not been a cover-up of that latter point.
The Attorney-General: First, I am extremely grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the reputation of Sir Barry Shaw, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and his complete trust in him. That I acknowledge with much gratitude.
As to the Secretary of State, he will of course be coming to the House at an early opportunity to discuss and make a statement about those matters that fall within his responsibilities. He has for long said that he wishes to do so when it is open to him to do so, as it now is, with the prosecution decision question now resolved.
As to the question of a cover-up, may I make it absolutely clear that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the public interest is never to be equated with the interest of the Government or of the majority party, and is never to be prayed in aid to protect the Government from, for example, embarrassment, and it has not been in this case. I cannot conceive that I should ever be pressed by any member of any Government of any party; I do not believe that any Attorney-General has ever been pressed in that way. I certainly have not been pressed, and I would never so interpret the public interest. I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is it not almost unprecedented for there to be a statement that there will not be a prosecution? Should not my right hon. and learned Friend therefore be most warmly congratulated on his courage in making his statement, when of necessity he has to operate with one hand tied behind his back? Will not he confirm that it is a long-established convention that the national interest should be taken into account? Would it not be a matter of grave concern to the House if that were not so?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I know of one occasion on which a Law Officer has announced a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings. If we made a habit of it, it would take up rather a lot of time, but I thought it right in these circumstances to do so, by reason of the great interest that centres, quite properly, upon these matters.
As to the second part of my statement, I have already mentioned that the standard criteria which govern prosecution decisions require consideration of whether the public interest requires a prosecution. If I were to depart from those standard criteria in a case of this kind, or if the Director were to do so, we should not be serving the public interest.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the Attorney-General agree that one cannot defeat terrorism by using the methods of terrorists, that his statement today will merely confirm the fears of millions of people in this country and abroad that Mr. Stalker was removed from his post because he was not prepared to go along with precisely this sort of cover-up, and that coming to the House with this sort of statement the Attorney-General has reduced himself and the office he holds to the level of an accomplice to murder—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not cast aspersions of that kind. He will rephrase that last comment.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Livingstone: Mr. Speaker, innocent men have been shot dead—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to rephrase that last comment. He must not cast aspersions of that kind against another hon. Member.
Mr. Livingstone: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for your position and your impartiality. But if the rules of the House prevent me from denouncing this cover-up and those who are complicit in it, the rules are wrong and I will not be bound by them.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that last comment? He well knows the rules here—that we do not cast aspersions of dishonour across the Floor of the Chamber. Will he please now unequivocally withdraw that comment? I give him one last opportunity to rephrase his last comment.
Mr. Livingstone: I would not want anybody to come away from this discussion with the impression that hon. Members are not prepared to name those who have sat at the centre of government and covered up the murder of innocent Catholics year by year—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman one final chance— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — and if he refuses to take it I shall be forced to name him.
Hon. Members: Name him.
Mr. Speaker: I name the hon. Member; Mr. Ken Livingstone.
Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Ken Livingstone be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Wakehaml]
The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 19.

Division No. 151]

[4.15 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Burns, Simon

Adley, Robert

Butler, Chris

Arbuthnot, James

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ashby, David

Carrington, Matthew

Baldry, Tony

Chapman, Sydney

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Chope, Christopher

Barron, Kevin

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Conway, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Corbett, Robin

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Cormack, Patrick

Blair, Tony

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Devlin, Tim

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dewar, Donald

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dicks, Terry

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Dixon, Don

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dorrell, Stephen

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brazier, Julian

Durant, Tony

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Fallon, Michael

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

Fearn, Ronald

Browne, John (Winchester)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Forth, Eric

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Buck, Sir Antony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

33

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Neubert, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Ground, Patrick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Page, Richard

Hannam, John

Portillo, Michael

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

Powell, William (Corby)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Price, Sir David

Harris, David

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hayes, Jerry

Redwood, John

Hayward, Robert

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Robertson, George

Holt, Richard

Rogers, Allan

Hordern, Sir Peter

Ryder, Richard

Howard, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

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

Scott, Nicholas

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Sims, Roger

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Speller, Tony

Ingram, Adam

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Irvine, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Jack, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Janman, Timothy

Stern, Michael

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Stott, Roger

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Sumberg, David

Key, Robert

Summerson, Hugo

Kilfedder, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knowles, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Knox, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lang, Ian

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Lawrence, Ivan

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lightbown, David

Thorne, Neil

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Thurnham, Peter

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

McNamara, Kevin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mans, Keith

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Maples, John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Marlow, Tony

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Waller, Gary

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Ward, John

Mates, Michael

Watts, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wheeler, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Michael, Alun

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Yeo, Tim

Miller, Hal

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Moss, Malcolm

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

Neale, Gerrard

Mr. David Maclean.

NOES

Boateng, Paul

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Bradley, Keith

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Dalyell, Tam

Salmond, Alex

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

Sedgemore, Brian

Flannery, Martin

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Heffer Eric S.

Vaz, Keith

Livingstone, Ken

Wai ley, Ms Joan

McAllion, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Tellers for the Noes:

Meale Alan

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Mullin, Chris

Ms. Diane Abbott.

Patchett, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I direct the hon. Member for Brent, East to withdraw from the House in accordance with the order which the House has just made.
The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to detain the House, but it was within my hearing and that of my hon. Friends the Members of Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) that, immediately following your calling my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir. A Grant) said, "Here comes the IRA " Would it be in order for you to ask him to withdraw that remark?
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear anything of that. In matters of this kind, it is far better to leave the situation as it is. Such incidents do not do much for the reputation of this place.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it your intention to cont nue with the statement before taking further points of order?
Mr. Speaker: I sense that it is the wish of the House to move on.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be better in these circumstances for you courteously to ask the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) whether he said any such thing?
His comment was within the clearest hearing of many of us. Indeed, it was a very goading remark. Did the hon. Gentleman say it, or did he not?
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Member say it?
Sir Anthony Grant: I certainly intended to say, "Here comes the apologist for the IRA." If you ask me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, of course I shall do so completely.
Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders—
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Increasingly, the House has been confronted with a procession of Opposition Members who seek to enhance their publicity value by being thrown out of the Chamber. This has gone on far too long. I ask whether we may take action through some of the procedures of the House so that something is done to restrain this form of misbehaviour misbehaviour which takes place without any known penalty for the offender.
Mr. Speaker: The penalties are laid down in the Standing Orders. Whether they should be increased is a matter for the Procedure Committee.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that to terminate a statement in the way that you have done has implications for future statements where an hon. Member may wsh to intervene, for whatever reason, and interrupt our proceedings.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The reason that I made that comment is simply that no fewer than 24 hon. Mernbers wish to take part in the next debate, and I feel that I must have consideration for those who have a legitimate right to the time of the House. Unfortunately, the action that I have just had to take takes time.
Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain why an incident of this kind truncates questions on a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I have just explained that very matter. There is a further statement to follow and, as always, I shall have regard to those who are not called for this statement on the next occasion.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that I regretfully support your decision on this matter? Had I had the opportunity, I would have liked to make a statement about the full support of the Opposition for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The matter that is in question is the Attorney-General and the pressures that he brought to bear upon him. In the circumstances, however, and because we note the pressures on you and on other hon. Members, the Opposition will not press for debate on the matter to continue.

Orders of the Day

  Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, let me repeat that no fewer than 24 right hon. and hon. Members have already indicated their wish to take part in this important debate, many of them with a direct constituency interest. Today is another day on which short contributions would enable the majority of them to be called.
  4.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The subject of the Bill is the closure of the regional development grants scheme, which was introduced under the Industrial Development Act 1982, as substituted by the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984. The transitional arrangements for running down the earlier RDG scheme are not affected by the Bill.
  The current RDG scheme operates in the development areas of Great Britain. It enables grant to be paid automatically to projects that qualify under the rules of the scheme. Subject to certain limits, grant is normally 15 per cent. of the value of an investment project, or £3,000 for each new job created by the project, whichever is the higher.
  Clause 1 removes the power to make grants for projects, unless applications are received on or before 31 March 1988. Clause 2 places restrictions on the availability of grants for projects in respect of which applications for approval are received after 12 January 1988, except where applications are in respect of projects started on or before that date.
  The restrictions are of two kinds: broadly, time limits on counting jobs and assets for grants, and constraints on variations of the project. First, grants will be payable only on jobs and assets provided, or money spent on assets, within two years of the project's approval date, and for which a claim is received within three years of that date, or any earlier date specified in the approval. Secondly, grants will not exceed the total amount specified in the approval, regardless of subsequent changes in the project.
  The Bill is one part only of the package of changes in industrial policy that I announced to the House on 12 January. In introducing these changes, it was the Government's aim to strengthen and modernise regional policy, and to bring it up to date with the economic conditions of 1988. I have always been committed to the idea of a strong regional policy, and I remain so. Any disagreement in the House is therefore about the most effective instruments of policy to continue to improve the economy of the assisted areas. The debate is about how best to create the conditions that will speed up job creation in the north, the west midlands, the south-west, Scotland and Wales. The Government are as determined as ever to see all our people share in the nation's rising prosperity and new-found business confidence.

  37
  We are changing our regional policy to make it more effective, and to concentrate all our efforts and resources on encouraging new and lasting business growth. However, another difference between the Government and some of our critics is that we aim to use regional policy to change and modernise the industrial economy of the north, Scotland and Wales. A few of our opponents—I am glad to say that the number is declining—still devote most of their efforts to attempts to conserve the old heavy industrial economy which brought prosperity to past generations in the oldest industrial areas. —[Interruption.]—I said that it was a declining number. I am glad that the reaction on the Opposition Benches shows that the light is spreading ever more widely.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way way in a second. I have only a short time, so shall not give way throughout my speech.
  Heavy manufacturing industry can, of course, prosper again nowadays if it becomes more competitive and efficient, as much of our heavy manufacturing industry has done. Look at the success of British Steel, Nissan and Jaguar. However, those industries will never again become mass employers sustaining whole cities, and we need to attract the full range of business activity around them. The north needs businesses as varied and as strong as those that are thriving in great numbers in the south. The north does not want a preserved and subsidised economy, or a weak, branch-line economy. We are creating in the regions an economy that is ever more similar to the thriving economy of the south-east, capable of selling goods and services in today's markets.
  Mr. Tony Blair: If the Minister is telling us that the purpose of the existing scheme of industrial support is simply to conserve the traditional industries, can he tell us which of the firms in, for example, the north, Wales and Scotland that are in receipt of regional development grant are simply traditional industries that have outlived their usefulness?
  Mr. Clarke: I am describing regional policy as a whole. I was putting forward what I consider the incontrovertible fact that some of our critics in the north and Scotland still devote most of their efforts to trying to conserve the old industrial economy, for understandable reasons. The old industrial economy of the north is being modernised, and the great industries of Scotland and Wales are becoming more competitive. Many of them have shed labour as a result.
  The Government's aim in regional policy — I hope that it has the support of the more enlightened Opposition Members is to change the fundamental basis of the northern economy, so that alongside more competitive heavy manufacturing is the full range of service and manufacturing industries, as good and as strong as those in the south.
  Mr. Tony Baldry rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way only once more. The point that I am being pressed on is this: it is being said that what I am saying is now widely accepted, and that Opposition Members agree with me that the basis of the economy in Scotland and the north must change. If there is not a fundamental difference between us, I shall not dwell on the subject.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that west Cumberland has willingly entered into the exercise that he describes over the past few years? It has seen the rundown of older industries, and the development of new businesses. However, the development authorities for the area now say that in the event that the money is cut off in the way that the Minister suggests, that process of rebirth will come to an end. Why is he doing it now, when we are getting into gear and beginning to develop a new industrial base in the west of the country?
  Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman's development authority is under the impression that we are cutting off the money, that is a misconception that I shall be able to correct when I reach the part of my speech that deals with the Government's expenditure.
  Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only division in the House and the country on the issue is between those who understand how an enterprise economy works, and those who do not?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree. However, it is possible that a new realism is dawning among those on the other side. Time was when their main aim was to preserve such industries as steel and shipbuilding exactly as they were. The present more modern and efficient steel industry, and the success of some of the car manufacturers, shows the achievement of our enterprise policy approach, both in manufacturing and in other sections of the economy.
  We are changing the nature of our regional policy—while not reducing the emphasis that we give to it — to reflect the changing economic climate in the regions, and in the country as a whole.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I must get on. If I give way as frequently as this throughout my speech, we shall never fit 24 speakers into the debate, as you, Mr. Speaker, have reminded us.
  We are no longer trying to protect the assisted areas against the worst of a recession, because we have emerged from that. Investment is rising very strongly in service and manufacturing industry. The most recent DTI survey of investment intentions in the United Kingdom predicts a further increase of 11 per cent. in manufacturing investment in 1988. The number of jobs is rising. Unemployment is falling particularly rapidly, and I am glad to say that it has been falling faster in Wales, the midlands and the north than elsewhere. In those changed circumstances, regional policy has to change to continue to be effective.
  Regional development grant is the direct descendant of the oldest standing approach to regional policy It provided a virtually automatic subsidy to all capital investment in manufacturing or service projects in development areas in England, Scotland and Wales. RDG required no prior assessment about whether a project was viable, or whether it needed the money to go ahead.
  The nature of the scheme meant that, inevitably, many grants were paid to companies which would have proceeded with their projects without any Government grant. Decisions about regional location for such companies were often, therefore, not affected by the availability of RDG itself. Sir John Harvey-Jones, ex-chairman of ICI, has made speeches saying that that was

  39
  the case, for quite a large number of the grants paid to his company using RDG. It clearly does not add up to the best use of public money for the benefit of the regions or the national economy.
  The scheme also operates without requiring companies to produce any supporting financial information for their project. We all know that this has meant that some of the projects supported by RDG have been ill-conceived in that either the project, or even the company itself, has not been commercially viable. When companies that received grants subsequently fold and go away from assisted areas, Opposition Members rightly are the first to complain.
  Therefore, RDG has been an expensive scheme so far. It would be bound to become even more expensive if we kept it, now that the economy of the regions is expanding so fast. We wish to change the use to which the money is put, and RDG is bound, by its very nature, to absorb an increased proportion of our budget, once investment takes place of its own volition in the regions. That is inevitable with such an automatic scheme. If we use RDG as our main instrument of policy, the better companies do, the more they invest, the more the Government have to spend automatically. In my opinion, we should not be subsidising profitable and successful companies to make investments that they would have made, anyway.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I understand the Minister's point about the need to ensure that the money is targeted effectively, but the reason for introducing changes to put a limit on the cost per job was to prevent such waste. Does the Minister accept that it is not the time for change yet again, because constant changes depress demand?
  Mr. Clarke: The last changes that were made put a ceiling on the amount of grant available by linking it to the jobs created, but the automatic element was retained. No defender of automatic grants can deny that investment decisions which would have been taken anyway automatically attracted capital subsidy, when that subsidy made no difference to the decision of the investor. Expansion in the regions has been so rapid, and investment has proceeded so strongly, that more and more money has been drawn automatically to support investments that would have gone ahead anyway.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: People in Lancaster are delighted with the proposal. We can hold our own, level pegging, but we find it difficult to hold our own if people are bribed to go elsewhere.
  Mr. Clarke: I am explaining why the Government do not think that people should automatically be subsidised to go elsewhere. I shall come to the way in which we shall make use of resources selectively to subsidise, where a case has been made—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once more and then decline to give way any further.
  Mr. Barry Field: Regional grants have done considerable damage to my constituency and have enticed one company to Wales. Despite the fact that it received regional grants, there is still not a great deal of technical expertise in Wales, and they still have some of their work done on the island. Is my right hon. and learned
  40
  Friend able to console constituencies that do not receive regional aid by an assurance that the Bill will make it less likely for companies to be seduced away?
  Mr. Clarke: I cannot give my hon. Friend the complete assurance that he seeks. It is of the nature of a regional policy that it seeks to attract people to invest in regions where otherwise they may not go. My constituency has never received regional aid, and that causes considerable distress to companies that compete with companies in the regions but do not receive the same grant. I am sure that many companies in the Isle of Wight and in Nottinghamshire will accept that the Government are committed to a regional policy whereby public money must be spent to affect investment decisions and that there is a case for that. Under RDG, competitors with companies in the Isle of Wight are, in any event, investing in the north, because they are doing well in the market, and are able to raise the capital and receive a 15 per cent. subsidy because they happen to be there. That is rightly seen as unfair competition with companies in the south.
  If we are to devote public money to sustain the improved economy in the regions, we must do that in a way that can be justified, by ensuring that it is used to make things happen that would not otherwise happen in Scotland, Wales, the north and the south-west.
  Mr. Tony Speller: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that there is considerable unfairness, with discrimination across a county? For example, Plymouth is an excellent city, with good roads and rail services, air and sea communications and no unemployment, whereas across the county, at Ilfracombe, there is 28 per cent. unemployment and none of those advantages? We are unintentionally attracting investment away from where it is needed and towards where it already exists.
  Mr. Clarke: It is of the nature of any regional policy that there are boundaries. Any Minister who has had responsibility for regional policy knows that boundaries give rise to endless disputes and some unfairness to districts that are just outside the assisted areas. Many parts of the south-west benefit from the Government's regional policy, but it is always difficult to know where to draw the line, and it causes rivalries and competition in Devon and elsewhere.
  I hope that I have explained that we are ending RDG because the economy has expanded so rapidly that companies in the north and in Scotland are able to raise capital more readily, and there is less need than ever before for the automatic subsidy that the RDG represents. The time has come to bring to an end a system that gives a grant regardless of need and commercial viability and to rely more on selective assistance and the new enterprise initiative that I shall describe.
  Before I describe the alternative policy, I shall help the House by describing the detailed arrangements for winding down the RDG scheme. Firms in the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members will wish to know upon what basis they can apply for RDG and what will happen to RDG applications that are already in the pipeline.
  The detailed arrangements for winding down the RDG scheme are, we believe, fair and reasonable. We announced the closure of the scheme on Tuesday 12

  41
  January. The closing date for applications is 31 March 1988. Firms therefore have two and half months notice of the closure.
  We have taken care to exclude from the restrictions operating after 12 January firms whose project plans were made or being implemented before the announcement of the end of RDG. Firms whose applications have been received on or before the date of the announcement will be unaffected. So will firms whose projects had started on or before that date, provided that their application is received by the closing date of 31 March 1988.
  Even in those cases which are affected by those transitional arrangements, the restrictions are unlikely to change the course of the planned project. Firms will have two years from the date of project approval in which to complete their projects. More than 90 per cent. of projects by number which have benefited from the scheme in the past were to be completed within two years, so we believe that two years is the right time.
  We shall make use of regional selective assistance to give grants to firms which apply in future for projects which genuinely require grant to make a difference to their location or to make them go ahead at all. Regional selective assistance, unlike the automatic grant system, requires companies to show that they genuinely need public money to proceed with a project. It will continue to be available and the maximum amount payable will continue to be higher in development areas than in intermediate areas, as before.
  Projects which up to now have qualified for RDG will be eligible for RSA. Companies — both domestic and foreign — that meet the criteria for the scheme could indeed well receive more by way of RSA for the project to go ahead than they would previously have received from RDG. Let me add that we are making more money available for regional selective assistance to meet the higher demand for it. However, we shall, of course, be applying the criteria rigorously to make sure that the taxpayer gets maximum value for his money.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I said that I could not keep giving way.
  Regional selective assistance is open to all companies in industry, whether British or foreign. Therefore—this is an important point — we shall continue to attract internationally mobile projects to this country as at present. Let me make it clear—some people have been worried about this — that our policy on inward investment has not changed. The Government welcome inward investment and aim to build on the considerable success that we have had in attracting overseas investment to these shores.
  I believe that the availability of grants usually plays only a relatively small part in attracting most of the foreign companies that come to Britain. We are being so successful at the moment because overseas investors are impressed with our good industrial relations, the general economic climate, the good infrastructure and communications and the quality of the staff. I accept completely that grants sometimes come into the equation. We do not want to be put at a disadvantage when compared with other countries that offer grants to attract internationally mobile projects and we shall use RSA and our other grant-giving powers to ensure that we are not.
  42
  Judging from some of the comments when I made my statement and some of the comments in the newspapers afterwards, the fact that we are now relying on selectivity has given rise to some of the controversy about what otherwise is just a change in our main instrument of regional policy. I am a little amused and rather amazed that the retention of RSA has suddenly aroused a small debate about how selectivity works. After my statement one of my officials pulled my leg when I returned to the Department by asking about the new powers that we were taking to enable civil servants such as himself to exercise the duty of picking winners again. [Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) accepts what I am about to say.
  We are planning to spend more money on RSA but we are not changing it at all. Regional selective assistance has been in existence since the 1970s. As far as I am aware no one has criticised the way in which is has operated; certainly not for the last year or so. If anyone suddenly wants to criticise it now, I will, of course, listen. However, perhaps critics should first understand exactly how RSA works.
  Any company may apply. All applications have to be assessed objectively against published criteria to establish whether the project would go ahead without public money. Private sector expertise plays the key part in this assessment. All offers over £100,000 are submitted to industrial development advisory boards made up of senior, experienced business men. Ministers and our officials do not, sad to say, "play God". We do not even decide whether a project should or should not go ahead. It is our job to judge how much money is necessary to enable a project to go ahead that would otherwise not go ahead. But it is the company that takes the initiative and the final decision whether to go ahead with the project.
  Mr. Heffer: On the matter of criteria, is it question of viability? Who will determine the viability of a future product? That is the important question. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer? When I was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry that gave us more headaches than any other question.
  Mr. Clarke: The criteria are published. They are clear and, as far as I can recall, no one has raised a question to challenge them; certainly not over the past year or so. When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department, regional selective assistance was being operated by him. The main difficulty that used to arise in the time of the Labour Government was that the business men used to give their advice and judgment about the validity of the schemes being put forward and Ministers—I do not know whether it applies to the hon Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) but it applies to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who I think was the Secretary of State—were in the habit of overruling the advice of business men and forming their own opinion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolute twaddle.
  Mr. Clarke: It is not absolute twaddle. I shadowed the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) who was slightly more respectful towards industrial develop-ment advisory hoards. He understands the system I am describing, which is that operated by the previous; Labour Government. However, when the right hon. Member for

  43
  Chesterfield was Secretary of State, he did not have the same respect for private sector expertise and neither, I suspect, did the hon. Member for Walton. That is what caused the difficulty for the previous Government. Private sector judgments were overruled by Ministers. That is not usually the case with this Government, certainly not in terms of giving grants to projects that business men say are not viable.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that he is talking absolute rubbish? I administered regional selective grants for the last three years of the previous Government and I did not once overrule the industrial development advisory boards. Will he also bear in mind that the Government of which I was a member used RSA to help bring in Hoffman La Roche, Hitachi and so on? We used it for inward investment. Since RSA is so marvellous and is a system that the Government support, why is the level of RSA now 37 per cent. lower than it was when I administered it?
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may not have overruled the industrial development advisory boards. However, he was not the only Minister in the Department during the last Labour Government. I will not use the material held by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office. I believe that he is sitting here with quotations concerning the time of the previous Labour Government. One of the then Secretaries of State made a virtue of the fact that he overruled his business advisers when giving out grants. No doubt the hon. Member for Walton approved of that at the time. The difficulty the Labour Government faced was that they gave grants to ill-conceived projects that business men advised against.
  When I shadowed the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, I supported some of the bids to which he referred. I remember the Hoffman La Roche case. I did not criticise regional selective assistance. It was used to attract inward investment and it can still be done. For that reason I do not understand why the Opposition are raising doubts about our choice of this instrument now. The cost has gone down because much of the investment in those days was purely capital investment, which sometimes cost jobs and certainly did not create jobs on an adequate scale. The first step the present Government took was to relate the level of grant more closely to the number of jobs created. I would have thought that that was the principal objective of policy. That has had the effect of reducing expenditure compared to a few years ago.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The reality is that the people in the north do not trust the Government because in the past 10 years we have lost over half our percentage of national regional aid. It used to be 32 per cent. and it is now 16 per cent. Under selective assistance we have lost £15·5 million since the previous Labour Government were in office. The Government have given no guarantees about what they will do to maintain the level of income to the north, let alone increase it.
  Mr. Clarke: I am, as ever, seeking to dispel distrust. We have reached the stage in my argument when I am pointing out that we are changing the instruments of regional policy but not changing its essential nature or aims. We are replacing automatic grants because they are becoming
  44
  steadily more expensive and wasteful as investment takes off of its own volition in the north, Scotland and Wales. We are replacing it with a reliance on regional selective assistance, which, as far as I understand, Opposition Members do not attack as an instrument of policy. I shall return to the quantity of aid.
  I have already explained that we have seen a drop in expenditure because we are now relating the grant to the number of jobs created. However, the change in policy of which the Bill is a part is not part of any planned cutback in expenditure. I will make that clear when I reach that part of my speech.
  Mr. Blair: May I remind the Minister that we are not debating whether to continue regional selective assistance —we agree with continuing that—but whether it is right to abolish and terminate regional development grants? Is the Minister saying that when regional development grant ceases to be paid, regional selective assistance will grow sufficiently to take that up?
  Mr. Clarke: When I reach that part of my speech, which I shall reserve until I have described the entire policy, I shall say that we are increasing planned expenditure for the three years of the White Paper period compared with last year's plans. We expect a higher take-up of regional selective assistance because of the ending of regional development grant. Spending will vary, because, when there is an overlap between commitments on RDG and the new RSA, there will be a sudden surge of spending and it will then decrease again. But the total spending period plan exceeds the one that we published last year.
  We are talking about a change in expenditure from automatic grant to selective grant, but it must be seen alongside the other policy changes that we have announced.
  An important new feature of our policy is the enterprise initiative. I shall explain the contribution that it will make to strengthening business and industry in the regions. The aim of the enterprise initiative is to encourage and help entrepreneurs and managers to make their businesses stronger and more competitive. Small firms often find it difficult to make the leap to becoming a big business because they lack the management time and experience to tackle their problems and identify their opportunities. That applies across the country, but it is even more crucial in the regions where, more than anywhere, we need to facilitate the growth of new strong businesses, not weak shadows of those in other areas.
  We intend to help small and medium-sized firms to improve their performance in marketing, design, quality and advanced manufacturing methods. We are encouraging firms employing up to 500 people to take expert advice in those key areas. We are offering two days' free consultancy and up to 50 per cent. of the subsequent consultancy costs for between five and 15 days.
  That will be the position in most areas, but the aim of the initiative, and the need to strengthen the performance of companies, matters even more in the less prosperous areas. Therefore, we will pay two thirds of the consultancy costs in assisted areas and in urban programme areas, compared with one half in the rest of the country. Overall, during the next three years, we shall be providing about £250 million to encourage firms to take advantage of the initiative. The early signs are that they are anxious to do so. So far, 14,500 people have telephoned our enterprise initiative number to ask for more details.

  45
  That is an important change, because as an instrument of policy we are considering not just the subsidy to capital investment, which has been the mainstay of regional and most of industrial policy, but the provision of other forms of support to improve the quality of management and the quality of product turned out, especially by small and medium-sized firms.
  Development areas will benefit from two new schemes offering grants for investment and innovation to firms employing fewer than 25 people. They will be able to apply for investment grants of 15 per cent. towards the cost of fixed assets, up to a maximum of £15,000, and innovation grants of 50 per cent. for product and process development, up to £50,000. We have targeted those new grants on very small firms in the development areas because those areas are most in need of an additional stimulus to growth. Firms of the size that we have chosen are often at a crucial and vulnerable stage of business development, where they need to strengthen management skills and to find a more secure financial footing.
  I trust that I have satisfied the House that we are keeping special regional incentives in place. We are changing and improving them. They will still be based on the existing assisted areas map, with the addition that the higher level of enterprise initiative grant will be paid in the inner cities, too. This is the first time that we have given such a grant in the cities and outside the assisted areas.
  To deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), I should say that we have made no change to the assisted areas map because a full review of the boundaries would be very complicated and time-consuming. We estimate that a full review of all the boundaries would take up to two years to complete. Any revision of boundaries must obtain the consent of the European Community, for the legitimate reason that some countries may extend their assisted areas to take advantage of other member states in the open European market. It was not feasible for us to embark upon a review so soon after the one conducted about three years ago, and we shall not embark on one until we see how the new policies settle down.
  Mr. William Powell: I understand what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the general review and the national map, but he will be aware that unemployment in the assisted area in my constituency is several percentage points lower than in any other assisted area and lower than that in many non-assisted areas. Why is it impossible to carry out a limited review which would correct an anomaly that can only increase between now and 1990?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend will admit that the problem arises because of the success in attracting new industry to Corby. The moment that those who take advantage of what is on offer in an assisted area are successful, anomalies develop round the borders of the map. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State considers individual cases and receives many deputations. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who used to carry out that duty, will remember people coming to see him trying to extend the boundaries of the assisted area. That is not a feasible way of handling the matter, and in due course we shall need another full review. But my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey carried out a comprehensive review three years ago and it will be some time before we get around to another one.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The House will be interested to know how small firms in the development areas will be better off under the new scheme, receiving 15 per cent. of capital costs up to a ceiling of £15,000—that is £600 a job—when under the present scheme they could also get 15 per cent. of capital costs at £3,000 a job. How can it be a better deal for them if they get one fifth as much money as now?
  Mr. Clarke: The nature of the scheme is different. The 15 per cent. is a straight subsidy to capital investment. The new grants that we shall give small firms retain an element of subsidy to capital investment, but include support for introducing investment in new technology into their production. That is a feature of all our policies. It is no good measuring these things in terms of the subsidy to capital investment. Capital investment alone does not determine success. We must examine how a firm keeps up with modern technology, the quality and design of its products and its general management performance to determine how well it will succeed in the market place.
  Before the debate, some hon. Members asked me what assistance is available in different areas, and it might help if I gave a resume of what will be available under the proposals in the Bill and when our new package is put into effect in the assisted areas.
  The new arrangements will mean that in development areas firms will be eligible for regional selective assistance, up to a higher maximum than in intermediate areas; for subsidised consultancy of up to two thirds of the cost, compared with up to 50 per cent. outside assisted areas; and, from April, the new innovation and investment grants which will be available to firms employing fewer than 25 people. In the intermediate areas, there will be regional selective assistance and subsidised consultancy of up to two thirds of the cost, again compared with up to 50 per cent. outside the assisted areas. In urban programme areas, there will be subsidised consultancy of up to two thirds of the cost. For non-assisted areas-the rest of the country—there will be subsidised consultancy, under the enterprise initiative, of up to 50 per cent. of the cost. That is the package. It is a sensible change, a response to changing economic circumstances now that the country is doing better and a response to the changed needs in the regions.
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), will suspend their judgment until they have heard how much we shall spend in the assisted areas after the changes have been made. I should make the position clear. We want an effective regional policy, so we shall make available the necessary resources. Our plans confirm what I have been saying during the past few months about our review. This is not part of cutting public expenditure.
  The public expenditure White Paper published last Wednesday shows that our plans for spending on regional policy schemes will be higher than we planned in last year's White Paper. In England we are planning to spend about £900 million over the next three years, compared with last year's White Paper figure of about £700 million, based on the regional expenditure figure revalued in line with inflation into 1990–91.
  Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: The regional programmes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales similarly show an increase over earlier published plans.
  Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the reason why the sums in the White Paper remain constant or rise slightly is that over the next few years considerable amounts of regional development grant will still be paid? Will he not accept that the true comparison will be made when regional development grant ceases to be paid in 1991? Will there be an increase in regional selective assistance to make that up? That is the key question.
  Mr. Clarke: I have already said that the pattern of spending is affected by the overlap between commitments on RDG and the new increased spending on RSA. I agree that this coming year's spend appears artificially inflated by the overlap between the two. However, it will revert to more normal spend. Nevertheless, compared with previously published plans, the effect is an increase in DTI expenditure in each year.
  For 1987–88 we are currently working on an outturn of £254 million compared with the published estimate in the White Paper of £222 million. In 1988–89, DTI spend on regional aid will increase to £330 million compared with last year's White Paper figure of £235 million. The figure for 1989–90 will be £304 million, compared with last year's published figure of £226 million. The figure for 1990–91, in response to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), is £264 million. The figure published in last year's White Paper when inflation is taken into account is £232 million. The figures that I have given are higher than those extrapolated from last year's White Paper.
  Mr. Blairrose—
  Mr. Clarke: The figure is still £264 million compared with £254 million.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to all, especially to those of us who represent development areas, that provided projects are available and acceptable to his Department, the amount of money going into the development areas — the assisted areas around the country—will increase rather than decrease?
  Mr. Clarke: Certainly. The White Paper figures that I have given show that the figures are rising when compared with the published and expected figures last year.
  Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will reply to one hon. Member at a time.
  Once we examine the figures that I have described, it is obvious that much of the expenditure depends on the response to the programmes. We are estimating how much we shall spend on regional selective assistance and we have said what we intend to spend. We have estimated what we shall spend on the new enterprise initiative, but we have no idea of the actual take-up. We have only guesstimates about the response to the enterprise initiative in the assisted areas. Hon. Members who have time to watch television will know that we are promoting the enterprise initiative and the availability of grants to the businesses that we intend should benefit in the assisted areas.
  48
  We have stated our intention in our spending plans to spend that amount of money if economic circumstances and the response of business men are as we anticipate and if business men come forward for the grants.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I want to make it clear that the figures that I have given cover spending on regional selective assistance, the new grants for small firms investment and innovation and regional development grant applications made on or before 31 March 1988. However, the figures that I have given do not include provision for the consultancy grant under the enterprise initiative.
  Mr. Blair: Why?
  Mr. Clarke: Because it is available at a higher rate in the assisted areas. There is an extra provision in those areas. If we provide a higher rate of grant, there must be a regional aspect to the spend and that must be added to any final calculation about regional spend once we know the outturn. Nor do the figures that I have given include the grant-in-aid paid to English Estates for building industrial and commercial premises in the assisted areas in England and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents.
  Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will not give way now, but I will give way in a minute.
  As Opposition Members are pressing me on the figures, I should give the figures for English Estates as they are a key part of the regional policy. I will not intrude on spending in the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency. Those figures are extremely good and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would gladly give the Welsh figures and similarly my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office will address the same points with regard to Scotland when he replies later.
  We are planning to spend on English Estates—
  Mr. Bruce Milian: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the right man for me to give way to in regard to English Estates. I might have given way to him on other aspects of regional policy, but not on English Estates.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Is the Minister giving way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to respond to questions about English spending. I will not give way to a Scottish Member before I have given all the figures.
  Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No. Labour Members are trying to mount opposition to these points on a variety of grounds. They cannot complain about the instruments of policy. They are trying to complain about spending, but they will not listen to the figures.
  Mr. Blair: That is irrelevant.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman cannot claim that spending on English Estates is irrelevant to his argument. It may destroy his argument, but it is not irrelevant.
  Mr. Blair: Give way.
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way.
  Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Member for Sedgefield will listen to me, he will understand that the reason why I wanted to refer to English Estates is that I have made it clear that the figures that I gave earlier did not include English Estates. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refer to the amount that we are going to spend in the regions, he must acknowledge the fact that we are increasing spending on English Estates as well. That increase is significant.
  In 1987–88, we increased English Estates' planned programme in the assisted areas from £33.5 million to £37 million. As a result of higher asset sales, English Estates is likely to achieve a record programme this year of—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has not heard of English Estates, but this is relevant to the main argument.
  English Estates is reaching a record level of spend this year of £47 million. In 1988–89 we shall ask it to plan for a programme that is £5 million higher than the £37 million planned in 1987–88. In practice, we expect it to exceed that figure and we shall authorise it to spend up to £49 million if it can generate the necessary funds from its own resources. Longer-term spending, about which some hon. Members have expressed concern, is well covered by our revised programmes. Expenditure on regional development grants will naturally decline, as the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill makes clear.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will not give way. I have given way repeatedly throughout my speech. The hon. Member for Sedgefield would be wiser to save his interventions on spending until I have given all the figures. He would be well advised to listen to those figures before he rises to criticise them. I have given the hon. Gentleman some figures. I have said that he must take account of increased spending on English Estates, increased spending on the Welsh Development Agency—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, recognising that one crucial figure remains, to continue to avoid answering questions at the Dispatch Box in this way? Why will he not give way about this one figure?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order for the Minister to express himself as he wishes.
  Mr. Clarke: I have given way about 10 times. I have given the published White Paper figures showing the increase in our planned expenditure. I have just explained the other increases in expenditure which must be taken into account. No doubt there is one figure which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) clutches and which he believes will make his point and when he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will have his chance to give that figure.
  As I have said, we cannot predict the extent to which our new schemes will be taken up. Take-up will obviously
  50
  vary from region to region, but we have provided and planned for growing expenditure. The main point is that I do not believe that policy should be judged solely by the quantity of expenditure. It should be judged by its value. However, on quantity I believe that we are on sound ground.
  Mr. Barry Jones rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member on his feet at a time in the House, please.
  Mr. Clarke: Does the former Secretary of State for Scotland wish to have a word, as he rose first?
  Mr. Bruce Milian: The Minister has given a certain omnibus figure. He said that regional selective assistance is being correspondingly increased to make up for the lack of regional development grant. Will he disentangle these figures and give us specific figures for the section 7 regional selective assistance in 1987–88 and in subsequent years, because the White Paper conspicuously fails to give these figures?
  Mr. Clarke: I can give the United Kingdom figures for regional selective assistance for the years in question. In 1987–88, we are providing for an outturn of £215 million, compared with a White Paper figure last year of £222 million. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the figure is demand-led. For 1988–89, last week's White Paper shows a figure of £266 million. The previous year's White Paper provided £245 million, so, again, there is an increase in planned provision. For 1989–90, the figure in this year's White Paper is £256 million. The figure in last year's 'White Paper was £217 million. For 1990–91, the figure is £284 million — a continuing increase, compared with an extrapolation from last year's White Paper of £222 million.
  Mr. Leon Brittan rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) on having got on to the point that our planned provision for RSA is greater than last year's planned provision.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Hon. Members must allow me to make my point, as I have been led into it. The figure is higher than last year's planned provision and is a continuing higher provision year-on-year to take account of the increased demand.
  Mr. Brittan: My right hon. and learned Friend gave the figures for selective regional assistance and said that they were for the United Kingdom. Will he confirm that that was an error and that they are figures for Great Britain?
  Mr. Clarke: I will confirm that. I have no Northern Irish figures at all. The figures were for England, Wales and Scotland.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Sedgefield will have to make his own speech on the figures. I have given an exhaustive list of figures from this year's and last year's White Papers. The Opposition wish to scratch around for a basis on which they can oppose this sensible change in the nature, not the volume, of regional assistance. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman's point when he is called.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I must get on. More time is now being taken up with attempts by the Opposition to find a figure on which they can base an argument than with anything else.
  I accept that there is a change in the nature of regional policy. Ending regional development grant was intended as a significant change in regional policy. It ends a line of policy instruments that we can trace back to Hugh Dalton's regional policies and beyond. This Government have the courage to change the nature of regional policy because we are so much more successful than our predecessors in creating the climate for economic success. The objectives of regional policy — to reduce job disparities and to encourage modern, locally based growth — remain. In that sense, we are building on the framework set out in the Government's last major review of regional policy in 1983. That review had already signposted a move away from automatic grants towards greater selectivity and cost-effectiveness.
  It is not surprising that, as some hon. Members have said, expenditure has settled down to a level much lower than it was 10 or 20 years ago because we have put these cost per job links into the grants that we now pay. However, it would be nonsense to carry on blindly with policies which cost a great deal of money when, in some parts of the country, they have manifestly not provided an effective solution to the regional problem. RDG simply no longer fits what the regions need to enhance their economic performance. They need better targeted help for those projects which make an effective and lasting contribution to local economies.
  We believe that industry is behind us on these changes. The majority of industrialists in all regions who responded to a recent MORI survey agreed that the Department of Trade and Industry serves industry better when it seeks to maintain an economic climate than when it tries to give specific assistance. Firms have also expressed the strongest support for the Department's policies based on expertise rather than financial aid. The Scottish CBI has welcomed the initiative
  "as a bold shift to keep incentives in line with changing industrial structures".
  It believes that it creates
  "a straight path for new jobs".
  That is the essence of our enterprise and industrial package.
  Mr. Barry Jones rose—
  Mr. Clarke: At the moment, the economy is buoyant. Overall investment is at record levels and the outlook for investment is good. We are maintaining public resources for the regions, but we must use those resources in better ways. We believe that our new schemes and policies will be more effective than regional development grant in strengthening regional economies, in Scotland and Wales as well as in England. That is why we believe that it is a sensible measure to end the automatic RDG scheme and I ask the House to support the Bill.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I suppose that we should pay the Minister of Trade and Industry the compliment of thinking that he did not actually believe the speech that he has just made.
  Today we are debating the abolition of regional development grants, which have accounted for almost
  52
  three quarters of regional aid since 1979. That has created or saved two thirds of the 600,000 or more jobs for which, over the years, regional policy has been responsible. That is the one part of Government finance for the regions which, by being automatic, is certain. That has been shown by every one of the many reports commissioned by the Government to be critical to investment in the regions.
  When the Government protest that we should accept their promise of good faith in respect of the Bill and that it is all a part of the reorganisation of resources, not of the reduction of resources, we should tell them that we find their protestations hollow and incredible. For four years, since they found their regional aid budget difficult to cut, precisely because of regional development grant, they told us that with each change, all they were doing was obtaining better use of the same money. Every time they have made such a promise, they have broken it. Now they make it again and expect to be believed.
  Whatever the Government say, we have no doubt that the issue today is not some academic or administrative argument about the different forms of regional assistance, not an assessment of how we achieve greater efficiency in the use of money, but whether the concealed agenda of this Bill is not rather a massive reduction of resources to the hard-pressed regions. Indeed, the only frank statement that has been made about regional development grant in recent days is the title given to the Bill—the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill. That is the Government's response to the divisions of this country.
  It is not easy to piece together all the various figures that come from the White Paper on public expenditure, where England, Scotland and Wales are all differently treated, and where, if the purpose of the White Paper is not to obfuscate, certainly its effect is to make it extremely difficult to know where the various functions fit in and where the various figures given by the Minister in the statement relate. Some appear to relate to England and some relate to Great Britain as a whole.
  However, we should begin, when we test the Government's good faith, to recognise that they do not come to this topic with an innocent past. They have a record, with respect, as guilty and as long as their term of office. Let us consider regional preferential assistance from 1979 onwards. In 1979, it stood at almost £1,200 million for Great Britain. By 1986–87, it was down to £726 million and in 1987–88 we expect a further cut of some £300 million. Therefore, whereas the north received over £300 million in 1979, last year it received £135 million. This year it will receive only about £80 million or £90 million. The position is almost exactly the same for the north-west.
  Yorkshire and Humberside will see their budgets cut. In 1979, Scotland received £280 million. Last year the figure was down to £241 million. This year already, before the changes, it is down to £123 million. In 1979, the figure for Wales was £207 million. Last year, it was down to £144 million. It is now down to about £88 million. Indeed, since 1979, before the changes have taken effect, about £2·5 billion has been taken out in regional aid. In other words, it is now less than one third of what it was when the Government came to office.
  That is the context in which we examine the Government's promise today that the changes in the Bill are designed simply to reorganise existing resources, that it is just an organisational change and that it is all about better value for money.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Would it not be right to say that, in 1979, when the Government came to power, about £1 million a day was being poured into British Steel, partly through regional development grants, and that, as British Steel is now a profitable company and does not need that subsidy, there is no need for the payment to continue?
  Mr. Blair: The money that is going into the hon. Gentleman's region — quite apart from support to industry— by way of the grant, the abolition of which we shall determine today, has been slashed to a third of what it amounted to before. [Interruption.] With great respect, that is the figure. This year, in regional preferential assistance, Wales will receive less than half what it received under the same provisions in 1979.
  When he announced these changes in the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "Let me make it clear that we are not proposing any reduction in the Government's total regional spending, but we believe that existing resources can be spent more effectively than hitherto." —[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 1433, c. 147.]
  It is against that background that we examine the Government's claim. When he introduced the White Paper, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be no overall cut in regional spending in the Government's regional aid budget over the next few years. Interestingly, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) put a specific question to him. He asked whether the Government realised that, above all, they would
  "have to satisfy the country that when all the proposals have been implemented the amount of money being spent on regional policy in real terms is at least as much as it is today?" —[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 1433, c. 151.]
  The key to understanding what the Government have done is that they are not comparing like with like when they give their figures for the next few years. It is true that the White Paper figures on public spending show that the budget will remain constant and will then fall only a little, but that is precisely because the Government are not comparing like with like. Built into the White Paper public expenditure figures is a whole section that concerns regional development grants, although, of course, the purpose of the Bill is to abolish them. We are told in the preamble to the Bill that regional development grant, although it cannot be applied for after 31 March 1988, will still continue to be paid right up to 1990–91. Therefore, the true comparison is between the system that exists now and the system that will exist when regional development grant is no longer paid.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I assume that the hon. Gentleman will concede that, when he went into the history, he did not compare like with like in comparing RDG2 now with RDG1 back in 1979. A change in policy was made. It appears to have been wholly beneficial to regional economies and has done them no damage at all. In his last sentences, describing the next three years, does he deny that the total level of resources planned to go into the regions is greater than was planned in last year's White Paper? He cannot deny that, yet he is trying to find convoluted ways of taking it apart.
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's case is that the abolition of regional development grants will not affect the overall level of regional spending, and that
  54
  that is proved by the White Paper. But the White Paper includes a whole section of transitional money that will be paid in regional development grants.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That RDG money is gone, it is committed. New firms cannot apply for any of that.
  Mr. Blair: Exactly.
  The true comparison is not between the system as it is now and will be over the next few years, because we are still receiving regional development grants. The true comparison relates to when regional development grant ceases to be paid. The question is whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's protestation that regional selective assistance will grow to meet the shortfall of regional development grant is correct. He is treating as permanent what is in fact the transitional working through the system of regional development grants being paid now.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is exactly what the total figures that I kept reciting demonstrated. That is the hon. Gentleman's point. I trust that he is not seeking to claim that, in talking about the total regional spend, which he makes the main point of his argument, we should ignore continued expenditure on commitments and RDG.[Interruption.] Yes, of course it is. It is being spent on industry under regional development grant.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, over the three White Paper years, we should ignore for Great Britain figures of £279 million, £209 million and £125 million, of course he will show a cut. It is rather daft arithmetic to ignore a total of about £700 million that will be spent in the regions during the year.
  Mr. Blair: With great respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten that the purpose of the Bill is to abolish regional development grant. Therefore, it is ludicrous to compare the system as it obtains at the moment, under which regional development grant is still being paid, with the system that will obtain when the money has worked its way through the system and is no longer available. In other words, the true comparison is between the time when regional development grant is no longer paid and the system that exists at present.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not give way to me, but I shall be extremely generous and give way to him. Perhaps he will answer my question. Does he say that, when regional development grant ceases to be paid — in other words, when the transitional provisions come to an end — the same amount of money that currently finds its way into the Budget in regional development grant will be spent in regional selective assistance?
  Mr. Clarke: Do I gather that the hon. Gentleman's case that, somehow, we are cutting planned regional provision involves my making a guess at this stage about what spending should he in 1992–94? That appears to be the burden of his case. I have never known any Minister in any Government to make such a guess. We have a three-year White Paper that shows that the hon. Gentleman's case is wrong.
  Mr. Blair: With great respect, it is becoming clear that the Minister himself does not believe that, when he abolishes regional development grant, regional selective

  55
  assistance will fill the gap. When he announced his White Paper, he told us that funding was remaining level. Now he is saying that it will stay level for three years, will drop and then will be cut. That is the truth.
  There are only two sources of money that allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that money which will no longer go to industry through regional development grant will be provided in the regional aid budget. The sources are regional selective assistance or the new initiatives.
  Mr. Richard Holt: In all the bantering so far, no one has mentioned the many millions of pounds that go to Teesside and Tyneside and the urban development corporations. It is regional aid from another Department, but it is far more money for the north of England.
  Mr. Blair: It has been put to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that the money going to urban development corporations barely matches a fraction of what is being taken out in rate support grant and other matters.
  Let me deal with the new initiatives that the Government have launched. I refer to consultancy services. Remember that the Government say that the business development initiative, of which the consultancy service is a part, will mean that new resources go to the regions. They say that £250 million will be spent over the next three years in the business development initiative. I assume that I am right in thinking that the business development initiative comes straight out of the Department of Trade and Industry and is a nationwide scheme covering the whole country; in other words, that that funding includes the funding—this is important—for Scotland and Wales too. We know already that some £25 million a year is already being spent on consultancy services, so we can knock off £75 million over three years straight away.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Can the hon. Gentleman say why?
  Mr. Blair: Because the Minister is saying that this is money over and above what has already been spent, so it is right to subtract what is being spent at present.
  The first and critical thing to remember about the consultancy services is that they are to be available over the whole country. In other words, there is no guarantee at all that any proportion of this money will find its way into the development areas or the assisted areas. There is a higher level of grant, but it is fairly marginal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) managed to be put on the mailing list of a particular director from the south-east regional office of the Department of Trade and Industry. I want to put this point to the Minister specifically, and I will give way to him if he is prepared to deny it. This is what the director of the south-east regional office said about the consultancy services — the main part of the Government's business development initiative:
  "An important part"—
  this is, of the enhanced role of the DTI—
  "will be a single advisory service delivered regionally, and we in the south east regional office are to be responsible for some 40 per cent. of this consultancy scheme."
  In other words, 40 per cent. of the business development initiative is to go to the south east alone, not even counting
  56
  East Anglia and the south west. How much will actually go to the north, to Scotland, to Wales and to the midlands? The truth of the matter is that it is unlikely that anything other than a small fraction of this money will find its way into the depressed regions of the country.
  As to the other grants that the Government are giving, it is all very well to say that in the development areas these small firms will have a regional investment grant available to them—they have it available to them at the moment, under the automatic development grant. The greatest amount of money, even on the Government's own figures, in three years' time that will be spent on this is about £50 million.
  If we take the amount of money through the business development initiative—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Where does the hon. Member get his figures from?
  Mr. Blair: Those are the figures in the White Paper, with respect. It is £14 million next year, rising to £55 million in 1990–91. That is in regional investment grant and innovation grant—
  Mr. Clarke: That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about £250 million which, if 40 per cent. goes to the south-east — if the regional director has his ambitions to realise—still leaves a substantial amount of money going to the rest. The DTI south-eastern region does not cover just a little corner south of London; it is a huge tract of the country, including all of London and substantial areas to the north and south of it.
  Mr. Blair: If 40 per cent. goes to the south-east, that is wholly disproportionate. The Minister's case is that this money is in some way in substitution for regional development grant, but the truth is that the bulk of it will go nowhere near where regional development grant goes now.
  What I had moved on to was regional investment grant and innovation grant. I want to point out to the Minister that, even at its highest, in three years' time, it amounts to just over £50 million. The figures that he has given today for regional selective assistance indicate that some £215 million is going now in regional selective assistance, rising to £284 million in 1990–91. That is a real rise of about £50 million or £60 million.
  There is no conceivable way that the money available under the business development initiative, under the small firms grant or under the extended regional selective assistance, even on the Government's own figures, will anywhere near compensate for the abolition of regional development grant. In fact, there is a substantial cut, which will be running after the transitional period of regional development grant, of about £150 million to £200 million each year.
  In justifying this, the Government have attempted rather half-heartedly to disparage regional development grants, to claim that they are paying out when it is not really necessary—even Sullom Voe was wheeled out last time before our eyes.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is a good example.
  Mr. Blair: It may be a good example of what was happening four years ago, but the Government changed the regional development grant system in 1984 and said that they had cured all that. When they changed the scheme in 1984, they told us at the very same time that it

  57
  was the final change that would need to be made and that the automatic system of regional development grant was a help to the regions. It would have been difficult for them to say otherwise, because the DTI has commissioned no fewer than three major reports on regional development grant and regional incentives.
  The first report was called "The effects of Government's regional economic policy", which had this to say:
  "The conclusion that regional policy generated some 450,000 manufacturing jobs in the Development Areas which were still in existence in 1981 leaves out of account any secondary or multiplier effects … this project has not been directly concerned with these multiplier effects but, using a conventional medium term regional multiplier of 1·4, the 450,000 manufacturing jobs would generate a further 180,000 jobs in service industries, making a grand total of surviving regional policy jobs of 630,000 at 1981. This is a real and substantial achievement."
  Two thirds of those jobs came in with the regional development grant.
  Mr. Philip Oppenheim: The gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that the fact that we might supposedly cut the total amount going to the regions is necessarily a bad thing. Does he not accept that it is not just how much one spends but also the cause on which one spends? Does he not also accept that there are some best estimates that the cost per job created by regional aid in the 1960s and 1970s was £50,000 in today's money? Does he not also accept that, however well intentioned, much of the regional aid led to totally unsustainable factories—for example, Speke, Bathgate and Linwood—which were well intentioned but which could not be sustained and did tremendous damage to the car industry in the midlands?
  Mr. Blair: It is correct that one must take a general view when assessing the overall impact of regional development grant. The overwhelming conclusion of the Government's own report, however, is that, whatever the individual cases where grant could be said to have been misused — for example, Sullom Voe—overall and in general terms, which is the sensible way to look at it, the writers of the report found a real and substantial achievement. The criticisms that were most frequently made of the regional development grant system could he most easily applied to the regional development grant system prior to 1984— but what we are talking about now is abolishing even the scheme as it exists at present.
  The second report commissioned by the DTI, "Regional incentives and the investment decision of the firm", was by a group of Scottish economists and is even more surprising in what it says about regional development grant:
  "One of the most frequent criticisms of RDG is that, because of its automatic nature, it is awarded in many cases where it is quite unnecessary and can have no influence on the company's investment decision. The evidence of our study suggests that only a minority of companies in general, and a tiny minority of small companies, rate RDG as having no influence on the decision to invest in the project under consideration and over half of the companies rated RDG as important or crucial to the decision…In short, our evidence shows that a mixture of automatic and selective assistance, taken together, provides a powerful package.".
  That also was a Government report.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is it not the case that most of these projects needed the investment to go ahead,
  58
  as that report apparently claims, so that those projects would in future be able to qualify for regional selective assistance as the Government propose?
  Mr. Blair: I do not think so. Regional selective assistance does not operate under the same criteria as regional development grant. In addition — this was found in the report to which I shall turn in a minute—the automatic nature of the regional development grant had a crucial effect on a company's decision to invest. The report that showed that was again commissioned by the DTI; I am dealing only with reports that it has commissioned.
  The report on industry's early reaction to the new regional development grant was carried out by PIEDA, the planning and economic consultants. It said:
  "The new RDG is an important factor in the investment decision-making process. One-third of those interviewed identified RDG as a critical factor in their project appraisal and investment decision. For many more the grant was an important, but not critical factor. Less than one-quarter of the companies surveyed said that the RDG had no influence on their investment decisions."
  Even the White Paper said that the cost per job of RDG under the second scheme was more cost-effective than regional selective assistance. We know that RDG has created jobs; we know that it is cost-effective; we know that it is a vital component in investment decisions; and we know that it is at its most effective when there is a mix of RDG and selective assistance. Therefore, I ask the Government, on what evidence do they base their assertion that it has no further use?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman ducked the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) made, then gave my hon. Friend the case that he was making. The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman show that one quarter of RDG recipients said that it made no difference to their decision. Only one third said that it made a critical difference to their decision. My hon. Friend was correct to say that that one third will now presumably apply for regional selective assistance. The one third that weighed the critical difference will still be eligible for grant. The hon. Gentleman is happy to contemplate one quarter or more of the expenditure being wasted and having no impact on investment decisions to maintain public expenditure at levels that he would like.
  Mr. Blair: It is nonsense, even for the 25 per cent. of firms that would have taken investment decisions anyway, to argue that that investment has no beneficial effect on the regions. The Minister is saying that those firms that would have applied for regional development grant will now receive regional selective assistance, but the other conclusion that the report came to is that many firms applied for both. But there were many circumstances in which they would have been eligible for automatic regional development grant but not eligible for regional selective assistance.
  If it were the case that all those firms that were in receipt of regional development grant will now receive regional selective assistance, one would expect a huge burgeoning increase in regional selective assistance expenditure. The figures that the Minister gave do not show that.
  I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the numbers of applications this year for regional development grant and regional selective assistance, but in 1987–88, in England, there were 1,600 applications for

  59
  regional selective assistance and over 6,000 for RDG2 alone. In Scotland, there were 190 applications for selective assistance and 3,050 for regional development grant. In Wales, there were 152 applications for selective assistance and 1,508 for regional development grant. The likelihood of those applications being fed through regional selective assistance is extremely unlikely, and nothing in any of the Government reports suggests that it is likely.
  I return to the point that the Minister made earlier—that the automatic nature of regional development grant is no longer necessary. It is extraordinary that every report the Government have commissioned has been unable to justify the abolition of grants because they are no longer needed. There is nothing in any of the White Papers, the glossy brochures or the logos and slogans that decorate the walls of the DTI to re-educate civil servants in the ways of the master, that provides sufficient help to the regions to make up for the abolition of regional grant.
  One of the more curious elements of the noble Lord, Lord Young's programme is that he has no doubts as to the massive importance and portentous nature of it. In the Financial Times of 16 January he gave an interview, which says:
  "Last October, Lord Young set out a series of policy objectives for the DTI, which he compared bizarrely to Mein Kampf.—'No one can say that they did not know what was coming."'
  A more eccentric example of how the noble Lord sees his programme would be hard to find.
  Overall, the White Paper, apart from the cut in regional development grant, does not merit any comparison that would exaggerate its significance. The truth is that there is more of the salesman's patter than any substance in the White Paper. It is the language not of industrialists but of advertising executives.
  I asked for a copy of "The New Regional Initiative", the guide to regional selective assistance. As you will see, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very glossy brochure. I asked for the previous regional selective brochure and I tried to discover, apart from obvious differences and various minor changes that have been made, what the difference was between the two. If hon. Members look at them they will see that the difference between the two is in the covers.
  The notion that in this White Paper we have engaged in an awakening of the spirit of enterprise in Britain is fatuous—a piece of classic hype. In his White Papers, Lord Young is becoming increasingly like Jeffrey Archer in his novels—the promotion is infinitely better than the writing.
  I should deal with a further point that the Minister made. It was presaged by a rare trip that the Prime Minister made to the northern region. This is the idea that we no longer need the regional development grant, because we are doing so well. In The Independent of 5 January 1988, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
  "I notice that people who go to look at the north and north-east go up thinking there are dark satanic mills and it is all grey and unwelcome. They come back saying, 'Do you know what it is really like? The countryside is fabulous, the people are marvellous, there are thriving industries and shopping centres."'
  We might have known that when the Prime Minister praised us on 5 January she intended to bury us on 12 January.
  60
  The idea that we are victims of our own success is so absurd that it beggars belief. Only this Government would have the priceless audacity to present a cut in regional assistance as a compliment to our self-reliance.
  The north-south gap, as every objective indicator shows, is not narrowing but widening. In November, the Low Pay Unit showed that incomes in the south were, on average, 50 per cent. higher. With regard to low pay, almost one third of those in the north were on wages below the decency threshold of the Council of Europe. In December, the Central Statistical Office's regional accounts showed that the south-east was 13 per cent. better off than elsewhere and that only two areas—the southeast and East Anglia—enjoyed above-average wealth.
  On 6 January, a survey quoted in the Financial Times said:
  "A disparity between the north and south of Britain is confirmed in a survey to be presented at a conference today. The top 35 areas in a league combining 10 economic indicators all lie south-east of a line from the Severn Estuary to Lincolnshire. Towns in north England, Wales and Scotland are concentrated towards the bottom."
  Social Trends, published more recently still, shows that the north has the highest proportion of children receiving free school meals and the highest proportion of income derived from social security, followed by Wales, the north-west, Scotland, the west midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside. The mortality rate of the north is 20 to 25 per cent. above average. It has the largest percentage of permanently sick, the largest percentage of infant mortality and the largest population loss. It is ludicrous to say that the problems of the north have disappeared and that we do not need the regional assistance that we were receiving before.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, because unemployment is falling, we no longer need an automatic regional development grant, but unemployment is still double what it was in 1979, when four times the amount of money was coming in in regional aid. As for investment, it is still 20 or 30 per cent. below what it was. Therefore, it is again absurd to suggest that regional aid should be cut because we are doing so well.
  The truth is that, after four decades of cross-party agreement as to the essential importance of regional policy, we have today to make the case for it anew. This debate is not about value for money or efficiency. It is the culmination of a Government process of disinvestment in our regions. We need regional policy, not just socially but economically, because our regions are our manufacturing base, and in our manufacturing base lies our capacity to create wealth. It is no coincidence that, as manufacturing output and investment declined, so did our regions.
  We know, too, that regional policy is necessary just to restore some of the equity in the use of natural resources. It is a common misconception that the south subsidises the north. For example, if we look at where defence contracts go or at the proportion of aid for research and development for fibre optics, or for any of the other Department of Trade and Industry programmes, we see that a disproportionate amount goes to the south. If we look at where the tax perks in the business expansion scheme, or any of the other myriad schemes available under fiscal policy, go, we see that they go to the south. In a real sense, on any rational basis, regional policy is necessary to redress the balance of Government economic policy.
  But at the heart of this issue lies a recognition of the importance of maintaining the integrity of this country. It

  61
  is absurd that, on the one hand, we have falling house prices, migration, acres of empty factory space, land that could be built upon should anyone want to do so, people still fighting for jobs, even on low pay and prospects, in the north; while on the other hand, we have house prices increasing by 30 per cent. or more in a year, congestion, pressure on the environment, skill shortages and rocketing factory rents in the south. A narrowing of the gap between the north and the south is in the interests not only of the north but of the south. It is part of the interests of the whole country. That is why we have to make this case again.
  For four decades there was a consensus, not as to the means—it is not a case of being wedded to the old-fashioned traditional ways of doing it and we are perfectly able to take on board and realise the need to change the means of industrial assistance—but as to the end, which was always sacrosanct. That was the notion that it was a critical responsibility of Government to ensure the cohesion of the country or, in other words, the belief that it was a necessary part of our democracy that our living standards and our life experiences were the same. It is to the shame of the modern Conservative party that that consensus has now been broken. It is the Labour party that will rebuild it.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Leon Brittan: In the concluding part of his speech, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) stressed the importance of regional policy. I entirely agree with him and have consistently argued the case for such a policy. Where I disagree with him is in his suggestion, express or implied, that the Government do not support an effective and vigorous regional policy. He may disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but, as one who has worked with and known him for a generation, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend's interest in, and support for, regional policy is not skin-deep or short-lived. He would not be party to a policy which he thought repudiated the regional policy that the hon. Member for Sedgefield is right to say is crucial for this country.
  Nor do I believe that the hon. Member for Sedgefield does justice to his case by talking simply about disparities between the different regions. Those disparities exist, but the suggestion that the Government have, in some blithe or heedless way, ignored that or do not care about it is quite wrong. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself not just whether there are disparities, but what will most help to end those disparities or at least reduce them substantially. He has to ask himself what is happening in the regions, what is the trend, and what is going on.
  The hon. Gentleman's constituency is in Durham, which is very near the county of Cleveland. He will know that the Evening Gazette, a newspaper published in Middlesbrough, has not been slow during the years of recession to criticise this Government and point out the ills —industrial, social and moral—of unemployment in Cleveland, which was the highest for any English county. Last week, the Evening Gazette published a special business supplement, which was headed:
  "We are on our way. Cleveland goes from strength to strength."
  If that is thought to be just advertising hype, one can read an article by Mr. Michael Morrissey, and those who
  62
  know him appreciate that he is not always the most cheerful of people as far as business prospects are concerned. It says:
  "We are riding on a tide of optimism. The sweet smell of success is in the air."
  On the other side, it says:
  "The infectious joy of big ideas. Something seems to be happening."
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Mr. Brittan: No, I will not give way, because I would like to develop my speech.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield might know that the principal cause for that is the development corporation on Teesside. Although he can quote figures showing that comparatively small sums of money are being spent, he will also note that the whole point of the development corporation is the gearing effect and the private money that it brings in on a massive scale. If he were to read the Evening Gazette, which, although published in Cleveland, almost certainly circulates in his part of Durham, he would know full well that hardly a day passes without report of some further project that has been engendered by the development corporation.
  The Government's policy, as announced in the Bill, has to be seen in the context of the White Paper, "DTI—the Department for Enterprise" which the Government put forward as a whole and which will be particularly beneficial to the region. The idea of bringing education and industry closer together with work experience for both teachers and pupils is valuable. The extra Department of Trade and Industry support for computer-aided design is also valuable, and those who have seen the design department at Teesside polytechnic will appreciate just how valuable that can be.
  The concept of business development initiatives with the use of outside consultants for design, marketing, quality management and manufacturing systems is all to the good. I am glad that the quality initiative is to be broadened to advise businesses of what is known as the total quality approach, which has been so successfully adopted by leading companies, and in particular by ICI.
  It is against that pattern, which shows the Government's commitment to effective regional policy, that one has to look at the proposal for regional assistance. I readily accept that the existing pattern is not sacrosanct. Changes are certainly worth considering. When 1 went to the Department of Trade and Industry in 1985, I was suspicious of the changes that had been made in 1984 and wondered whether they were consistent with an effective regional policy. However, I was persuaded that those changes resulted not only in a saving of money but in regional assistance being much more closely related to jobs and were therefore fully justified.
  However, I cannot say that I am persuaded of the benefit of the proposal to drop the regional development grant. I think that the comparative advantages of certainty and automaticity are real. There always has to be a balance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is, of course, right to say that regional selective assistance is not new and that there are other discretionary schemes. Discretionary schemes can and do exist, but the criticism that I make of the proposals in the present legislation is not that they retain a selective element, but that they move over to a totally selective concept, and that is a very different matter.

  63
  There are real advantages in grants available as of right. Imagine a company that has to consider whether or not to proceed with a project, particularly in an assisted area. If that company is faced with a proposal from the director who is arguing for the development, the costs will be sought and the finance director in particular will cast a beady eye on them. He will know from the plan put forward by the director advocating the scheme that the costs will definitely be reduced to reflect the 15 per cent. regional development grant. It will be a certainty, and the decision whether to spend scarce resources in that direction or in some other will be made on that footing.
  How different it will be when a director, putting forward a project for a development in an assisted area, comes to the board and says, "This is what it will cost and this is what we hope to get out of it, but, in reflecting on whether it is a good or bad prospect, I cannot subtract 15 per cent. for regional assistance. I can only tell you that if we go to the DTI, we may be also to persuade it, after some months, to give us regional selective assistance. Such assistance is discretionary and I cannot tell the board where we shall get it. We have to surmount certain hurdles and show that the project is viable. It is not enough that the board may think that it is viable; we have to satisfy the DTI. Furthermore, to get the money, I have to convince the DTI that we would not otherwise undertake the project — here or anywhere else. God alone knows what questions I shall have to answer to satisfy officials at the DTI that we would not otherwise carry out the project. If the hoard asks whether we shall get selective regional assistance, I can only say that I hope so." It would not take a beady-eyed financial director to say, "Exclude that from our considerations." The effect is sure to be that a project that would have gone ahead on the basis of regional development grant will not go ahead if it is submitted to the uncertainties and delays inherent in the regional selective assistance process. That is the reality, and the Minister is unwise to ignore it.
  In answer to such arguments, my right hon. and learned Friend says that much money is wasted because, under the present system, developments go ahead that would go ahead in any event and that they are getting public money unnecessarily. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was never accused of being anxious to spend public money unnecessarily. However, the argument does not really stand up, because large sums of public money are spent in the certain knowledge that a proportion will go to encourage people to do something that they would do in any event.
  Let us consider the question of tax reductions. I look forward to the time when, as a result of prudent management of the economy, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can announce tax reductions in the Budget. Opposition Members will argue against that, but the case that Conservative Members will mount in favour of tax reductions is that they act as an incentive and that, if they have less tax to pay, people will do things that they would not otherwise have done. Although that is profoundly true and more than an adequate justification for tax reductions, one cannot say that everyone will do something that they would not otherwise have done, because of the tax reductions; some people would do those things in any event.
  64
  If that argument is too broad and general to persuade the House, I give as an example the business expansion scheme, which involves not public expenditure but a specific tax concession geared to investment. Are we asked to argue against that because we cannot prove that the investment would not otherwise have taken place? No one has suggested that or argued that there should be a change in the business expansion scheme. We need an element of automaticity to achieve the full incentive effect. Although I would not cast aspersions on the intentions or motives of my right hon. and learned Friend, I am bound to question the wisdom of completely removing regional development grant and relying on selective and discretionary assistance.
  I have confidence in the Government's regional development policy, because I know my right hon. and learned Friend and I know that his intentions are sincere. However, it is important that this new policy should carry conviction in the regions among those who do not automatically take what Ministers say on trust and in places where it is the business of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to go around explaining why it should not be taken on trust.
  When it comes to persuading those in the regions, money counts. My right hon. and learned Friend did the Government's cause no great service by not answering the specific question about cash that I put to him when we debated the statement. The Government generally are not assisted by the obfuscation in the public expenditure White Paper, which puts regional and general assistance together in a single line. The Government are not assisted by taking three years together and presenting that total. Those are tricks that I learned at the Treasury, and I am glad to see that the right hand has not lost its cunning. They will do for a day, but they will hardly do for a week. They will certainly not do for a month, and beyond that they carry no conviction at all.
  The reality is simple. My right hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that the figures that he has announced amount to an increase over and above the plans. However, the plans did not fully take account of the expansion in regional development grants as a result of the effectiveness of the efforts of the Department's regional offices in drumming up business instead of waiting for people to apply for grants —a policy that I applaud. One needs to consider not only whether the Government are spending more money year by year than they thought last year that they would be spending, because the expenditures are demand-related, not cash-limited. The real question concerns the expenditure at the end of the transitional period.
  We need to consider what the expenditure will be when we have moved over from the present to the new system. There is no mystery about that. For Great Britain—this is why I checked my right hon. Friend when he inadvertently referred to the United Kingdom — it is expected that the outturn for regional expenditure—in regional development grants, selective regional assistance and the new investment and innovation grants—will be £478 million in 1987–88. The figure for 1988–89 is expected to be £560 million; for 1989–90, £513 million; and for 1990–91, £470 million. A comparison of this year with the last year for which figures are published shows a move from £478 million to £470 million. That is above the

  65
  planned figure, but if regional development grants had continued, the planned figure would have risen substantially.
  The gap between expenditure today and the expenditure expected in 1990–91 is not large. If my right hon. and learned Friend wants people in the regions to believe that the changes are genuinely designed to replace one kind of help with another and not to save money, in his discussions with the Treasury later this year he must say that if the new policy is to achieve credibility in the region, a change is needed in the figures for those last years so that they at least correspond with the sum that is now being spent on regional assistance in real terms. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will pay that visit to the Treasury, and I wish him luck.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I am not as confident about the last point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) as he obviously was. However, I agree with the bulk of his speech, and especially with what he said about the importance of having an automatic system of grants, whatever the accompanying system of selective assistance. I am also at one with him about the public expenditure White Paper, because the passages dealing with the Department of Trade and Industry are a disgrace. They deliberately obscure the reality of the situation.
  First, I should like to set regional policy in a wider context in relation to one issue of considerable importance to Scotland at present. I shall come to regional development grants in a minute or two. The Minister said that that was still part of general policy and that the Government were still generally committed to the regions. One matter that has always been considered of tremendous importance to Scotland — I dare say that the same is true in Wales and in the regions of England — is the need to have real centres of decision-making in the industrial sphere in Scotland, Wales and the regions.
  In that context, I want to say something about Britoil, which is an independent oil company. It is the biggest independent oil company operating in the North sea—or, indeed, elsewhere. Previously it was the British National Oil Corporation, but it is now Britoil. Britoil moved to Glasgow and located its head office there. It did so as a deliberate decision of the Labour Government. I should say that those who were involved in the industry did not want to go to Scotland and, more especially, to Glasgow. However, Ministers insisted that they move to Glasgow, and the company has been a great success there. The oil company has a fine and splendid new building as its head office in Glasgow, and that has also been a tremendous success.
  Britoil is now so valued and valuable that BP is desperate to take it over. However, if BP does take over Britoil, those important corporate headquarters will no longer be in Scotland. At best, Britoil will simply be a division of BP, and there will be only divisional headquarters in Glasgow instead of an important centre of decision making, employing many highly qualified people, as at present.
  The Government can prevent that result through the golden share. Indeed, when the golden share was originally introduced, the Secretary of State for Energy, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave specific pledges that the golden share would be used to prevent an unwelcome
  66
  acquisition of Britoil. This would be an unwelcome acquisition of Britoil. It would be unwelcome to the staff who work there and to the senior management. I am glad that the senior management have consistently and determinedly expressed their opposition to the takeover. I congratulate Mr. Walker and his colleagues on having done so in circumstances in which, in many cases, senior management would unfortunately have caved in.
  The Chancellor's statement on 11 January 1988, in which he said that the Government would use the golden share, was hedged with all sorts of qualifications. He said that they would use it "in present circumstances" and
  "so long as it is in the national interest to do so." —[Official Report, 11 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 13.]
  If that was intended to scare off BP, it obviously has not done so. Although there may have been other possible bidders for the company, at the moment the chances are— I hope that it does not happen — that unless the Government take steps now to make it absolutely clear that they will use the golden share to the fullest extent and not allow anybody, specifically BP, to control the company in real terms, BP will not only have control of the company in terms of shareholding but, ultimately, in terms of full decision making. I refer not only to normal commercial decisions but to decisions about corporate headquarters and so on. It would be an absolute scandal if that was allowed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it a little difficult to relate what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying to the Bill. I am sure that he can relate it to the Bill.
  Mr. Milian: I made the point at the beginning that I was dealing with regional policy generally and it s an important part of regional policy that we should have such important headquarters in the regions, rather than in London, which is what will happen if Britoil is taken over by BP.
  There are other aspects to be considered, such as monopoly in the North sea and the Kuwaiti shareholding in BP, but I am speaking specifically of the Scottish interest and of the interest of the staff who are extremely worried about the present position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is deliberately allowing the position to drift, and, far from discouraging BP, he is encouraging that company not only to go ahead with its bid for Britoil but to believe that, once it has control of the shareholding, the golden share will not be used in any effective way and it will ultimately obtain full control of all the company's operations, including the board of directors. If he does not intend that, he should make that absolutely clear now. I advise the Minister who is to reply to the debate that at present there is no more important question of regional policy in Scotland than the threatened takeover of Britoil. The Government can stop that happening in the way in which it appears to be happening at present.
  Turning to the Bill, there is no need for Opposition Members to argue the importance of regional development grants because the last annual report issued by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Industrial Development Act 1982, dealing with regional policy, mentions the results of a survey which was commissioned by the Department in February 1987. It states:
  "the Scheme is an important factor in companies' investment decisions."

  67
  The "scheme" refers to the RDG scheme. The annual report continued:
  "The take-up of the new Scheme by firms with 200 employees or less has been particularly encouraging".
  We understood that the Government were especially interested in helping small firms. The annual report states that the take-up by small firms in 1986–87 amounted to
  "about 80 per cent. of the total grant."
  However, under the Bill the Government are abolishing regional development grants completely. That does not make sense, if there is any real commitment to the regions or, for that matter, to small firms in this country.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said in his extremely effective speech, there are always transitional arrangements when such changes are made. It is only when one considers later what has happened that one can understand the full impact of the changes. That is true of the 1984 changes in regional development grant. They did not look too bad to industry to start with. The Government gave all sorts of assurances about them not being particularly bad news for the regions.
  However, looking at what happened, and remembering, incidentally, that the 1984 figures were considerably smaller than the figures that the Government inherited in 1979 because of earlier reductions in regional assistance, we find, in a written answer on 12 May 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the overall figure for RDG for 1986–87 was £512 million and the figure for 1987–88 was expected to be only £211 million — a reduction of £311 million in one year, because that was the year for which almost the full impact of the 1984 changes began to be effective. Transitional arrangements had applied in earlier years.
  The figure for Scotland for 1986–87 was £170 million and for 1987–88 it was expected to be £69 million. Therefore, in Scotland alone there was a reduction of £100 million in a single year. Again, that arose because of the 1984 changes. Therefore, when the Minister says, "Do not worry, because the figures in the future will not be worse than the figures now," we must set that against the background that the figures have now been savagely reduced because of the changes made in 1984.
  Of course, it is very difficult — even if the Government were being honest about the figures they present in the White Paper on public expenditure—to disentangle all the various figures and the effect of the changes with RDG1, the system before 29 November 1984, and RDG2, the system from 29 November 1984, and the rest, changes made in 1984, which were modified with regard to small firms with fewer than 200 employees.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield pointed out, it will happen again. The transitional arrangements will take us to 1990, or whatever, and it is only then that we shall have the full effect of the changes being made in the Bill.
  I therefore turn to the Minister's idea, suggestion, or assertion, that we need not worry about that, because the figures may have been reduced — they are already savagely reduced—but at least they will not be reduced any further and the Government have planned expenditure in the regions which will show an increase.
  First, I am extremely suspicious of Ministers when they say that it is not a real increase; the figures are different
  68
  from what they were in the previous year's White Paper. That does not mean a great deal. It is the reality of the expenditure, of the outturn in the current year and what will happen in the future, that we really have to look at.
  The Government are really making the claim about the figures coming down no further on two bases. The first is the new business initiative, or whatever the scheme is now being called—in particular, for firms in the regions with fewer than 25 employees. A new incentive is being introduced for them. That is actually less of an incentive than the existing RDG2, gives for firms with up to 200 employees. The incentive for firms with up to 25 employees, even if it works for them, as I hope it will, will do nothing for them that they could not obtain under the present system. For firms with from 25 to 200 employees it disappears completely, because they are not covered by this scheme at all.
  Then there is the whole question of what will happen to regional selective assistance. That, of course, was not dealt with at all. I was going to say that it was treated with obscurity in the public expenditure White Paper, but no figures are given for section 7 in recent years. We have the projected figures only because I asked the Minister during his speech to give them to us.
  Let us take those figures at their face value, taking 1988–89. As I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman — we shall check the details in Hansard tomorrow—section 7 regional selective assistance was estimated in the White Paper published a year ago to be £245 million for 1988–89. That was before any changes were made. In 1988–89, after these massive changes, it is going up to £266 million, a net increase of £21 million in one year, which is supposed to compensate for these vast reductions in regional development grants. It does not make sense.
  There are other figures for some of these schemes, for business advisory services and the rest. In my opinion—we shall wait and see what happens—these figures are grossly overestimated. I do not believe for one moment that the kind of figures that the Government have put in the White Paper for some of the schemes will ever be spent. I am not sure that it would be a good idea if they were, because there is a limit to the amount of money one should be spending on consultancy services. Members of the accountancy profession will be delighted at this increasing emphasis on consultancy. It is a very profitable part of their work.
  Miss Majorie Mowlam: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to ask the Minister to clarify whether those consultants will be employed in London or whether, in line with policy, they will be based in the regions and will be paid, in relation to delivering jobs, with a deal whereby money will be paid for the number of jobs created?
  Mr. Milian: I do not want to say too much about consultancy reports. They vary in quality from the good to what in some cases cannot even be called indifferent, depending on the consultants and on the questions asked. What I am saying is that the figures in the White Paper seem to me to be unlikely to be achieved in reality. Even if they are achieved, those figures together cannot possibly make up for the reductions in regional development grants in places such as Scotland. Selective assistance in Scotland is running at about £40 million a year. In 1986–87 it was

  69
  £36 million. In Scotland, regional development grants were worth £170 million in 1986–87, compared with £36 million for selective assistance. Even with the reduction to £69 million in 1987–88, it is still a more important part of regional assistance than anything that can be done under selective assistance.
  There is another consideration with regard to selective assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield gave some figures for the numbers of applications. I do not believe for one minute that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Office or whoever will handle these matters can deal with anything like that number of claims for selective assistance. Again, I refer to the Scottish figures that my hon. Friend gave: 190 claims for selective assistance; over 3,000 for regional development grants. Is it seriously suggested that the same civil servants can handle over 3,000 claims for selective assistance in Scotland and give them the care and attention, with references to the Industrial Advisory Board and all the rest, at present given to selective assistance? It is absolutely ludicrous. Either some of the claims will go through the early stages just to make the figures look better, or, more likely, many firms at present applying for automatic assistance will, as the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks made clear, not apply for the new forms of assistance, or will not take the investment decisions that would have enabled them to apply for regional development grants.
  The Bill is extremely bad news for Scotland, Wales and all the regions in England. I find it depressing that the Minister can say that the CBI in Scotland is largely in favour of what is happening there. That is a less robust attitude even than it took with regard to the 1984 changes. At least it was unhappy about them. If it is happy about these changes, all I can say is that it is a very poor indication of its real concern for industry in Scotland, and it is serving Scottish industry very badly, as the Government are and as the House will do if we pass the Bill.
  6.38 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who is the Minister on the Front Bench at present, will not necessarily find that my remarks will give him the cheer that he has been waiting to hear. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry has wisely decided to remove himself for the time being, and I can understand that.
  Those of us — I include my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary — who have been involved in regional development policy, whether offering grants or receiving delegations, will know that there are few more important areas of ministerial life in which the incapacity to satisfy customers is at its greatest, and it is therefore not surprising that my right hon. and learned Friend—not one who is short of energy, determination and clout—should have decided that he wants to get shot of part of this operation by the quickest possible means, and therefore proposes to abolish the regional development grant.
  I must echo the general view that if we are to have a policy for the regions at all it must, first, be seen to be creative and designed to correct the imbalances so widely recognised to exist between areas which have had a historic decline of basic industries and areas which have not.
  70
  Secondly, the policy should be attractive. It must seek to attract new types of industry which have not been able, so far, to obtain a footing in the area concerned. Thirdly, it should be competitive.
  I welcome a large proportion of the contents of the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry laid before the House earlier this month. But it is odd that, in the handsome document which has been handed down from the mount, the entry to chapter 7 on regional policy says of the DTI's objectives:
  "In all our work we will take account of the differing circumstances in the regions and of the Inner Cities to enable those who live there to help themselves".
  That is an extraordinary, gratuitous observation. "We will take account" does not necessarily mean that we will do anything. The suggestion that there are "differing circumstances in the regions" is without doubt the case. There would not be regions if the areas were not different. They are different in culture, tradition, economy and many other ways.
  I for one am wholly in favour of the diversity of regions. I do not entirely go along with the classic presentation of the north-south divide. I concede that many of us who are happy and proud to live in the northern areas have a different quality of life in many respects from those who live elsewhere.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Which parts?
  Sir Giles Shaw: I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not find the balmy air of Pomfret quite as happy as the bracing air of Harrogate, and I have to concede his point.
  What underlying philosophy should be the basis of our regional policy? The opening DTI objectives in chapter 7 are pretty inadequate. It says, "take account". Is that really all that is required? It says, "to enable those who live there to help themselves." Is that really all that is involved? Frankly, it is not. One of the huge problems of regional decay is not the fact of the people living there not being able to help themselves, but the fact that people have left the area, that investment has been dissipated and has departed and that the age and condition of the basic economy have changed because the markets and customers have gone. Above all else, the regions need implantation—not the people who live there to help themselves but new people to come there with new ideas and activities and, we hope, to be a catalyst in trying to grow a new regional economy.
  I am persuaded—I think that I carry my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond. Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who is practically a neighbour, with me—that a regional policy is but a small part of the national policy. National economic management is the crucial determinant of regional success. Hon. Members delude themselves if they believe any other general tenet of economics. Even so, we need an understanding of the fact that the parts of the country furthest from the centre of economic generation will be the slowest to respond. Equally, we must take account of the fact that persuading capital to move into those parts furthest from the centre of economic generation is a major and competitive task.
  I understand that abolition of the development grant helps to get rid of the appalling problem of having each

  71
  time to go to the Treasury cap in hand and say, "We have overspent yet again because the applications have come in faster than we expected or have not been triggered in the time we expected." There is a bunching of payments and the DTI goes hairless in relation to its budget controls, so we have that wonderful Roman motto, "Per ardua ad moratorium." In it comes and first we have six months, then another six months, and so on. It is a mess and I agree that there should be reforms in handling it.
  The essential objective of regional development grant is to provide to those likely to invest — investing companies—a clear statement of benefit, well in advance of the decision which they seek to make on whether to take investment to the location. Without that, the United Kingdom will be singularly naked when it comes to competing with other Governments for mobile investments within the European Economic Community. Are we to believe that, for example, the Irish are dropping their standard "Give all and take all and we will pay all"? Are we to believe that the French are dropping the way in which they attract investments by making massive grants available not just to new companies but to well-established companies which seek international orders?
  If we try to rewrite history, I very much doubt that the Nissan motor company would have come to the north-east on the basis of the absence of regional development grant. I doubt whether Nissan would have taken kindly to being asked to show for the benefit of the DTI officials whether the project was sufficiently viable and whether it would have gone ahead without the Government grant that the company sought.
  I believe that the Germans, the French, the Italians and, frankly, practically every other industrial part of Europe would be knocking on the doors of Nissan headquarters in Japan to demonstrate that in other markets they do not offer such restrictive rules. It may be that Nissan represented the last of the giant mobile investments, but equally there have been others, which I well recall from my time at the DTI, which have come to Telford and other places — other large Japanese investments in new technology that cost substantial amounts of capital.
  Losing our competitiveness overseas to attract the big mobile investment is a major disadvantage. I do not believe that that is replaced in the present proposals by regional selective assistance. I accept that paragraph 7.10 of the White Paper says:
  "Internationally mobile investment projects will by their nature frequently meet these criteria."
  But "by their nature" frequently they will not. They will not take kindly to the view that in the United Kingdom one must go through an enormously difficult and complicated procedure compared with the procedure in other parts of Europe. The speed and clarity of decision and the commitment which the United Kingdom Government can show in providing international investment will be seriously damaged by the current proposals.
  I welcome many other aspects in the White Paper, which, of course, are not the subject of the Bill but relate to the way in which we must judge it. I look for a catalytic activity for regional investments. That is why I lay stress on competing for new industries, skills, types of people and management to come to an area rather than concentrating purely on the self-help issue for those who live in the
  72
  regions—crucial though it is that everything is designed to improve the lot of those who live there. Our regional policy should be designed essentially to be outward-looking. I do not think that the decision reached on this measure has come from an outward-looking view of how our regional policy should be developed.
  I am especially interested in the fact that the business improvement services schemes are to be expanded and that consultancy schemes for various smaller companies are to be introduced. The White Paper contains much for the smaller developer, the smaller industrialist, and must do more if the enterprise culture is to be transplanted into the regions. I should like a single Government office to represent the whole spectrum of Government assistance and development within the regions. Why is a part of our businesses allocated to the Department of Employment, such as tourism, and a part to the Department of the Environment, such as the urban development corporations and small businesses? Why have we allowed that to happen yet are still required by the Department of Trade and Industry to believe that that Department and it alone is the source of the enterprise culture? It is a great weakness that the DTI does not have within its competence all those other forms of what are clearly investment potential and new activity. If those elements cannot be within the same Department, why cannot the three Departments be represented in one regional office under the same roof, so that there is a shop to deal with all the aspects that make a development project get off the ground?
  Why can we not back the smallest of the entrepreneurs by providing regional directors of the DTI with a sum for which they could account entirely themselves, to show that they can provide small portions of capital for those who knock at their doors? It is easier in this country to borrow half a million pounds than to borrow £5,000. If we said to our regional directorate that we were able to provide it with such an incentive, much more could be done much more quickly.
  Will someone explain whether the 27 new offices of the DTI are satellites running from the bigger regional offices, or new centres of advice and effort in themselves? I hope that the latter is the case, and that they will all be able to offer a service that will help to stimulate local activity in the towns and cities where they are set up.
  It is never a good time to abolish a grant. I am certain that no one would willingly put up his hand and say, "Splendid. Do let us get rid of that portion of Government assistance." I believe, on the other hand, that it is sad that my right hon. and noble Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend have decided that the assisted area map should remain intact for the remainder of this Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) made an irrefutable point: when the objectives have been achieved of providing a development area with new industry and a new economy, and the position has become reasonably secure, why should not regional grant and regional selective assistance still be available? The answer is that the area has passed the point at which it is tied to the apron strings of Government assistance.
  As I recall from my experience in the Department of Industry, two or three other areas in the United Kingdom are very close to being qualified for regional assistance and grants. Is my right hon. and noble Friend saying that this is for the remainder of this Parliament? It is sad if regional selective assistance is now to be the main generator of new

  73
  activity, apart from the new consultancy and advisory programmes, and that that too will be limited to the areas now defined. The business improvement schemes, perhaps above all else, have more application to small areas. I am thinking of such areas as Skegness and Thanet, which could be brought into some kind of net to provide some inducement for activity.
  I am not entirely persuaded that the measure is a positive demonstration of the new enterprise culture at work, or that those of us who represent regional interests are yet of the opinion that the new policy will bring better results than the old. Secondly, there must be a cash equivalent of what has already been spent on regional development grant before we can be persuaded that the Government are being truly fair.
  Let me say without doubt, however, that the political commitment to an effective regional policy is something that I wish the Government Front Bench to reiterate. It is no use looking at it on a haphazard, Treasury-required basis. A regional policy is a policy that brings commitment and important development prospects to most parts of the country — in the north, the midlands, Scotland, Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland. Surely, therefore, it deserves proper backing to ensure that the resources are available to create new life where there was old.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The debate has taken a somewhat interesting turn after the opening speeches. Two speeches from Conservative Back Benchers have made it absolutely clear that support is lacking for the Bill, and for the measures behind it. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) have made their views known. But, when the statement was made, the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) also expressed considerable reservations. I therefore believe that the Government will have to take up very seriously the points raised in the debate.
  Some hon. Members may know that, some years ago, I worked for the North-East Scotland development authority, and was therefore involved in trying to attract industry to my area. I can confirm without question that automatic availability of grant, which we then had in our area, was an essential component of even beginning a sensible dialogue with a potential investor. Inability to hold such a discussion will considerably undermine the possibility, first, in some cases of creating a new investment at all, and secondly—this is the point of regional policy — of ensuring that it goes to a specific location.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made it clear there was an element of cost containment behind the proposals. He said that, as the economy recovers and investment takes off, the availability of automatic grants leaves us with the possibility of an unconfirmable expansion of DTI expenditure. If that is really the Government's concern, would it not have been more appropriate simply to change, for example, the cost-perjob grant, while retaining the automatic guarantee, rather than bringing forward legislation to do away with those grants altogether?
  A Scottish Minister is to reply to the debate. Is it not true that one of the major consequences of this supposed regional policy has been to dilute the ability of the regions to promote their own economies, and give more power to
  74
  Central Government officials in the DTI? Having been involved in industrial development promotion, l can tell the House that there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of how those officials might behave. I am not speaking of improper behaviour; I am referring to what might be termed political judgment.
  For example, if a development authority or agency identifies a potential investor, it must almost immediately refer that investor, under the new rules, to the DTI. If the DTI likes the look of the investment, but feels that another region might be more appropriate, it immediately takes the chance to try to tempt the investment away. If that happens, it will understandably cause considerable resentment to the initial contact.
  I do not believe that the Government, or any Conservative Members, ever supported the industrial development certificates, or would wish them to he reintroduced. Ironically, however, the Government are effectively creating a mechanism that could, in a sense, give the officials just that kind of power. I do not question the sincerity of the Labour party's criticism of the proposals being introduced at this time, but it is nevertheless Labour party policy — developing policy, at any rate — to do away with automatic grants.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Hon. Members should not take his word for it.
  Mr. Bruce: Indeed they should not. I have a copy of the New Statesman, which is not known as a Liberal newspaper. It states:
  "'A New Partnership, A New Britain', the keynote TUC-Labour Party statement of the last parliament, stressed that `it will be important … that industrial assistance is conditional on a business plan agreed between unions and management' ".
  That is a condition that the Labour party may wish to impose. According to the New Statesman, the TUC states in its policy statement "Regional Development and Planning":
  "The amount of selective assistance … would be progressively increased until all assistance became selective".
  In a sense, the Government are creating the mechanism, through the abolition of automatic grants, to enable a future Government of some other complexion to use the change to apply political and other qualifications to enable selective assistance to be given. That seems totally contrary to what the Government claim to be their regional policy.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), have already stated that there is substantial evidence within the DTI of the jobs that have been created in the regions because of the availability of grants since regional policy was introduced. Some of those jobs might not have been created at all without a regional policy, but many certainly would not have been in the regions where they are now located.
  The recent change is the cause of the growing difference between the south-east and other regions. In the old manufacturing regions, one third of the jobs we re based in manufacturing, but in the south-east, only a quarter of the jobs were based in manufacturing. The consequences of the rapid decline in manufacturing have hit particularly hard all the regions of the United Kingdom except the south-east.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is reported to want industry throughout the United Kingdom to play on a level pitch or field, to use his

  75
  colourful analogy. However, he ignores the fact that the field is anything but level now. It slopes very sharply from north to south. By removing the regional development grant, the Bill increases the difficulty of scoring goals in the north, and inevitably will accelerate the existing distortion between the south-east of England and the rest of the United Kingdom. I acknowledge, however, that there are differences within regions; I do not accept the over-simple north-south analogy.
  Having been involved in industrial development promotion, I believe that changing the rules too often deters people from taking them seriously and that it has a depressing effect on investment. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has already drawn attention to the fact that competition for mobile international investment could lead to a serious loss to the United Kingdom, to which the Government should pay serious attention.
  The argument has been proved that, effectively, the Government will be cutting the overall amount of aid. The Government have failed to satisfy the House that that is not the case. However, I am prepared to acknowledge that the amount of money spent on regional aid is by no means definitive proof that the policy is effective, or that it is reaching the right quarters. I am prepared to consider constructive ways of ensuring that the money is used effectively. However, so far, the Government have not convinced hon. Members that the Bill will achieve that aim.
  The debate should be about how we can ensure that the regions take control of promoting their own economies, through regional policy. The Minister of State, Scottish Office, will be replying to the debate. As a Scottish Member, although I am not uncritical of everything done by the Scottish Development Agency, I am glad that we have such an agency and I believe that Scotland would be very much worse off without it. However, I wonder why the regions of England are denied the opportunity to have such agencies, so that, with a global budget, they could determine their own priorities and invest to tackle their regional problems. That would be more effective than DTI officials who, wherever they are located, are under the control of the Department in London. We should be moving forward in that way.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) made the important point of principle that the ownership and control of businesses and location of their headquarters are crucial to the development of regional economies within the United Kingdom. The regions have suffered because corporate headquarters are concentrated in London and the south-east, to the detriment of all other regions. Indeed, 80 per cent. of investment in the regions of England is carried out by companies based outside those regions, in most cases in the south of England or abroad, to the considerable disadvantage of the regions.
  Several consequences flow from that concentration, which have been acknowledged in some recently publicised cases. Scotland suffered because of the row over Guinness, but the location of the corporate headquarters was acknowledged to be an issue. Pilkington was subjected to a takeover, and nobody in St. Helen's could be persuaded that it would not be bad news for them. The shares of the company were substantially undervalued because the
  76
  parochial, London-based financiers persistently undervalue the assets of companies that are based outside south-east England. We need to find a way to decentralise financial institutions so that they know what is happening in the country, and can find opportunities for backing and investment.
  The case of Britoil is another example. There is clear evidence that the BP bid — although it is not undervaluing on the basis of its knowledge—certainly in fact undervalues Britoil. I agree with the right hon. Member for Govan that an important point of principle is at stake.
  BP is the largest employer in my constituency. It is a good company in many ways. It is a major operator in the North sea and has brought many highly qualified people to Aberdeen. That has been good for our economy. However, BP is now in the process of transferring 300 highly qualified staff from Aberdeen to the City of London. I do not know why on earth they need so many technical people in the City of London at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the shareholders. I have tried to persuade BP that it should be moving the other way.
  The importance of the North sea in my constituency is such that it could have established an exploration and petroleum division in Aberdeen. BP tells me that it wants to take over Britoil and to move its exploration and production division to Glasgow and Aberdeen. I find that very hard to believe, especially as BP is doing the opposite now. It does not square with its practice and its attitude. I do not trust it and I will not believe a Government assurance that that is true. The Government must use their power to keep Britoil independent, because the regions need such a focus. I shall develop that point, as it is relevant to the Bill.
  We have two huge national privatised utilities —British Gas and British Telecommunications. I believe that, in a sense, the chickens have come home to roost, in that the problems of those monopolies are beginning to be recognised by dissatisfied customers. British Gas and British Telecom should be regionalised. As regional corporations, they could inject into the regions of England, Scotland and Wales corporate operations that would buy in services, offer careers, help to retain talent within the regions and start to regenerate regional economies so that people would not believe that the only way to get on was to leave the regions and go to London. Until we change that idea, we will not have a vital, growing regional economy, and the whole of the United Kingdom will suffer.
  The Government are wholly unconvincing. I do not wish to denigrate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's commitment to a regional policy, but it is on record that he thinks that the market will sort it out and that cheap labour in the north will attract investment. However, that has not been proved and we need something much stronger to ensure efficient distribution.
  In a sense all hon. Members — even those who represent the south-east—represent regions, but those of us who live outside London and come here because of our duties in the House are aware that life in the south-east is not always rosy. Property is enormously expensive, travelling is a nightmare and congestion is a problem. The railway system is appalling, yet in the north many facilities are under-utilised and people are still leaving.
  It seems that a more vigorous regional policy is needed for the whole of the United Kingdom. I am willing—all

  77
  hon. Members should be willing — to engage in a constructive debate to ensure that we achieve such a policy. The Bill is not achieving that, and the Government will have to think again. Even if the Bill is enacted, I suggest that the Minister should consider that if the Government go ahead with selective assistance, they should apply a simple criterion so that businesses will know quickly and fairly definitively, whether they will get aid. If the Government do not do that, the United Kingdom economy will suffer and the regions will suffer more than most. I believe that the Government should think deeply about that. This Bill is not the answer to regional problems.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. William Powell: You have honoured me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by calling me as the first speaker in the debate who is not a spokesman for his party or held ministerial responsibility for these matters in the past. However, for the past five years or so I have been up to my neck and beyond in the problems of the major town in my constituency which was devastated by the closure of the industry that was directly and indirectly responsible for 73 per cent. of the employment in that town. The House will recall that the decision to close Corby steelworks was announced on 3 March 1979. The significance of that date will be lost on no hon. Member.
  As I have said, for the past five years or so I have been up to my neck in the problems of recovery. It has dominated my thoughts every day of my life and I want to share some of those thoughts with right hon. and hon. Members. I want to talk about what has been involved in the recovery, and what lessons there are for regional policy in our country.
  This debate is now opening out into an interesting discussion of issues that are much wider than the contents of the Bill, and that is quite right. The contents of the Bill, although important, are only one small aspect of regional policy. If our regions are to recover, thrive and prosper in the future, one has to consider the whole range of policies and not merely one small part.
  Although regional development grants have played a part in the recovery of Corby, many other factors have been more significant, including other Government policies. That perspective should never be overlooked. Although I am putting the issue in a wider perspective, I do not want any hon. Member to imagine that what has happened in Corby has happened for any reason other than major Government sponsorship of the recovery. Without that central Government effort and pump-priming, very few of the things that have happened in Corby would have happened. That is a lesson that no hon. Member should be allowed to forget or ignore. It is a lesson that has to be applied in other areas that are still facing hard and difficult times.
  The indicators of what has happened in Corby are awesome. When I became its Member of Parliament, Corby stood at No. 20 in the national league table of parliamentary constituencies for those unemployed and claiming benefit. No. one is the worst and No. 637 is the best. It stood at No. 20 in 1983. In February 1987, when the Library did a survey it stood at 323. By November 1987, the latest survey, it stood at 371. During the course of 1988 and beyond it will drop lower and lower, and thank goodness for that.
  78
  A modicum of prosperity — I do not want to exaggerate it—has returned to my constituents. It is returning as a consequence of Government policy, including regional development grants. However, other factors have played a part. Perhaps I may be permitted to outline one or two of those which may be more important than regional development grant policies.
  First and foremost, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that derelict land grant has played a major role. The work of the Department of the Environment in sponsoring derelict land grant is fundamental and crucial. Without that, the steelworks would not have been cleared and the land could not have been prepared for companies to come forward and apply for regional development grants, selective financial assistance or any of the other forms of assistance available. Therefore, as I have said, the role played by derelict land grants in regional policy is crucial. I hope that we will see a quickening of pace in the use of derelict land grants. There is no doubt that the urban development corporations offer a hopeful opportunity and opening in that respect.
  The second feature of Corby which is of considerable importance is that everybody in the community has been involved in trying to pull things together. It had been done without any partisan rancour and without any partisan disputes. It has involved Labour people and I pay tribute to them. They have done marvels in trying to promote the industrial regeneration of Corby. It has been done by Conservative people and people of no particular political persuasion. They have made use of the fact that the Government are available and taken advantage of what the Government have had to offer. They have not wasted their time in partisan ideological disputes about whether, if other people had held responsibility, things would be done differently. There is no doubt that, if one wishes to build the reputation of one's town and community, one has to persuade the outside world. The outside world is not impressed if local people are falling over themselves to show how they disagree with one another and how they are setting up a totem pole of resistance to this, that or the other.
  I have no doubt that if there had been a different Government in Whitehall, Corby district council would not have behaved in a different way. It is to its credit that it has been prepared to work enthusiastically with Ministers of a different political persuasion. If I may be allowed a modest aside, I pay tribute to the way in which it has worked with me and tried to ensure that I am fully aware of what it wants for the town and that I am prepared to help it in every way I can. If I have managed to do that, I have managed to do something for my constituents.
  The record of what has happened is awesome. It is not good enough to say that we will not look at the map again. At this time, unemployment in the Corby assisted area is already several percentage points lower than in any other assisted area in the country. I make a prediction to the House that it will get still lower. In the 1990s, Corby may still be an assisted area and still be able to take advantage of high unemployment when, in reality, it has low unemployment and other areas with high unemployment may have no Government assistance other than the 50 per cent. grant for firms with under 25 employees.
  I welcome that grant and I am not criticising it. I am merely saying — I make this point about no other constituency because other hon. Members can make their own points—that people will point to the anomaly of

  79
  special sponsorship and special incentives available to a place which on any criteria does not need them. The people of Corby agree that. I am not making any point against my constituents. They are grateful for what they have received and they understand that it is no longer necessary for them to receive it. So great and powerful is the economic locomotive that is now gathering speed that it is unnecessary to have Government assistance.
  The problem we will face in the future is not that of unemployment but of not having enough people for all the jobs. There is a danger that the problems of surplus jobs will be aggravated by policies that encourage people to set up businesses but then do too little to encourage people to move into the area to meet the jobs on offer. We are not facing that crisis yet, but we will before the end of this Parliament: of that there is no doubt. In 1983, 7,000 people were out of work and claiming benefit. The figure is now down to 2,600 and in all likelihood it will be comfortably under 2,000 by the end of this calendar year.
  But of course there are problems for those who remain out of work, and regional policy must concentrate funds on those who have been unemployed for a year or more. A significant number of my constituents have been unemployed for a long time. Indeed, they were unemployed even when the steelworks was going like the clappers, and getting them into work so that they can support their families and have all the things that we naturally wish for them will require considerable investment in training.
  I welcome the passages on training in the White Paper, but I add a word of caution to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. They must beware reinventing the wheel with all their schemes. Many schemes which have already been working on the side could be developed into fine instruments to helping training and development. The actions of the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Manpower Services Commission too frequently give those involved on the ground the impression that the wheel is in danger of being reinvented several times each day. It will be necessary to inject some regional and local experience into the natural enthusiasm of central Government policy-makers and planners.
  Since 1981, the assisted area of Corby has received £58 million in regional development grant, and we are grateful for all of it. But it is not enough to say that all the £58 million has helped. Much of it has helped, but if one analyses, as I have, the companies which have received more than £5,000 in regional development grant and selective financial assistance since 1980 — the Department's monthly gazette gives all the figures—one sees some interesting facts.
  The three biggest recipients of regional development grant and selective financial assistance have been, first, a nationalised industry — British Steel — which was responsible for the job losses in the first place. That delicate irony never ceases to amuse me. Secondly, two international companies with British headquarters but with enormous assets abroad, neither of which is believed to be short of money, have set up plants in Corby which the taxpayer has subsidised heavily. They are magnificent plants. They are welcome, but they are employing only a few people. It is not enough to ladle out money for capital
  80
  projects which firms could afford in any event. We must keep our feet on the ground and realise that our policies should be aimed at areas of high unemployment.
  Fortunately, in 1984, the Government made a change. If one analyses grants that are made now, one notices the sea change. At first, grants were given to firms of high international profile, such as British Steel, and to other less high-profile companies. The burial ground for the latter is a devastating spectacle. But since 1984 there has been hardly a single failure, because the grant has been so tightly tied to the creation of jobs.
  No company which comes to Corby now does so because of a grant. That used not to be the case. They come to Corby because it is a good location with an improving reputation and improving local infrastructure and because some—but by no means all—of their bills are paid for them. That is as it should be, but when the Government hand out too much money to companies, failures will occur because companies will then come for the money rather than to improve their business. If they come when it makes sense in their business to do so, that will improve the regions. But even that must be qualified by several factors.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) made a powerful point about the headquarters of Britoil, and I was with him every inch of the way when he talked about that. The point was also made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). What has gone so badly wrong during the past generation—not only in the past few years, but since the second world war — is the decline of regional influence. Two aspects of our national policy, which must be corrected, have caused the decline more than anything else. The first was nationalisation. It centralised in London and destroyed many regional companies. It was disastrous in terms of decision-making for the regions. Nothing could cause more damage than more nationalisation. It would undermine completely any effective regional decision-making because all the decisions would be made in London, usually by Ministers.
  The second factor is capital taxation. There is no escaping the damage caused to regional infrastructure by our system of capital taxation, which means that family companies are one-generation companies. They can fund the inheritance tax, or capital transfer tax as it used to be called, only out of the active assets of the company, and they automatically become extremely vulnerable to takeovers. They have been taken over one after another. Pilkington is the only major company with its headquarters in the north-west, because the structure of capital taxation has destroyed all the others.
  If there is one point which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is that, if the Government are serious about a regional policy, the sooner that businesses are relieved of having to pay inheritance tax the better.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has often said, rightly, that not only does capital taxation destroy family businesses but, worse, the companies which take them over are subsidised by rollover relief from corporation tax. Those companies are destroyed by capital taxation and the people who take them over are subsidised. Unless those two factors are faced—they are central to regional policy—all the other matters will be at the margin.
  The Bill must be put in context. The system of regional development grant improved after the changes made in

  81
  1984, which I warmly supported. I share the scepticism and anxiety expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) about the future. Although selective regional assistance is a valuable—weapon it was certainly a valuable tool used by the Government in transforming my constituency—unless it absorbs all the money that is being spent on regional development grant, there will be difficulties in the 1990s.
  Opposition Members like to play a game about what the sums will be in the 1990s. They know perfectly well that neither this Government nor any Labour Government have been able to project that far ahead. In the next public expenditure review and thereafter, my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will have to press to ensure that the level of assistance available to the regions remains buoyant because there is a vital gearing and pump-priming role that only the Government can play. If we run away from that, we will make it more difficult for the regions to develop again the kind of prosperity that so many regions had in the past.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Stan Crowther: I must tell the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that the steel industry has got rid of far more jobs in my constituency than in his. The difference is that the jobs in my constituency did not all go at the same time. They went over a longer period, so those job losses did not cause the Government to leap into action. In that respect, Corby was far more fortunate than Rotherham.
  In opposing the Bill, I do not want to give the impression that I believe that everything is fine so long as we keep regional development grants. It is not. The blunt truth is that no Government have yet managed to produce a really effective regional policy. I said in my maiden speech nearly 12 years ago—I have said this on many occasions both before and since—that the great need is for massive public sector intervention involving many Government Departments, local authorities and the establishment of regional enterprise boards and development agencies with adequate resources to ensure that they can initiate investment on a very large scale. The important point is the initiative role. While the Government and their agencies have no more than an essentially reactive role, we shall never solve the problem.
  I appreciate that this is anathema to Conservative Members, but free market forces have created the problem. It is daft to imagine that free market forces can solve the problem, however much we may tinker around the edge with financial incentives, here and there. That will not produce a solution. The carrots have not worked, and no one wants to use the stick. The Government are offering a change of carrot today, but I suggest that we really need a change of donkey.
  The position, after many years of so-called regional policy, is that the regional imbalance that the policy was supposed to correct is worse today than it has ever been in terms of employment opportunities, income levels and—very importantly—investment in the modern sunrise industries to which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry referred. The gap is wider than ever after all these years of what have been called regional policies, but were not.
  82
  There is a fundamental difference between this Government and their predecessors. In the 1960s and 1970s Labour and Conservative Governments at least made a genuine effort to reduce the differences in the levels of economic activity between different pans of the country. I accept entirely that without those efforts the position would have been much worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred to the 600,000 jobs created or saved as a result of regional development grants. That is a very important fact for us to bear in mind.
  However, those 600,000 jobs are nothing like enough to close the gap to remove the enormous imbalance. For the first time, the Government are moving in precisely the opposite direction through their economic, energy, transport and local government finance policies. They are widening the gap year by year. I can only assume that they are doing that deliberately. They could change their policies if they wanted to do so. Even in the limited area covered by the Bill, including the regional development grant and regional selective assistance, the amount of cash available has been reduced dramatically, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) said.
  In my region of Yorkshire and Humberside, in the last financial year, the total amount of cash available for grant purposes was £37.1 million, compared with £54.2 million only five years before. Allowing for inflation, that means that the figure has been cut by at least 50 per cent. Yet that region has enormous potential for development. The region is working hard through the local authorities and regional development association to help itself and it has had some notable successes. It deserves more recognition from the Government, and it needs more Government support. We are not a begging bowl region. W e are not asking for handouts. We are asking for investment, and the Government are failing to provide it.
  Ministers tell us ad nauseam how marvellously strong the economy is now. We hear that every week from the Government Front Bench. Only today the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster used the phrase "the rising prosperity of the nation". Perhaps some people are doing very well. Indeed, when I see fairly ordinary houses offered for sale in London and parts of the south-east at £500,000 or one-bedroom flats at £120,000, I am bound to conclude that somebody must be doing quite nicely, thank you. If all this prosperity exists and if the economy is so strong, why have the benefits not filtered through to south Yorkshire, west Yorkshire and other areas that have suffered such pain and anguish as a result of the collapse of our manufacturing industries under this Government's reign?
  Ministers should remember that they have a responsibility for the whole country, not just for those areas that loyally return Conservative Members after every general election to ensure that some people can continue to pay £500,000 for a house while others cannot get one at all. My constituents are not asking for the moon. They are asking for the right to earn an honest living. They are asking for the opportunity to do a proper job. All that the young people want is real jobs with a future. They do not want a cosmetic scheme that keeps them involved in some activity for two years and then throws them on to the dole. Like many of the Yorkshire constituencies, represented by my hon. Friends, mine contains areas in

  83
  which more than half the people available for work are registered unemployed or actually unemployed but not included in the Government's highly manipulated figures.
  The Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area has an official unemployment level of 19 per cent. That is a reduction over the past three years from 21 per cent. However, 19 per cent. is an appalling figure. Will the Bill do anything about that? Will it provide jobs for those people who desperately need them? I cannot see how it will do that. In fact, the position is about to get worse. More jobs will be lost in the steel and coal industries. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) a long-established glass works is about to close, with the loss of more than 400 jobs.
  Of course there have been good developments. A number of new, small, well-run businesses have been established, and we welcome them. They have had a lot of assistance from the local authority and the Rotherham enterprise agency. They have also been assisted greatly by the availability of regional development grants. Those grants have played a crucial part in creating what is admittedly a comparatively small number of new jobs, but at least they are new jobs. The Minister assures us that selective assistance will increase to make up for the loss of RDG, but it still means that a company which is thinking about setting up in an assisted area no longer has any assurance that Government aid will be available.
  Mr. Terry Patchett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill simply shows that, because the Government could not win those regions at the ballot box, they are abandoning them? They could not win the metropolitan counties, so they destroyed them. They cannot win at the ballot box regions which desperately need this grant, and the Bill handicaps any future prospects for those areas.
  Mr. Crowther: There is a great deal of merit in what my hon. Friend says. It is no accident that most of the areas which so desperately need public sector backing to bring them up to something approaching the level of prosperity of the south-east, send Labour Members to this House. I do not think that the Government could care less, so long as they are able to keep a large majority without the aid of many people in Scotland and the north of England.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Any reduction of grant to the areas represented by myself and my hon. Friend will be measured by the number of jobs available to 16-year-old school leavers. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that 80 per cent. of those who left school in July in our areas have been unable to find work.
  Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend is right. I referred to that point a few minutes ago. That will be the crucial test. The Bill will do nothing for those thousands of young people who desperately need proper jobs with a future.
  I mentioned the difficulty that will be created by uncertainty about the availability of grants. It has always been in the power of Governments to change the criteria. All Governments have changed their criteria from time to time. When a company was able to meet the criteria, it was guaranteed that the cash would be there. That will no longer be the case. The Government are moving the goal posts and saying, "Even if you get the ball between the
  84
  posts, there is no guarantee that you have scored a goal." That will cause immense problems. It should be borne in mind that automatic grants will continue in assisted areas of France, West Germany and the Netherlands, which compete with us for inward investment from Japan, the United States and elsewhere.
  Perhaps the Government have not attended to that point properly. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry told us that, in such cases, regional development grants are not important in making decisions. I do not believe that. The evidence points the other way. Regional development organisations, such as the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association which I helped to set up almost 16 years ago, will now face even more difficult circumstances in competing with people from other parts of the Common Market. They are already operating in a highly competitive international environment. Ministers do not appreciate how competitive it is. The Bill will certainly not help those people. It will make life far more difficult for them. It will do nothing to help those areas which are short of jobs and which need new industry. It is a thoroughly bad Bill and it should be defeated.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: There is a marked contrast between the constituency of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and my constituency of Beaconsfield. Given that there is 19 per cent. unemployment in the Rotherham travel-to-work area and that unemployment in my constituency is so low that it does not pose a real problem—we have a shortage of labour — what is the most effective way of tackling this problem? What can the Government most effectively do to help?
  Mr. Patchett: Give us jobs.
  Mr. Smith: In response to the hon. Gentleman, the Government cannot create jobs.
  Ms. Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention. The Government cannot create jobs, but they can create the conditions in which jobs are more likely to be created.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am grateful to you for giving way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not giving way.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Government create many jobs by the direct aid that they give in such matters as defence contracts and research and development grants. That is one of the main ways in which the Government have been aiding the boom in the south-east and making sure that the north does not get its requisite amount of money. For example, in the past two years, 50 per cent. of Government money for research and development went to the southeast and 3 per cent. to the north.
  Mr. Smith: Of course, that may be the case, but the Government can spend money on defence only if the wealth is created in the first place and taxes are raised to pay for the defence contracts. We are discussing the wealth creation process, how we can create the wealth which will create the jobs that we all want.
  I have listened to today's speeches with great care. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) appeared to be

  85
  saying that the acid test is the quantity of spending, not the quality. The success of Government policies should be assessed not by how much money is spent, but by the success of the policy in practice, and whether it proves cost-effective.
  The extracts quoted by the hon. Member for Sedgefield from three Department of Trade and Industry reports, particularly the second extract, could equally well have been used to support the policy promoted by the Government in the Bill. If I remember the figures correctly, one of the reports stated that 25 per cent. of the investment projects under RDG would have gone ahead anyway. That is precisely the point—a large proportion would have gone ahead anyway. Selective assistance will ensure that only those projects which would not otherwise have gone ahead will go ahead with the support of taxpayers' money.
  In an editorial of 13 January, The Independent stated:
  "The existing system of automatic regional aid has not been notably successful: it has been exploited by large companies to subsidise investment that would anyway have taken place."
  Those are not my words. They are the words of The Independent, a newspaper not always noted for supporting Government policies.
  I welcome this Bill as part of a package of measures which ensures that regional assistance will, in future, be selective and directed to those projects in most need of it. Applicants for regional selective assistance will have to show that assistance from public funds is needed for a project to go ahead. In other words, the taxpayer will not in future be supporting investment projects that would have gone ahead anyway, without his support.
  The National Audit Office has recently conducted a review of regional support. it is unfortunate that that report is not yet available to inform our debate, but I should be surprised if the Comptroller and Auditor General does not question the cost-effectiveness of automatic RDG.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the academic report carried out by the Department of Trade acknowledged that many of those projects would not have gone ahead in assisted areas without the grant? How does he respond to that?
  Mr. Smith: That may be the case, but my understanding of regional selective assistance is that, if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department of Trade and Industry that, if assistance is not given, the project will not go to the regions, regional selective assistance will be available. I may have got that wrong, but it is my understanding that, in those cases, assistance will still be available. That is the point of regional policy—to direct investment to the regions.
  Mr. Hind: Is there not some misunderstanding on the part of many Opposition Members about the nature of regional selective assistance? My local council and I are helping to obtain a major investment in our area, which is being considered by the Department. About £1.75 million of that investment is RDG, and £14 million of it is regional assistance. Surely there is a clear message to Opposition Members that the majority of effective aid that is required for major development areas must be regional selective assistance.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend obviously has more experience of such matters than I have. He is right. We
  86
  must consider the most cost-effective way of combating unemployment in the regions. As I said, there is virtually no unemployment in my constituency today. That is true of many constituencies in the south-east. The latest quarterly survey from the East and South Buckinghamshire chamber of commerce tells me that home and export orders are moving ahead well, businesses are profitable and expanding, and cash flow is positive. The main restraint on growth is a shortage of labour.
  To a limited extent in the south-east, it is possible to employ people from areas of high unemployment. The jobcentre network advertises vacancies nationally. The South Buckinghamshire district council can employ a lorry driver from the north because it can offer him a house to go with the job. Some employers offer mortgage subsidies to people from the north whom they particularly want, to combat our high house prices. But, for most people, the lack of reasonably priced housing is an insuperable obstacle. Furthermore, I am constantly pressed by my constituents to support — indeed I do support it — a restrictive planning policy that will preserve the green belt and ensure that we do not become overdeveloped.
  We will not solve the problem of regional unemployment in the north by recruiting in the south. Instead, we must make it more attractive for employers who are restrained by a shortage of labour to relocate in their entirety in the regions or invest in new capacity in the regions. We must create a new business climate in inner cities—a climate that is friendly rather than hostile to wealth producers; a climate of incentives rather than disincentives.
  We need systematically to look at each of the costs of running a business, over which costs the Government have some influency or control. The two most obvious costs are rates and national insurance contributions. The uniform business rate that is proposed in the Local Government Finance Bill 1987 will have precisely the desired effect of substantially reducing business rates in inner-city areas of the north and increasing them by a corresponding proportion in many areas of the south.
  Wage rates are already lower in the north than in the south, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish carefully to examine the proposals that have been made for lower national insurance contribution rates in assisted areas.
  There are also the costs that businesses should carry if they are satisfactorily to grow and develop. But such costs may be perceived by small and medium-sized firms as too expensive and just not worth it. Such costs are ro be subsidised by the enterprise initiative. They include the costs associated with achieving better design, improved marketing, superior quality of management and high-tech manufacturing systems. It is right that the enterprise initiative should discriminate in favour of assisted areas and urban programme areas by offering higher rates of grant to businesses that take consultancy advice.
  Because the general level of economic activity is lower in the regions than in the south, starting a business from scratch is less easy. Yet, given the traditional dependence of some regions on a few large businesses, the growth of the independent business sector is urgently required. Only then is economic growth more likely to become naturally self-generating. For that reason, the White Paper proposal to offer grants to firms in development areas that employ fewer than 25 employees is especially welcome.

  87
  Investment grants for investments and fixed assets of £100,000 or less and innovation grants for investments in product and process developments of £50,000 or less will be a major incentive for small firms. All such measures will be far more cost-effective in stimulating enterprise in the regions than the scatter-gun approach of regional development grants.
  Some have said that at least RDG involved an element of certainty and that it is unfair to impose on officials such a subjective decision-making process as is involved in administering selective regional assistance. The RSA scheme is not new. Objective published criteria are already built into it to determine whether public funds are needed for a project to go ahead. Such decisions need to be taken at a local level and with some private sector input. That is precisely what happens at present through the Industrial Development Advisory Board. The Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency and the expanded network of local DTI offices in England will be best placed to do that work against the background of nationally set criteria.
  Regional selective assistance will be particularly effective in ensuring that the United Kingdom continues to attract mobile inward investment and to qualify for help from the European regional fund. There is no reason to mourn the loss of RGD. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: After reading the White Paper, hearing Lord Young in another place, hearing the Minister and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), Opposition Members must make anew the case in principle for regional policy. Put in its simplest terms, the case for regional policy is that unbridled market forces accentuate rather than decrease disparities and differences between regions, particularly between north and south.
  According to classical theorists, the existence of unemployment in depressed regions is meant to force down wages. I have often heard the Minister saying things that demonstrate that he would support that idea. Apparently, that will induce employers to hire more workers. The theory is that at the same time as new factories open in depressed regions to take advantage of lower labour costs, workers in the north will migrate south in pursuit of higher wages. In that way, so it is argued, disparities will be ironed out. That is the classical theory, but it is not in fact what happens. Reality does not correspond to the simple market model.
  There is a lack of adequate housing in the south—we heard about that from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield —and a lack of so-called job opportunities. I am glad that wages are kept relatively high in the regions by national and multi-plant bargaining. Theoretical economists forget that a fall in wages will mean reduced regional purchasing power, which will mean reduced income and, therefore, reduced employment in depressed regions.
  There is the further point that reliance on labour-intensive industry alone, as in the classical model, does not produce the balanced growth that is required in the regions. Of course, more fundamentally, a simple market model ignores some of the underlying causes of regional differences and disparities, such as the crucial geographical
  88
  distance between the centre and the periphery, which is the key to regional imbalance, the concentration of headquarters and research and development in the south, and the different structures of regional economies and markets. Most important of all, it ignores social needs and overall national economic requirements.
  We simply cannot afford to consign any region to the scrapheap. Because Governments, Conservative and Labour, have recognised that simple point, they have supported regional policy. Indeed, a Conservative Government first introduced regional assistance—albeit on a limited basis — in 1934. In the early 1960s, Macmillan's Government first recognised the north-south divide in its modern form. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the architect of the Industry Act 1972, first introduced regional development grants in their present form.
  Hon. Members on the Government Benches forget or ignore what my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has told them: that regional policies have been effective. Department of Trade and Industry economists have shown that, because of regional policies, there had been an increase of between 350,000 and 630,000 jobs by 1981 in the assisted areas, a large number of which were created by regional development grant. Without a regional policy, therefore, the situation would have been far worse than it is.
  The truth is, however, that the case for regional policy is even stronger in present conditions—hon. Members representing the north know that the north-south divide exists—because there is no better time to have a strong regional policy than when the economy is expanding. It is precisely when the national economy is expanding generally that firms are more easily encouraged to expand in assisted areas; and, if we want the national economy to go on expanding, we have to prevent the south from overheating. Regional policy which seeks to spread expansion will help not only the north but the south, and so keep national expansion going generally. So it is a very good time to have a strong and active regional policy, but a very bad time to get rid of automatic grants.
  The Department of Trade and Industry report has shown that RDG saves and creates jobs, yet in this Bill we are moving right away from automatic grants, and neither we nor the Minister can be certain that selective grants will be as effective in saving or creating jobs, particularly when other countries are continuing to use automatic grant.
  We have heard about the problems for larger firms. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), a former Secretary of State, made the point very effectively when he intervened with a question on the statement two weeks ago. He said:
  "there were real advantages in a system where a business man was aware that, if he satisfied a published criterion he was entitled as of right to regional assistance instead of having to go cap in hand to civil servants". —[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 151.]
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman might also have pointed out that in that case the business man would not have had to pay tax on automatic grants.
  Today, only one third of the money is under the direct control of civil servants; in future, all the power will be in their hands. I do not criticise civil servants. On the whole, I believe that they do a good job, particularly in the northern region. But this Bill represents a major increase in Civil Service power, with all the temptations and

  89
  possible abuse that that can bring, quite apart from the fact that civil servants will now be able to delay, turn away and squeeze the overall budget as Ministers in Whitehall dictate.
  What about small firms? We have heard from the Minister that his scheme will prevent the bad impact of removing automatic grants, but I know from my own constituency experience that small firms do not have the know-how, the time or the back-up to apply for selective grants. The scheme that the Minister is introducing will not be automatic, and he has not said that it would be, despite questions from hon. Members. In any case, it applies only to firms employing 25 people, or fewer, and not to firms which employ 26 or 30, 50 or 60. The fact is that small firms will be hit by the move to selective grants.
  It is true that in the White Paper the Minister makes much of the regional aspect of the business development initiative and the fact that there will be help for small firms in the regions, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has shown that much of that assistance will be spent in the south. In any case, I am extremely sceptical about the utility of such large resources going to such a scheme. I can see that it is very nice for consultants. Money will pour into the coffers of consultancy firms, and it will pour in irrespective of any ultimate utility or positive achievement. It is not payment by results at all, and it is certainly a bonanza for consultants. I cannot believe that such an expensive scheme will show a good return to the regions.
  I am deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to continue to spend money and resources in the same way as now. The Government invite us to look into the crystal ball, but, to quote a famous Socialist, one does not need to look into the crystal ball when one can read the book. The book says that the Government cut regional aid by £300 million between 1979 and 1986, that they will cut regional aid by £300 million this year and that regional expenditure in the north is only 43 per cent. of what it was in 1978–79. With that kind of record, we are bound to be very sceptical about promises for the future, particularly when the Minister actually showed during his speech—and when he refused to answer the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield—that he has tried to fudge the White Paper figures.
  The tragedy is that the present economic expansion could provide an excellent background for an effective, sustained and adequately financed regional policy which would be a real partnership between central Government, local government and industry, a partnership to revitalise the regions.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have signally failed to recognise and support a most effective instrument of regional intervention, such as the regional enterprise boards? In my own area, the West Midlands enterprise board has, over the past five years, helped in the creation of 3,500 jobs, invested £40 million and assisted 41 companies in the process.
  Mr. Radice: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We in the northern region would like to have such a development agency. We have put the case for one to the Government on many occasions, but they have failed to accept it. My hon. Friend has drawn a useful analogy.
  Instead of supporting this kind of partnership, instead of expanding regional policy—as they could do with all
  90
  the money they have — the Government — partly, I suspect, to satisfy Lord Young's vanity—are once again changing regional policies. They are making changes which seem designed not to reduce regional disparities but to decrease the amount of money spent on the regions. This is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is inadequate and irrelevant to the real needs of the regions.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. James Cran: I want to make my contribution to the debate this evening against the background that I too am a Member from the north and not from the south and that, before coming to the House, my experience as northern director and also west midlands director of the Confederation of British Industry has given me a unique insight into how regional policy in this country has worked—or, as I contend, has not worked at all.
  I listened very carefully indeed to the extremely eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). What he was really telling hon. Members and anyone who reads the record was that regional policy in its classical form would solve the problems of this country. I heard it also from the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who said that all we need is more resources. What I shall say has already been said but I do not mind mentioning it again because I think that every hon. Member should continue to look at the facts of regional policy. I took the trouble to look at those facts and to find out that, over the past 20 years, between 1964 and 1984, successive Governments of all complexions have spent about £20,000 million on regional policy. So 1 find it extraordinary that we have had the proposition continually put to us from Opposition Members that resources have not been put into regional policy. 'They have been put in with a vengeance.
  The record, shows—there is variation in the statistics —that about 500,000 jobs have been created. I would be the first to say that those jobs were valuable, but they were not enough for the money that we put into regional policy in the past 20 years. At a cost of £35,000 or £45,00() per job, it has been a dramatic failure, of the classical form, in regional policy. That does not mean that I do not want a regional policy. The argument between myself and Opposition Members is what sort of regional policy we should have.
  With regard to my experience in the north of England, where I spent five years, what did regional policy do of which any of us could be proud? Some 80 per cent. — plus of people employed by companies in the north of England were employed by companies whose headquarters were not in the northern region. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made great play of the fact that there are insufficient company headquarters in the regions. However, he did not tell us how to attract them. Regional development grants will not attract them to the north of England or anywhere else; they will lead to a dependent economy. I found a low level of management in the region, with no autonomy to take decisions for the good of the companies or the region.
  Ms. Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cran: The hon. Lady has had ample time to make her case. She should listen for a change.
  I also found in the northern region—it is the same in the other regions that Labour Members have been talking

  91
  about — that there was little or no research and development capability. One of the prerequisites of any successful regional policy is such a capability. I know that you do not like to look at unpalatable facts—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I do not mind looking at unpalatable facts.
  Mr. Cran: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The past 50 years of regional policy, although it has been well-meaning, has been relatively ineffective. All it has produced — if anyone can produce facts to the contrary I would love to see them—are fragile, lopsided, recession-prone, drip-fed regional economies. That is what 50 years of resources being pumped into the regions, in the amounts of which Labour Members approve, has done.
  Not only has regional policy been ineffective; it has been positively destructive. During my experience in the north I found that it encouraged the big company job mentality—one gets a job down the end of the road, where everybody has done so for the past 50 years. That is destructive; understandable, but destructive.
  At one time, the west midlands — this is a phenomenon of which we are all aware—was one of the most prosperous regions of the United Kingdom. It had no assisted area status. Then it fell on hard times. Why? That is the salient question. There were many reasons. One was that given by the hon. Member for Gordon —interventionism of the Government that we have experienced in regional policy for some time.
  There were industrial development certificates. The policy behind them was that the Government operating from the south-east had to redistribute industry throughout the United Kingdom. My goodness, they did that with a vengeance. The automotive industry left the west midlands. Ford went to Halewood, Standard Triumph went to Speke, Rover went to Cardiff and Rootes went to Linwood. Need we go further than to remember what happened to Rootes? The natural home for that investment would have been the west midlands. Unfortunately, what interceded was regional policy of the classical kind that Labour Members want to perpetuate.
  Early-day motion 569 says that the House
  "views with alarm the Government's plans for further cuts in support for regional industry under the guise of selectivity."
  I was present when regional policy for the west midlands was being discussed. At that time it did not want a regional policy because it knew how destructive it could be. It was pulled kicking and screaming into regional policy, and I suspect that it was correct in not wanting that regional policy.
  Regional policy has clearly not succeeded according to the standards that I, not Labour Members, set. All it has done is provide a temporary jobs lifeboat. If the standards of Labour Members are as low as that, it is no wonder that it has taken us so long to re-evaluate regional policy. It has attracted only closure-prone production units to the regions of the United Kingdom. I hope that in the next 50 years we shall not experience the sort of regional policy that we have had for the past 50 years.
  The ultimate judgment of regional policy is that when I have looked at the assisted area status map of 1934—it would be interesting to know how many people have done this—and compared some of the areas on it with those on the present map, I found that a number of areas
  92
  on the first map are present on the second. We have been unable to remove some of those assisted areas from the map, which is definitive proof that something has been dramatically wrong with the policy.
  I agree with those who have said that regional development grants are wasteful. I shall not desist from reminding the House that we gave £100 million for a capital-intensive project at Sullom Voe, which, at the end of the day, produced very few jobs. I gathered from what was said by Opposition Members that regional policy should be judged by the number of jobs that it produces. That investment produced very little. Many of us believe that that investment would have gone to Sullom Voe anyway. There was probably nowhere else for it to go, so we wasted £100 million that could have been better spent in other regions of the United Kingdom. The tragedy of the matter is that that is not only one such example. There are many.
  There are further weaknesses in regional development grants policy. Multinational companies, which, as we all know, are very sophisticated outfits, are extremely adept at using the system of regional development grants to set one country or one region against another. That is not how we should run regional policy. Regional development grants, or regional policy as we know it, have not taken into account how industrialists operate and think. I think every hon. Member will agree that if someone throws money at us, we catch it. It is human nature, and that is what has been happening with regional development grants, for as long as I can remember or for as long as anybody with any knowledge of this system can remember.
  As for the PIEDA report sponsored by the DTI in 1987, I must confess that I distrust some of the answers because they are enormously at variance with much that I have heard from the industrial community in the past 10 or 15 years. Before Labour Members smile too much about that, I remind them that that report told me that 71 per cent. of companies said that location was not affected by regional development grants and that is why I am doing as much as I can to support what I think is an enlightened and far-seeing Bill. We need other ways to strengthen the regions of the United Kingdom. I am clear about that. The Government will retain my support only as long as they say that that is their aim. I have heard nothing from the Government to say that that is not their aim. That is why I support the Bill. I only mourn the length of time it has taken for us to get here to talk about it. I strongly support the Bill.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I was interested in the speeches made by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). I recognise that they may be suffering from an incurable disease of this House—"out-of-officeitis"—but I find that when people of experience have something to say that arises out of their experience in office, once their personal ambitions have gone one sometimes gets the truth. I hope that the hon. Member for Pudsey was convinced by some of my visits to him when he was a Minister, because much of what he had to say covered points which I want to make this evening.
  In the earlier speeches in the debate made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), figures were'

  93
  thrown across the Floor of the House in disagreement. However, I was certain of one thing—none of them would be coming to my area. 1 think that everyone will agree that regional policy does not mean a thing if it is not effective. If regional policy, White Papers or Bills do not take into consideration parts of the country and areas of the regions with severe unemployment problems, then the Government that have produced the White Paper or the Bill are not facing up to their responsibility.
  Paragraph 7.1 of the White Paper called "DTI — a department for Enterprise" says:
  "Regional and inner city problems have often been caused by inflexibility in responding to the decline of traditional industries, the low rate of creation of new firms and inadequate levels of innovation."
  Paragraph 7.11 says:
  "Regional policy remains based on the existing regional map. The Government have concluded that it is too soon to re-open the definition of the boundaries of the Assisted Areas which were last fixed at the end of 1984. The present intention is that the existing map should remain in place for the lifetime of this Parliament."
  Areas with coal mining communities, like my own, have been virtually wiped out since 1984, and are suffering severe economic and unemployment problems.
  Before 1981, the Castleford travel-to-work area enjoyed assisted area status. I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asking
  "if he will list the total value of regional assistance given to companies in the Castleford travel-to-work-area for each year since 1979."—[Official Report, 9 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 672.]
  I received a reply showing that in 1979, the area received £275,000. The following year, 1980, that grant increased to £1,173,000. Since that time — bearing in mind the period of the miners' strike in 1984 — assistance has continued to decline. In 1987, the area received not one penny of assistance in any form.
  In that period, the area also lost its two staple industries of coal and glass. All hon. Members are aware that the coal industry was run down rapidly, without any effort to help and without any planning to put alternative employment in its place. In that period, my constituency —not throughout the whole of the Castleford travel-to-work-area—lost five pits. That meant, with the spin-off jobs, that something like 10,000 jobs were lost over a short period. We have made persistent representations through correspondence, visits to Ministers and visits by Ministers, in an attempt to persuade them to rezone the Castleford travel-to-work area and make it an assisted area. The Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill makes it clear that the Government have no intention of doing that.
  Concern has been expressed by the hon. Members for Pudsey and for Corby (Mr. Powell) who, in giving examples from their constituencies, have pointed out that constituencies with a low unemployment rate continue, under the Bill, to enjoy assisted area status and the grants that go with it. I hope and expect that the Minister will tonight be able to explain whether there is some assistance within the Bill from which areas like mine could benefit. If not, why not? I hope that he will be able to tell areas like mine why the Government feel that no assistance is required. I hope that he will be able to tell us that they will get special assistance, but I cannot find any in the Bill. I certainly cannot find any in the Bill. At present, unemployment in my constituency costs £5 million a year. Would not that sum be better spent on designating
  94
  Pontefract and Castleford an assisted area, to facilitate investment in the area and create jobs? Without that, we are a doomed area.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) referred to one of his local papers —the Cleveland Express, I think it was.
  Mr. Devlin: I think that it was that famous Left-wing magazine, the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Whatever it was, it pointed to the success of the area and referred to a bright future. My own local paper, the Pontefract and Castleford Express, which is certainly not political, repeatedly points to the problems of the area. Only a fortnight ago it carried a major front-page story drawing attention to the great problems. It is not only that the area lacks jobs. It has become completely rundown, partly because of the Coal Board's callous decision to sell off all its houses in the area, thus creating problems for men who have worked in the coal mining industry all their lives and for their families. The paper published photographs which I have sent to different Departments. I hope that they will influence someone.
  When the Select Committee on Energy conducted its investigation of the coal industry in 1986–87, Ian MacGregor, the then chairman of the Coal Board, and the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then the Secretary of State for Energy, informed that Committee that the problems of coal-mining communities savaged by the rapid rundown of the pits were the responsibility not of the Department of Energy, but of the Departments of Employment and of Trade and Industry, which had a responsibility to provide alternative employment. The Select Committee accepted that.
  Whatever the inadequacies of the Bill, I hope that it will make special assistance available to areas that need it. I only hope that the Government will be able to dispel the suspicions of those in the mining community who feel that this Government have had it in for the miners and want to continue to crush them. They fear that because the Government have nothing to gain by offering assistance to areas where the mining communities are loyal to Labour and return Labour Members of Parliament, they will let them stop there and rot. I hope that the Government will dispel those fears.
  8.34 pm.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Let me begin by stating the general view held by Conservative Members: we cannot and should not force companies and enterprise to move to locations where they do not want to be. The north-east region, from which I come, has to get up on its own two feet and create its own economic infrastructure, which cannot be grafted on by national Government. We have only to look back at the notable failure of the car plant at Linwood and the aluminium smelter at Invergordon to see that an unnatural market position will collapse if the subsidies are not there to support it.
  In most cases, large-scale industry in the region is more widely based internationally and makes investment decisions according to other criteria. Undoubtedly, ICI would have made the investment that it has made over the past few years regardless of regional development grant. As hon. Members have told the House before, capital investment has cost jobs. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) who is no longer here the

  95
  mobile investment to which he referred could easily be covered by regional selective assistance. Indeed, I am sure that it will be.
  Regional aid should seek to encourage ventures to go ahead that would not otherwise do so. It should fill the gap in cases where the risk is just too wide for banks to make loans but narrow enough to represent a prudent investment. We should look to smaller and medium-sized businesses to increase their output and market.
  For far too long, the north-east has relied on the industrial giants to provide employment. Since the 1930s, Socialist persuasion has turned many eyes in the region towards the Government, to create employment. It cannot be stressed too often in the north-east that it is individuals and companies who create jobs. The Government are not the universal provider, and nor should they be.
  Enterprise always played a key role in north-eastern culture before the Jarrow March. Middlesbrough was built to accommodate the new industrial classes of the late 19th century, using what was then the very latest technology. Dorman Long, now British Steel, Ashmore, now Davey McKee and Cleveland Bridge—all successful companies —were founded and built up by enterprising individuals who banded together without any regional aid. Some, like Pickerings Lifts in Stockton, are family firms, handed down from enterprising father to entrepreneurial son.
  Such enterprise remains and this initiative will bring it back to the surface. Not long ago, I visited St. Peter's enterprise centre in my constituency. The centre runs a youth training scheme, and the occasion of my visit was its open day. Some of the 17-year-olds told me that they would like to open a shop or a small business dealing in aquarium accessories. Another started in printed T-shirts and is now in the rag trade. Ten years ago on Teesside, people of that age were expected to go into ICI, British Steel or British Shipbuilders. Their parents would have discouraged such enterprise in favour of a solid, dependable apprenticeship in a declining industry. There are now 10,000 self-employed people on Teesside and 6,000 new businesses are set up each year in the north-east.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite right in saying that talent, initiative and ability are present in the region. This debate is about a measure designed to foster that talent, initiative and ability, and I believe that the targeting proposal will achieve that.
  The enterprise in the north-east is proving an attractive feature to outside and inward investors alike. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey talked of the need to attract people to the region from outside. He called them the big mobiles. He needs to consider not just regional aid but a range of relevant aspects, such as the skilled work force, the commendability of the location and recommendations from other companies, as well as arrangements for grant.
  Nissan is extremely happy with its north-eastern work force. It is now building better Bluebirds in the north-east than in Japan and recently announced an expansion that will bring 1,400 new jobs to the north-east. Mitsumi has confirmed that it is to set up a new electronics manufacturing operation in south Tyneside, expected to employ 400 staff by its third year.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No, I am not giving way.
  Tallent Engineering at Darlington has set rolling a new assembly line, installed especially to make parts for Nissan cars. Elta Plastics in my constituency is now making parts, not only for Nissan, but for Ford and Hitachi. All those developments are the result of recommendations made by word of mouth. NEI Power Projects of Gateshead has won a £2 million project to supply lighting and electrical equipment to the port of Rangoon in Burma.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: Davy McKee has letters of intent to build two steel-making plants in South Korea. Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) said, Davy McKee is one of the more interesting firms as it carries out a great deal of research and development in the north-east.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Devlin: Tetleys at Eaglescliffe is now the largest teabag manufacturer in the world. AL-KO of Consett, County Durham—
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Devlin: I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear about the north-east's successes because they are too used to giving out doom and gloom, but I shall tell them of some of the—
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Devlin: No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
  AL-KO of Consett, County Durham, has launched a comprehensive range of power washers for domestic and industrial use. Silleck Mouldings in Stockton is currently carrying out a £1–3 million expansion programme to recruit extra staff in the next six months to make plastic computer parts.
  Mr. Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: I have already said that I am not giving way.
  Armour Plastics of Sunderland is to invest £700,000 over the next three years. The work force is to increase by 30 to 80. It makes a range of baths and sanitary fittings.
  Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention in this Chamber that when an hon. Member refers to the constituency of another hon. Member and there is a point at issue, that hon. Member would normally, under reasonable circumstances, give way?
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me answer this point of order. Hon. Members must decide for themselves whether it is appropriate to give way. I understand the point that is being made, but I can see the clock and I quite understand the position at this time.
  Mr. Devlin: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, Silleck Mouldings, the last company that I mentioned, happens to be in my constituency. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) should have intervened five minutes ago when I mentioned his.
  Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the sake of the record, I tried consistently to intervene but this hon. Member consistently refused to allow me.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is hardly a point of order for me. However, I try to keep a close eye on the clock.
  Mr. Devlin: If I may continue. There are small companies in starter units, for example, a small company in my constituency makes speedboats. It now wants to expand and to build luxury yachts for use in the West Indies—
  Mr. Cook: On the issue of speedboats, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No, I shall not.
  A small company—also in my constituency—called Videoscan makes short-range video transmitters—
  Mr. Cook: On the issue of video transmitters, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No.
  —so that cabling does not need to be used to project programmes in house. Another small company—also in my constituency — turns over £3 million per year, making lipsticks holders.
  Things are improving rapidly. It has been a record year for North-East Investors, the regional capital fund. Profits are up by 34 per cent. In the past three months, 63 per cent. of companies in Teesside chamber of commerce have increased their sales and 34 per cent.—
  Mr. Cook: On the issue of the Teesside chamber of commerce, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No.
  —and 34 per cent. have revised their investment plans for plant and equipment upward. It is interesting to note—I know than many hon. Members are anxious to hear good statistics from the north-east — that 79 per cent. believe that turnover will increase and 76 per cent. believe that profitability will increase. Compared with 12 months ago, more report that they have increased sales, more report that they are upgrading their plans for investment and considerably more anticipate increased sales and profitability. Compared with three months ago, export sales have shown a great improvement and the work force is increasing.
  Miss Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No. I shall come to the hon. Lady's constituency in due course.
  There are several exciting ventures, including seven flagship projects in the Teesside development corporation—£160 million is being spent on them. It was good to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks reading a positive image of our area from the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, who stressed the need for a positive self-image and the need to convince other people of the greatness of one's product.
  I should add that we must convince ourselves in the north-east of the enterprise culture that is already there. We must see all of Teesside working together. We must learn from Corby, and I hope that before long Teesside will suffer from Corby's difficulty in looking forward to a situation in which we have too many jobs—
  Mr. William Powell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No, in fairness to the whole House I do not think that I should give way.
  Smiths Dock is to become an offshore supply base. Bowesfield lane is being turned into a high-tech office development. We have an extremely exciting project at Belasis Hall technology park—
  Mr. Cook: On the issue of Belasis Hall technology park, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Devlin: No, I shall not.
  English Estates North is putting up 50,000 sq ft of office and small manufacturing space and there have already been 20 serious inquiries—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Devlin: I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear of these successes, but they will have to hear me out.
  Cleveland business centre is setting up 56,000 sq ft of small offices and flexible workplaces. In the introduction by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, we heard of the extra resourcing that will be put into English Estates North. It is already refurbishing 75,000 sq ft of Teesside industrial estate in Thornaby in my constituency.
  At present in Middlesbrough only about 41,000 sq ft of prime modern accommodation is available, with only 26,000 sq ft of secondary accommodation and 18,000 sq ft of tertiary accommodation. That total of 85,000 sq ft compares favourably with the position only two years ago, when there was 200,000 sq ft on the market. That accommodation has been taken up by companies as diverse as Albany Life, which has recently announced its move to Teesside, and Legal and General Insurance which is also coming to Teesside.
  Demand now primarily exists for between 2,000 and 2,500 sq ft but unfortunately accommodation varies in availability from 5,000 to 15,000 sq ft and 1,500 sq ft at the small end. Therefore, when the Minister replies, I hope that he will stress the role of English Estates and I draw to his attention this need, which English Estates should meet in the years to come.
  Prime shopping locations are being snapped up in Middlesbrough and throughout the north-east. Sainsburys, Laura Ashley and The Body Shop are all moving to Middlesbrough. A professional magazine recently quoted a local estate agent as saying:
  "Things are beginning to improve. Now is the time to be buying in Cleveland".
  There is much to be welcomed in the White Paper, of which the abolition of automatic regional development grants forms part. The objectives of regional policy remain the same as they were in 1983—to reduce the imbalance in employment opportunities on a stable long-term basis and to help develop indigenous potential, leading to self-generating growth. The latter objective must continue to be our central objective.
  When I heard earlier in the debate the call for greater co-operation between the Departments of Trade and Industry, of Employment and of the Environment, I thought immediately of the three wise men presiding over the north-east and the closeness of their co-operation. I must commend that to the Minister and hope that it will continue.

  99
  I take this opportunity to welcome the setting up of a Middlesbrough office of the DTI. It is absolutely vital to our initiatives in the north-east that we have a one-stop shop, which should be more accessible to the people of Teesside. In addition to the excellent brochure that the Department of enterprise has now produced, we must have a good quality brochure giving a list of all the assistance that is available to companies throughout the region. The brochure that has already been issued is excellent. I have tested it by ringing the numbers and making inquiries, and I am pleased to say that the response was exceptionally good.
  English Estates must be encouraged, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider looking at some of the rents it is charging. The enterprise initiative is particularly welcome in the north-east. It will give higher grants to smaller and medium-size companies, which are the very ones we are short of. It will also give them specific help with design, marketing, quality control, manufacturing strategy, business plans and financial and information systems. That range of help will probably be much more valuable than large dollops of money.
  Assistance is already being provided in some areas by, for instance, the Teesside polytechnic new products unit, the Newcastle fashion centre, based on Newcastle polytechnic, and the initiative called higher education support for industry in the North. There are also initiatives by the Northern development corporation and the new urban development corporations.
  Mr. Don Dixon: Come on. We have had 15 minutes of this drivel.
  Mr. Devlin: I am just setting out the vast range of help available to companies in the north-east, all of which is helpful.
  There are organisations such as Aycliffe ITEC, providing hardware and software support, which need to be pushed more centrally. They all need to be drawn together in another booklet, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that.
  The Department is now to offer special assistance, some through independent consultants, some through existing agencies. It needs to be tied together.
  I am very pleased with the response that I received when dealing with the regional office of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Our objective in the Bill is to strengthen and modernise regional policy. I welcome the Government's commitment to the north and the other regions, but I look for a more effective way to encourage a new and lasting economy. The economy of the north-east of England is changing. We can no longer prop up yesterday's industries, and the changes need to be sustained by helping small companies which are building the sunrise jobs of tomorrow with development. There is a particular need for investment in small companies with fewer than 25 employees. I very much welcome the investment grant of two thirds for product and process development by those small companies.
  It is also extremely important for us to continue to build greater bridges between school and industry, between higher education laboratories and commerce. The recession in 1979–81 hit my region hard. Shipbuilding has gone; 54,000 jobs in steel have been lost. Yet we may see
  100
  the beginning of a turnaround. Yacht-building may come back to the Tees if shipbuilding does not. Investment is rising. Unemployment has fallen every month for the past 18 months, providing one job for the man who has to revise the figures in Stockton town hall each month.
  There has been a 19 per cent. drop in long-term unemployment, and we see in the north of England pay survey recently carried out by Hay Management Consultants that although pay is less in absolute terms in the north than in the south, purchasing power in the north is much greater.
  Our policy must not be to seek to distort markets in ways similar to the optimistic move of Rootes to Linwood or that aluminium smelter at Invergordon. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley that our paramount consideration is to build on strength which already exists in the north-east of England. As I have shown, those strengths are there. We must build on them.
  8.53 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) listed a large number of companies. I was not familiar with the names of all of them, but I know that one that he mentioned — Laura Ashley — has received substantial amounts of public expenditure and employs a large number of people in the area in which I live in mid-Wales. Without a regional aid package, that company would have relocated in Holland.
  The hon. Gentleman also gave us a caricature of the relationship between regional policy, regional aids and the role of the market, as did other Conservative Members. They must realise that the regional policy was brought about because of the effects of market distortion on existing communities. What we are now seeing from the Government is the withdrawal of even that limited role of intervention in the effect of the market upon communities and work forces.
  That dimension is lost on many Conservative Members. I regret that we have a simplistic analysis of the relationship between the economy and society, although it does not surprise me, in view of the attitudes of some Conservative Members and the Government.
  The regional policy debate tends to concentrate all the time on what are perceived to be problem regions—that is, us—rather than on the major problem of the United Kingdom, which is, of course, the south-east of England. We have had in this debate — at least from the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and others—the clear statement that the south-east of England is itself not only a region but very much a problem region. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who opened for the Opposition, stressed that very clearly.
  What we need to do when we are talking about regional policy and regional development programmes, such as the one we are considering, is to see them in the context of the real regional policies. It is about time the real regional policy stood up in this Parliament. That means that we should look at the hidden state subsidies—not all that hidden, if we look at the public expenditure White Papers—which go directly to those companies and industries located in the south-east and the south-west of England. The Government's overall macro-economic policy hit the regions that are traditionally most dependent on manufacturing worse than others.

  101
  In particular, the cuts in regional spending of over 50 per cent. have obviously most directly affected the areas that were most dependent on that spending —the northern regions of England and the nations of Scotland and Wales, which, for the purpose of this debate, I shall call regions—that is, EEC regions; I am not denying them national status within Britain.
  Real regional policy means expenditure on defence, new technology and the procurement budget of the Ministry of Defence, which increased by 40 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987, a period in which there were massive cuts in official regional policy spending. It is now up to £8·2 billion. The main beneficiaries are the aerospace and electronic industries. It is no surprise to us to see them located in the south-west and south-east of England. It is those areas that are benefiting from that aspect of regional policy.
  Let us lo006Fk at the extent of Government research and development on defence. Eighty per cent. of all Government expenditure in the electronics industry is accounted for by the Ministry of Defence. That, too, distorts the area in which the spending is carried out and the form of spending. Looking at the overall levels of civilian research and development, we see quite clearly that Britain devotes more of its Government-funded research and development resources to military expenditure than any other major power except the United States.
  Fifty-three per cent. of all Government research and development expenditure generally — not just on electronics is absorbed by defence. The result is that public sector spending on research and development, which is a form of indirect regional policy, benefits certain regions and disbenefits others. On an overall picture, the position in the south-east and south-west of England is progressive and positive but elsewhere similar expenditure is not available from public funds.
  I do not argue for the diversion of all military expenditure to Wales and Scotland, although we suffer a lot from military expenditure in the form of low-flying training. I ask for recognition of the fact that the state's decisions on research and development, areospace and defence are part of regional policy and should be quantified as such. When we debate regional policy we should debate the regional impact of all public expenditure, not just a limited programme of grants, as we are doing at the moment.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in many cases the receipts to the Exchequer from corporations and companies that invest throughout the United Kingdom are credited as though they are earnings in the south-east, when in fact they are earnings from investments in the regions, for which the regions get no credit? The Government should take account of that fact when quantifying the whole package.
  Dr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many sectoral patterns of expenditure which are Great Britain-wide are not regionalised in an assessment of public expenditure. At the beginning of this decade, 80 United Kingdom plant locations received Ministry of Defence contracts of more than £50 million. Half of them were in the home counties. Ten of them, including Rolls-Royce and the celebrated Westland, received contracts of more than £100 million and were in the west country. Only nine
  102
  were in Scotland and there was none in Wales. That shows the way in which that part of public expenditure distorts regional policy.
  In looking at regional policy we need to take account of all the spatial consequences of other Government policies. We need a level of regional intervention that is enough to counteract the pull of other spending programmes concentrated in certain locations. This is where the approach to regional policy, which has been depending on the forms of grant aid, is inadequate. I share the Labour party's previous view—not its present one— that the allocation of regional development grant to major multinational companies can be argued to be a waste of public expenditure.
  Ministers have not told us how they intend to ensure that the selective package will make up in levels of expenditure what is currently made available. We have not yet had that commitment from the new Secretary of State for Wales or from any Scottish Office Minister. We want such a commitment from the Government if they are seriously saying that they will produce the same level of support, directly or indirectly, through their expenditure programme.
  I am not taking part in the filibuster on the Government Benches which has occurred because the Government cannot find enough Conservative Members to speak. I stress that the Bill will not be welcomed by the agencies involved in industrial development in Wales. We welcome the additional funding made available to the Welsh Development Agency, but we can debate that on Thursday evening on the Welsh Development Agency Bill, when I hope to catch your eye again, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is why I am being brief now. I stress that there are other regions in Wales, especially mid-Wales, which have been badly affected by the loss of development area and assisted and intermediate area status from this Government and by the potential loss of status in the European Community. Mid-Wales Development has received a slightly smaller increase in budget than the WDA.
  Mid-Wales is the poorest area in Wales. Pay levels are the lowest in Britain. The population density is one sixth the European Community average. One job in four is dependent on agriculture. It is the most remove rural area in England and Wales that I know of, because I have to get up there. The Development Board for Rural Wales, with its small budget, had been doing the particularly important work of social and economic investment in the area.
  We want assurances that the Government's regional policy will not contain anything that will affect the operation of the Development Board for Rural Wales or the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland. We want an assurance that the Government, when looking at the SDA and WDA, will look in parallel at those other development agencies which are the real engines of participation between the state and the commercial sector and which are really involved in regional development.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am a strong believer in regional development policy and represent a development area in the north-west of England. This is a bit like déjà vu. In March 1984, I sat through a debate on the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill, now an Act, which this Bill amends. The Opposition made the same complaints then about the

  103
  new system of grants that they have made tonight.
  At that time, unemployment was half a million higher than today and the basic rate of income tax was 30p in the pound, compared with today's 27p in the pound. This shows that that legislation worked. After four years, we have a time to review and adjust to the changing circumstances in the economy. In the north and other parts of the country that are regionally aided, we cannot escape the fact that a strong economy is needed for employment to be reduced, and for the regions to prosper.
  When I took over a new constituency in 1983, I was appalled at the level of ignorance about what went on in the local factories among Labour representatives on the local council, and at some of the statements made by Labour politicians in the locality about local industry. The truth is that they knew nothing about what was going on in local industry. I am afraid that, listening to tonight's comments, I find myself in the same position.
  However, I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who made a point of putting on record the strength of the local economy and its improvements over the past few years. I took over a constituency in which there was no employers' organisation. I formed one. With the assistance of the Bishop of Liverpool and the aid of all the local parties, I set up a task force to attack the problems of the area. Now we have a full-time director, who was appointed this week.
  The message is clear: we must use self-help to tackle the problems in our areas. It is no use crying salt tears and saying that the state will provide, and that we are not prepared to take action to help ourselves. In Skelmersdale —oh, yes, the place that everyone loves to hate—in the past two years, we have created 1,500 new jobs, and 78 new firms have come in during the past two and a half years. In the past three weeks, over 300 new jobs have been announced in three new factories that are coming to the area.
  That progress has not been due only to grants. It has also been brought about by attempts by the local council, the Commission for the New Towns and the task force to go out and promote the town. I must say with pride that Skelmersdale, like Chorley, is becoming a success story, and is a booming area in the north of England. I am now in the embarrassing position of telling the House that, in the next three months, we shall not have an empty factory in Skelmersdale. We shall have to start building them. That is a measure of our success.
  Mr. William Powell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Skelmersdale took the sensible step of hiring the former director of industry from Corby to take over? Middlesbrough did the same for its urban development corporation.
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend is correct. Skelmersdale employed the economic director from Corby to take on the direction of the town's development.
  I have found that the major problem with small firms is that they are not necessarily creating jobs, but they need to buy new machines to keep them up. The limit on grants for 25-employee firms — up to £15,000 for new machinery, or £25,000 for innovation — is very successful, and will meet many of the problems that will be created by the removal of regional development grant.
  104
  Regardless of how my right hon. and learned Friend puts the case, regional selective assistance is a process of backing winners. We are trying to create enterprises that will sustain themselves and go on beyond the grant, rather than simply throwing money at projects that will fail. The Bill, and the White Paper that goes with it, by providing the expertise of consultants to provide guidance, will equip those companies far better to take advantage of regional development grants.
  Let me tell Opposition Members that where firms fail is in expertise: design expertise, marketing expertise and the basics of business planning. The business development initiative system will provide those advantages and help firms to take advantage of what is available.
  Finally, despite all the crowing, the truth is that during the next three years, £900 million will be available for the regions and for towns such as Skelmersdale. There will be no diminution of the amount of money available: far from it—there will be an increase. It is up to industry to use and take advantage of the system that is available. If it does that, there will be no need for any fall in the amount of money it receives or for any fall in prosperity in areas that take advantage of the new system.
  I commend my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. He has hit the right turn in the tide, and places such as Skelmersdale will take advantage of it.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). He demonstrated that, whatever political deficiencies he may suffer from, dyslexia certainly is not one of them. His ability to extract dramatic interest from a rendering of the Middlesbrough area yellow pages telephone directory brought new heights to a discussion of regional policy. Like Conservative Members, I hope that the Minister in winding up will be sympathetic to their appeal for hospitals to be ready to cope with the injuries that will be caused among the rush of industrialists moving to the north, the west, Wales and Scotland, as a result of the initiatives that the Government have announced tonight.
  I shall say three things about regional policy, on which I worked for 20 years before entering the House. First, how much do the Goernment know about what they are spending on regional policies and where they are spending it? Second, I should like to say something about the taxation treatment of regional development grants and regional selective assistance. The Government have omitted that from their White Paper. Finally, there is the question of fraud and abuse of regional aid.
  Do the Government know what they are spending, and where they are spending it? Let us briefly look at the figures that they gave in their public expenditure White Paper and compare them with the figures for the same year, the same region and the same programme as they gave in last year's public expenditure White Paper. Under the heading, "regional and general industrial support," the DTI gave the figure of £888 million for 1982–83. One year later, it says that, in the same period, it spent £503 million. That is a little matter of £385 million that seems to have gone missing.
  The following year the DTI had the same problem. Last year's White Paper gave a figure of £617 million, but this year's White Paper gives a figure of £426 million. In the past three years, the problem was slightly less. This year's

  105
  White Paper gives a figure for the coming financial year of £463 million and last year's White Paper gave a figure of £300 million.
  There are similar enormous discrepancies in the figures for Scotland and Wales. This year, the Government say that they spent £439 million five years ago on regional development in Scotland. Last year, they gave the figure for the same year as £158 million. Has £300 million-worth of regional expenditure jumped across the border in one year? Are they now saying that five years ago the money was spent not in England but in Scotland?
  One has to doubt White Papers as an indication of what the Government are spending, on what they are spending it, and where they are spending it. They should assist those who work in industrial development and be completely frank when discussing their regional policies. They should not hide the mess that they made in last year's White Paper; they should tell us about it in the House, quite frankly, so that we can have a sensible, mature discussion of the real priorities for regional policies. It is no good trying to hide the confusion by obfuscation and mixing up regional selective assistance and regional development grants so that we do not know where we are going because the Government do not know where they are going.
  The figures show that the Government do not know how much money they are spending, in which regions and on what programmes they are spending it. That is a major problem. If we are to have a higher level of debate, they should give us the figures that are not given in the public expenditure White Paper or this month's enterprise White Paper.
  How much are the Government spending on regional development grant next year? How much has already been committed of the money that the Government expect to spend over the next two, three, four or five years in regional development grant contracts that have already been signed? How much have the Government committed themselves to spend on regional selective assistance and how much money is still available for industrialists who have yet to come along and see the Government? That is the figure we want to know.
  As we all know, RDG is paid after one has spent the money. The Government are committed to paying the money by the fact that the guidelines have been met. There may be people today who are spending regional development grant for five years from now. Therefore, what is the uncommitted money still left in the regional development budget, and will that money be cash-limited?
  Regional development grant had the virtue of not being cash-limited. If there was an upturn in industrial investment in the regions, the Government met the bill because there was more incentive and more investment. Industrialists were confident in the fact that they could, as it were, break the bank if there was an investment boom.
  The Minister said that he was worried about the fact that, with an industrial take-off, the regions no longer needed industrial development grants. However, we know that industrial investment is only now returning to the 1979 levels. Therefore, why is there a fear of having to pay incentives to encourage some of that greater flow of investment to go to the regions? The higher the level of investment, the greater the mobility of that investment because it will be hitting the sticking points and obstacles to investment in the south-east. In 1988–89 there may
  106
  finally be a shift between the regions; from the south-east to the outlying regions, which are more dependent on manufacturing jobs.
  There are some faults in the Government's White Paper, which lead to cynicism when industralists look at it to see what guidance it can give them. The same faults affect practitioners who work in regional industrial development, as I did for 20 years before coming to the House. They are looking for some idea of what it really means to the industrialist to have regional selective assistance on offer. We have had no clarification from the Minister on that. All we know is that the Government have tried to pretend that the same amount of money, or more money, will be available, without allowing for inflation in the cost of investment goods. That may be running quite high at the moment, because there is rampant inflation in the building industry, as we all know. That is one of the pinch points for industry. There is a shortage of bricklayers, carpenters, plasterers and so on.
  If people are trying to discover how much money the Government intend to make available, they will want to know whether it will be taxed or untaxed. The same money spent on RDG and then switched to RSA actually means 35 per cent. less money because corporation tax will have to be paid on RSA. If, as in Wales, the Government intend to spend £100 million on RDG and switch that to RSA, one would need to be spending £150 million on RSA in order to give industry the same benefits. The Minister has made no reference to the difference in the tax treatment of RDG and RSA. That is the tactic of a cardsharp. In fact, it is a cardsharp's White Paper. It is impossible to work out how much money is left and how much money the Government are committed to spending as distinct from making an allocation that they do not worry about. RDG commitments can run on for five years, and that reduces the amount left. We want to know whether what is left will be cash-limited.
  Fraud is a serious issue in regional development, and always has been. If the Government want to say to the House—I do not see why they should not—that RDG2 is difficult to administer and has been prone to fraud and to non-viable companies exploiting it and not producing the jobs, why do they not just say so? That scheme was devised by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time of the changes in November 1984. The Government should just say, "Our problem is that we cannot monitor the RDG2 scheme. It is difficult for us to handle, and we intend to scrap it altogether." If they said that, we could have a sensible discussion about whether we should change RDG2 in order to get rid of the fraudsters and those who take the money and run, instead of now having to scrap the scheme altogether.
  There is another alternative on which I wish to press the Minister. Will he please investigate the possibility of making regional selective assistance tax-free? One attraction of regional development grant was that it was tax-free. Firms which receive regional selective assistance often use it to prettify their balance sheets. After all, a revenue support item that is taxable makes the industrialist look very clever when he presents his balance sheet He seems to have made more profit out of no expenditure. But they could not do that with regional development grant because it was a capital support scheme.
  I make three pleas to the Government: first, for a much better quality of public expenditure White Paper next year;

  107
  secondly, for complete frankness with the House when discussing how much money remains available to industrialists in the regions who want to develop; and, finally, a greater appreciation of the importance of regional aid in giving the regions the confidence that they have a future under this Government.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: This is one of a series of debates on regional policy, and I am still puzzled why the Conservative Government hate the regions. It is not as though they do not say the right things. They just seem to do things that undermine their protestations. In 1970, the first act of the Conservative Administration—it was lain Macleod's one and only Budget—was to get rid of investment grants. That was a major blow which, within two years, cut the amount of new industry going to the regions by 50 per cent. So devastating was it that, two years later, the Government introduced the Industry Act 1972 which introduced regional development grants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and I served on the Committee which discussed that Bill. It introduced regional development grants, which the Government intend to abolish with this Bill, because of the failure of the previous attempt to abolish capital investment grants.
  Let us consider the cumulative effect. It is not as though this is a one-off attempt. There has been a series of attacks on regional policy, including the abolition of the industrial development certificate — I do not suppose that was much mourned—cuts in the boundaries of assisted areas and the abolition of special development areas, which had a great impact on the old industrial, coal mining and steel areas. Most important has been the sustained and varied attack on capital incentives, which is especially important when one remembers how critical manufacturing investment is to effective regional policy.
  The Government have calculatedly destroyed incentives to investment. First, they cut regional development grants from 22 per cent. to 15 per cent. and now they wish to abolish them. Despite their claims of wishing to modernise the regions and make them efficient, they have abolished the regional development grants that were available for new machinery and equipment for existing plants.
  The Government have destroyed capital allowances. In the 1970s, with capital allowances, regional development grant and regional selective assistance, Britain had the best package of incentives for investment of any European country. But since the Government came to power in 1979, we have lost £11,000 million-worth of manufacturing investment. That is how much lower investment has been under what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called the enterprise economy with which his Department wishes to be associated.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, manufacturing investment, which is at the heart of job creation, has not only been bled by £11,000 million but is still, after the so-called growth about which the Minister boasted, 10 per cent. below the level that the Government inherited. Because of that, we have invested less in the regions, and, because we have invested less in our industries, they are less competitive than our
  108
  international overseas competitors — the OECD countries. We have been losing ground in terms of balance of trade in world markets.
  I hope to show that, as a result of the Government's decisions, there has been a £2·5 billion deflation in the assisted areas. It is not even as if the Government's policies are any good for the south. They may not be good for the north, but they are no good for the south either. One of the great illusions is that there is a clash of interests between the south and the north. However, the south has as much interest as the rest of the country in seeing the full deployment of the resources available in the regions, not just because they bring extra productive capacity on stream but because the resources stop the congestion problems that all hon. Members understand take place in the south of England.
  During the Minister's statement, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) asked whether the Minister could
  "confirm that the effect of his new regional policy will be to stem the migration of people from the assisted areas into high growth areas such as Cambridgeshire, where the pressures have become intolerable?" —[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 161.]
  A similar point was made by a Conservative Member who I think represents a constituency in Berkshire, on Third Reading of the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984. That hon. Gentleman stressed the pressures on the south as a result of the inevitable movement from the north.
  Let us consider the scale of that movement. Cambridge Econometrics predicts that by the turn of the century, the northern region will have lost 1 million people through outward migration. That represents 7 per cent. of its working population. Where will they go? Who will accommodate them? We should not think that that is just a problem for the future. In the past five years the north has lost 187,000 people. Scotland has seen an outflow of 190,000 and Wales an outflow of 169,000. In three years the gross outflow of population from those three regions was 550,000. Where have those people gone? Where are the pressures building up?
  That outflow has occurred before this Bill is enacted and before a further weakening in the Government's regional policies. There is a problem for the regions implicit in the Bill. However, there is also an implicit problem for the south and the areas of affluence and prosperity.
  I want to consider some of the Minister's arguments. We have heard the value-for-money argument. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) administered the grant system for somewhat longer than the present Minister. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan and I administered that system for some years. It is well known and incontrovertible that in efficiency terms the regional development grant is far cheaper to administer for the Government and for those firms in receipt of the grant. That is one reason why it is so popular with small firms and why 80 per cent. of the grants go to those small firms. The argument that the grant is not cost-effective is exploded by one of the few pieces of revelation in the White Paper.
  The White Paper states that in 1985–86 regional selective assistance cost 46 per cent., or £378, more per job than regional development grant. In 1986–87, it cost £331

  109
  more per job than regional development grant. In 1986–87, it cost 28 per cent., or £432, more than regional development grant per job. The figures are even more astonishing if we consider Wales or Scotland.
  Ministers claim to be hellbent in pursuit of administrative efficiency and value for money. In the Bill they are asking the House to give them the flexibility to give up the system of grants that provides jobs at £1,500 each, so that they can concentrate on their alternative, preferred system which costs £1,950 per job. These are the people who have the cheek to talk to the Health Service and local authorities about competitive tendering and value for money.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have seen such figures reported and they have been misinterpreted. If we compare the jobs provided with RDG and RSA offered, which is the correct comparison, unlike the one made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) this morning, we see that the cost per job of RDG is £3,701 and the cost per job of regional selective assistance is £2,760. These are 1987–88 estimated outturn figures. There appears to have been a mistake in the Labour party's research department when comparing the amount spent for grant paid in a year with the jobs created by the offers made in that year.
  Mr. Williams: I invite the Minister to sit down with his little calculator and go through the tables in the White Paper. He will find that my figures are correct.
  The Government say that we must get rid of regional development grant because it has no relationship to jobs. They get the money even if they do not create jobs. I thought, "That is interesting. Let's see what they have in mind," so I asked the Minister
  "what checks will be made under his proposed new regional investment grant to ensure that firms achieve the promised number of jobs"?
  On 19 January I received a fascinating reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman smiling. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
  "The creation of jobs will not be a condition of the new regional investment grant but the scheme is expected to have a beneficial effect on employment"—
  here comes administrative prudence—
  "and we shall be setting up arrangements to evaluate this on a sampling basis."—[Official Report, 19 January 1988, Vol. 125, c. 673.]
  The Minister today described his bold new policy as a straight path to new jobs, except in so far as the new incentive scheme is concerned. How does he reconcile that with value for money? Indeed, I wonder how long the Minister will enjoy the privilege of a ministerial car?
  In all these discussions, the Government have overlooked the important point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, particularly in respect of inward investment, about which Ministers protest. Predictability is a critical factor. I could not have put it more effectively than the former Secretary of State and Chief Secretary to the Treasury put it. Predictability is an important factor in determining whether the grant is even taken into account when finance directors and boards are considering their decisions. They must bear in mind that many inward investment projects are phased developments. They are not single projects. They come in
  110
  intending to build up in the European market and expand, but, before taking any decisions, they consider what sort of incentives they can look to in phases two and three.
  The loss of regional development grant robs us of that predictability, but the number of changes in regional policy means that there is no predictability, even about the continued existence of the regional selective grant. Under this Government, nothing about regional policy is predictable.
  The Government say that we need indigenous development. Of course we do—no one disputes that fact—but we must bear in mind the limits of indigenous production or development. In a way, it traps us within the limits of the skills of old industries. Therefore, we need cross-fertilisation of inward investment, be it from the south or overseas. We need it to bring in high value-added industries and high-technology industries with their demands for new skills.
  The Minister does not appreciate that in the long term, diversity and the industrial mix are as important as the creation of jobs. That is why capital grants are so important. Unless we have diversity, we may have all the north in low-paid jobs and all the south in high-paid jobs, and still have a regional divide. Conservative Members do not seem to want to understand that point. Indeed, they protest that they are committed to regional selective assistance. As I pointed out in an intervention, that protestation—that hand-on-heart commitment to valuefor-money regional selective assistance—would perhaps be more credible if only I had not seen the depth of it during the past year.
  The Government were giving regional selective assistance at the rate of £127 million less than the rate at which the Labour Government were giving it when they left office in 1979. In fact, in the intervening period, the regions have lost £685 million of the very incentive that the Government say they favour. They have actually cut by 37 per cent. the very incentive that they say is the most efficient. They say, "You must bear in mind that we are coming forward with a new set of proposals. We have a new investment grant scheme whereby jobs will not be the criteria."
  Is it not absurd to try to convince us, and even more absurd to try to convince business men, that small firms are getting a good deal? They are told that, at present, they can get 15 per cent. of capital cost with an alternative of £3,000 a job and up to 200 jobs created. Under the Government's new, brilliant scheme, they will gel 15 per cent on up to 24 jobs, and a maximum of £ 15,000. So lucky small business men will lose grants of £3,000 a job. Of course, they will happily say, "What a good Government we have. They have given us grants of £600 a job instead." What is more, because they are good little Conservatives, they will say, "How happy are we. We shall also help the Chancellor. Not only will we take less, but that less will be taxable. We shall also put some of it back into the Chancellor's pocket."
  We have heard hon. Members speak about whether there will be more or less spending. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan said, the figures in the White Paper are clearly intended to mislead, or at least to obscure, rather than to reveal. I noticed the dubiety that was expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who referred to the Treasury's tricks of the

  111
  trade. He implied that he would not be taken in by the figures, even if the Minister thought that everyone should be. We shall examine the figures in future.
  We have been over this ground before. The real reason has nothing to do with efficiency; it is all to do with cuts. In 1984, the present Chief Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box, looked us straight in the face — many hon. Members were present—and said, "Of course, this has nothing to do with cuts. Coincidentally, we shall spend £300 million less, but that has nothing to do with our motivation. It is just a coincidental consequence of what we are doing."
  Last week, the Minister gave his reason for changing things. He said:
  "we are now changing the nature of the grant because of the change in economic circumstances. Most notably, a huge increase in investment is going ahead in the regions, and unemployment is now falling faster there than in the rest of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 1433, c.149.]
  Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, in redressing 200 years of industrial revolution, a one-year blip on the regional life-support system means that the regions are now all fit and well? What he is saying is that the patient is breathing and that we should turn the electricity off and save a bit on the bill. The idea that one year's growth makes the slightest difference to the positions of Wales, of the north, of the north-west and of Scotland vis-à-vis the south is beyond credibility. What is more, it is an insult to the Minister himself that he has the cheek to put it forward, because we all know that he is too intelligent to believe it.
  The Minister's policy is not just foolhardy or shortsighted; it is dangerous. As in our cities we have seen the divide of poverty and affluence generate the politics of envy, desperation and violence, so to allow a continual widening gap of hope and expectation between those who live in the north and those who live in the south is potentially explosive. We cannot, and the Government should not, allow the prolonged widening between degrees of affluence on either a geographical or a social basis. One cannot allow it to be perpetrated on a geographical basis without producing a political and constitutional backlash. I warn the Government that today's economic divide could become tomorrow's constitutional rift.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The debate has roamed wide over the provisions of the Bill, and that is understandable and right because it is only one element of the new regional policy which, in its broader setting, is probably the most positive, most comprehensive, most imaginative and most relevant that we have had for quite some time.
  But that would not be apparent to anyone listening to the speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). One would never have thought from his speech that in the past 18 months in Wales unemployment had fallen faster than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, down by almost 26,000 in 1987 alone. One would never have thought that the Welsh Development Agency was now well on course to let a record amount of factory floor space in this financial year or that one sixth of all foreign investment in the United Kingdom had chosen Wales as its location,
  112
  and that Wales now employed more people in inward investment companies than it did in coal and steel. These are just some of the many encouraging facts about the present state of the Welsh economy that will come as something of a surprise to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West.
  It has been a curious feature of this evening's debate that, despite the changes in the economic circumstances of the country, it has been conducted against a background of the refusal of Opposition Members to acknowledge by even the slightest word or expression that there has been the smallest change in the national economy in the past year or two. It is as if the past two years had never been and as if a fall in unemployment of 600,000 had never happened. Opposition Members are wrapped in some time warp by the imagery of their obsolete rhetoric.
  Everything must be characterised as failure, decline or disaster, no matter what the reality is. Every change in Government policy, however sensible or whatever the background, is instantly characterised as, at best, vindictive and, at worst, mad; and the contrast is striking between the demons conjured up by Opposition Members and the examples of what is going on in the real world, of which evidence was given by my hon. Friends the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) or my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), where unemployment has fallen from 25 per cent. to 12 per cent.
  Ms. Armstrong: The Ministry has in other forums used Consett in my constituency as an example of the massive success of its policy. Does the Minister realise that employment in Consett in the past three years has grown by 0·4 per cent. — less than half of 1 per cent.? Unemployment has fallen but so has the number of people living there; and the Government's figures have been fiddled so that unemployment looks as though it has fallen by about 4 per cent. This is the real position.
  Mr. Lang: That is all the more reason for the changes in regional policy. We are proposing to concentrate help in a way that will bring the most assistance to the hon. Lady's constituency and to others.
  The debate would have been more constructive if Opposition Members had recognised that these changes are not being forced on us by a crisis, being imposed by the IMF or being turned to in order to fight off any failure. We are changing our regional assistance policies because we want to and because we think that the new arrangements are right for the economic circumstances. Above all, we are doing so against a background of growing economic success.
  The Labour party seems unwilling or unable to comprehend that. Almost every speech from Opposition Members was permeated by the view that because we are changing grants we must be cutting them. They think that one can improve a policy only by making vast increases in the amount of money given.
  Opposition Members completely overlooked the fact that inflation is below 4 per cent.; that last year manufacturing output increased by 6·5 per cent.; and that manufacturing investment increased by 6 per cent., with the largest increases being experienced in Scotland, Wales and the north. That has been achieved by controlling expenditure as a proportion of GDP, by cutting taxes and by cutting regulation and control. That has given us seven

  113
  years of sustained growth in manufacturing productivity. Since 1979 it has increased by a remarkable 40 per cent. Britain is at the top of the league table instead of at the bottom.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: As the Minister is outlining his success story, will he reflect on the figures between 1979 and 1986, which show that, in the regions that he is talking about, we lost 1,529,000 jobs, but that the south-east, East Anglia and the south-west lost only 9,000 jobs. Does that not show that there is a north-south divide?
  Mr. Lang: No, it does not. Most of those jobs lost in the north were lost in the early years of the period that the hon. Gentleman quoted. Since 1983, employment growth in the midlands has been greater than in the south-east. We approach these changes reinforced by the fact that our policies have succeeded and are succeeding.
  The hon. Member for Gordon, (Mr. Bruce), is the industry spokesman of the Liberal party, if you, Mr. Speaker, will pardon the expression. He said, with some justification, that we are changing the rules too often, which diminishes respect for them. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that so does changing one's policies. Over the Christmas period, I had to refer to an article in The Scotsman in which his policy for regional assistance was shown to be slashing business taxation only in Scotland and making Scotland a tax haven. I have no idea what his English colleagues think of that, still less the Liberal shadow Chancellor, but no wonder his party wants to put VAT on everything. No doubt, soon we shall be told that it will put VAT on Trident.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), is a gamekeeper turned poacher, welcomed a large proportion of our proposals but questioned the underlying philosophy of our regional policies. He said that there was a need, not so much for encouragement as for implantation. That statement implies a measure of dirigisme that I would find difficult to support.
  With regard to his queries about inward investment, in which he quoted the examples of Germany and France. France is already discretionary in its regional assistance and, like us, the Germans are abolishing automaticity.
  I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of attracting inward investment and revitalising the regions —[Interruption.] — bringing new attitudes and techniques—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give a fair hearing to the Minister. This has been a well-natured debate.
  Mr. Lang: I do not believe that the changes that we are making, whereby regional selective assistance will still be available for inward investment projects, will diminish the number of companies coming here.
  I shall deal with the issue of spending, as I know that Labour Members are obsessed with who can spend most of the taxpayers' money. One would never have thought from the speech of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, that it has been announced that Wales will receive an increase of 39 per cent. next year from the Welsh Office in total assistance to industry. One would never have thought from the speech of the right hon. Member for
  114
  Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) that Scottish industry's budget will be increased by more than £25 million next year or that the SDA's budget will be increased by 8 per cent. in real terms.
  The Labour Opposition point to the years when they were in power and make the sterile claim that they spent more in regional policy than we are doing, but they overlook the fact that their policy did not actually work. Manufacturing jobs, certainly in Scotland and probably in other areas, were lost at a far faster rate in the late 1970s than they have been in the past few years. Now, by contrast, unemployment is falling in a way that it never did in those years.
  What they do not point out is that what they were taking out of the regions at that time through capital taxes, to which my hon. Friends have referred, and corporation tax, far outweighed what they were putting back in. Their corporation tax rate was 52p in the pound, compared with our present rate of 35p. So, quite apart from having to cope with high inflation and industrial unrest in that period, companies all over the country were having more than half of their profits drained off by the Treasury in Whitehall to pay for Labour's follies.
  There were follies such as nationalisation, which was another anti-regional policy. Millions of pounds were taken from the hard-pressed taxpayer so that the Labour Government in Whitehall could take over the commanding heights of the economy in the midlands, the north and Scotland. We have reversed that policy and liberated industries such as Jaguar and British Aerospace from the shackles of centralised control and they are now galvanising the regions and enriching both the regions and the nation.
  Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
  Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not take part in the debate.
  If that is one way of pumping blood back into the arteries of regions, another is through the reform of non-domestic rates. It is estimated that this proposal, so bitterly opposed by the Opposition, will pump around £700 million into the economies of the north and the midlands.
  Mr. Blair: The Minister said a moment ago that the industry budget for Scotland was increasing, but it shows a drop in 1978–88 and no real increase over the next few years.
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman waits until the publication of the Scottish commentary next month, all will be revealed to him.
  The Opposition are not even right when they say that we are cutting the cash for regional policy. That is not what this exercise is about. I have already shown the spending trends in Wales and Scotland. In England, the public expenditure White Paper shows that spending is now expected to be up by £200 million over the next three years. However, cash levels are not the point. The point about the proposed changes to policy concerns value for money, not volume. It is not a cost-cutting exercise, but a cost-effective one.
  Mr. Brittan: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said. Does that mean that regional selective assistance for England will not be cash-limited under the new proposals?
  Mr. Lang: Regional selective assistance is not cash-limited.
  As to value for money, this is a cost-effective exercise and that is why I believe that we are right to move away from a situation where grants are given automatically, regardless of need, to giving grants on a more selective basis. The automaticity remained in our post-1984 changes, and now that our economy has continued to receover and grow, so that many companies have less need of taxpayers' funds to enable their projects to proceed, we should concentrate our resources more intensively where they can do most good, and that means putting them into projects in the assisted areas, which will benefit the economy, but would not go ahead without that help.
  Whatever the Opposition may think of such an attitude, it is clearly one which endears itself to the business community—
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Mr. Lofthouse rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Only the Minister or, if he gives way, one Member should be on his feet at a time.
  Mr. Lang: Indeed, the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry, a body not normally regarded as friendly to the Conservative party, has said that it welcomes the recognition that it is more important to make incentives available selectively rather than automatically. The change in tone in favour of enterprise rather than narrowly defined industrial development is also welcomed.
  One of the features of the recovery of the economy has been the unity of purpose and understanding that exists between the Government and industry. It is as pleased as we are that investment is rising so fast, because productive investment is the secret of success. Industry is as pleased as we are that the leverage achieved for Government funds invested is now reaching such remarkable levels. For example, every £1 invested in industry by the Scottish Development Agency is now triggering £13 of private investment. In Wales last year £104 million of Government investment triggered £760 million in private investment.
  That is the way to get value for money for the taxpayer as well as increasing investment in the regions.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is aware that his reply was wholly unsatisfactory. I am not concerned that he is not replying to Opposition Members' questions, but he should at least address points made by Conservative Members. They are not happy with his reply, and he is not acknowledging the criticisms even of former Cabinet Ministers.
  Mr. Lang: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my replies—
  Sir Giles Shaw rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Sir Giles Shaw: If the Minister will permit a dirigiste gamekeeper, may I ask him the question again? Can we please have a straight answer to the question? Will grants under the regional selective assistance scheme not be cash-limited in future?
  Mr. Lang: I can only tell my hon. Friend the policy as it exists at the moment. He has seen the proposals and the
  116
  figures in the White Paper. Demand for selective assistance cannot be anticipated. It will be essentially demand-driven and it is our purpose to ensure that sufficient proposals come forward.
  There is now a new slogan in the Labour party, we are told. That slogan is "Labour Listens". It is a pity that it did not listen a bit earlier; it might have avoided some of the damage tht it inflicted on Britain's regions in the 1960s and 1970s. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that there had been 40 years of consensus on regional assistance. There was no consensus on selective employment tax—the particularly destructive instrument introduced by the Labour Government in the 1960s. That was Labour's idea of selectivity—not selective help but selective handicaps.
  We are selective in distributing assistance to industry, but Labour was selective in the industries that it chose to clobber. Because Opposition Members had some primeval instinct that the only job worth having was bashing a bit of metal and developing industrial deafness, they decided to tax jobs in the service industries. They chose to attack the one part of the economy that had the best growth prospects and thus destroyed thousands of jobs.
  In the 1970s Labour did a bit more listening and realised that it was not fair to attack only one section of the industrial community, so they brought in the national insurance surcharge and clobbered all industries, destroying thousands more jobs — especially labour-intensive jobs in the regions. As an added refinement, they thought, "How can we concentrate these remarkably beneficial policies on the regions?" So they listened a bit more and came up with the answer—scrap the regional employment premium, overnight with no warning. That meant 40 per cent. off all regional spending in Scotland and similar amounts in other parts of Britain as well as the loss of thousands more jobs. That shows the consistency of Opposition Members when in government and demonstrates their affection for the regions. For good measure, Labour slashed the roads programme by 20 per cent. to leave the regions more remote from their markets.
  Labour listened all right; Labour Members listen with their mouths and talk through their hats. If I can persuade them to listen I would like to offer them some advice. They should drop their policies of high tax, high spend and high borrow, because they would destroy jobs. They should drop their policy to scrap nuclear electricity because that would increase electricity prices and destroy manufacturing jobs in the regions. They should drop their plans for a tax-raising assembly in Scotland because that would destroy jobs in Scotland.
  The Opposition cannot bear the fact that we are introducing these proposals against a background of growing success. They are so attuned to failure —because in government they experienced nothing else—that they cannot even recognise success. They do not like our enterprise initiative because they do not understand enterprise and they do not trust initiative. Conservative Members recognise that to support a regional policy we first need a successful national economic policy. That we have achieved and will sustain — by bringing down inflation, controlling public expenditure and reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and by introducing better training, better industrial relations and now a better, more relevant, regional assistance policy.

  117
  The provisions in the Bill, together with the other changes that we have announced in our policies, will reinforce that success and carry it forward on a broad front to all the country. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 212.

  Division No. 152]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Curry, David

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fallon, Michael

  Bendall. Vivian

  Farr, Sir John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Favell, Tony

  Benyon, W.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forth, Eric

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gardiner, George

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bright, Graham

  Gow, Ian

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

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Greenway, Harry (Baling N)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gregory, Conal

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Burns, Simon

  Grist, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Ground, Patrick

  Butler, Chris

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, John

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Heddle, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cope, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Michael

  118

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rost, Peter

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ryder, Richard

  Irvine, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Irving, Charles

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Janman, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shersby, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Sims, Roger

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lang, Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Hal

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thorne, Neil

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trotter, Neville

  Needham, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Ward, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wheeler, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Portillo, Michael

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Woodcock, Mike

  Redwood, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Renton, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Mr. David Maclean.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Alton, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  119

  Barron, Kevin

  Fearn, Ronald

  Beckett, Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Flannery, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Blair, Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clay, Bob

  Holland, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cummings, J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Darling, Alastair

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfedder, James

  Dixon, Don

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dobson, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Doran, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Douglas, Dick

  Leighton, Ron

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Lewis, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loyden, Eddie

  120

  McAllion, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McAvoy, Tom

  Reid, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McFall, John

  Robertson, George

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McKelvey, William

  Rogers, Allan

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McTaggart, Bob

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Madden, Max

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Speller, Tony

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

  Strang, Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Straw, Jack

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliott

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wall, Pat

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Murphy, Paul

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Nellist, Dave

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, William

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Worthington, Anthony

  Prescott, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Frank Cook.

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

London Regional Transport
10.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
Any discussion of London Regional Transport's policy and performance is inevitably overshadowed at present by the terrible fire at King's Cross on 18 November, in which 31 people lost their lives. At the outset of the debate, I repeat the sympathy which I know is felt by the whole House and which I expressed immediately following the fire. I know that the House will join me in again expressing sympathy for the continued pain suffered by the injured and bereaved. I am equally sure that the whole House shares the Government's determination that all possible steps should be taken to find the cause of the fire and to ensure that any lessons that can be learnt are acted upon swiftly and effectively. I know that the chairman and boards of LRT and London Underground also share that determination.
It is not the purpose of this debate to speculate on the cause of the fire; nor would it be right for us to attempt to do so. That is a matter for the formal investigation led by Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC. Public hearings will begin again next Monday, 1 February. Mr. Fennell and his team, with the advice of experts, will consider in depth all the available evidence. I shall study the conclusions reached carefully, and report to the House as quickly as possible.
LRT's performance and plans are set out in its annual business plan, published earlier this month. Sound progress has been made. LRT has improved efficiency and reduced the revenue deficit. That has allowed record levels of investment to be funded, while the burden on taxpayers and ratepayers has been reduced. This year, productivity improvements of 5 per cent. are forecast. Passenger levels are also about 5 per cent. up, and the revenue deficit is expected to be approximately halved to £45 million compared with 1986–87. At the same time— this is an important point—investment is being increased to £294 million—a real increase of over 14 per cent. over last year. This has been secured as a result of strong growth in demand and improvements in efficiency, and will, I think, be recognised as an impressive achievement.
The progress made in turning round the business since LRT was formed will continue in 1988–89. For the first time since the early 1970s, LRT as a whole expects to be able to cover its operating costs from revenues, and thus will not require revenue support from the Government. London Buses will continue to need revenue support of £92 million, but will receive it from the revenue surpluses earned by London Underground rather than from the Government grant. Taking LRT as a whole, the annual business plan envisages a revenue surplus of £9 million, but I would emphasise that that will be a surplus before depreciation and revewals provisions. Both London Buses and the underground will continue to require and receive substantial support to cover their trading losses after depreciation and renewals. That, in addition to grants, will continue to fund new investment.
The year, 1988–89, will see a continuation of the policy of supporting the high levels of investment which are required to modernise and expand the capacity of the
122
network. The Government grant of £190 million will, together with internal resources and external contributions, enable LRT to invest a record £365 million—£1 million a day. That is nearly 60 per cent. more in real terms than in 1984–85.
Mr. Simon Hughes: How much of that investment is already committed to safety and security, which are of greatest immediate public concern?
Mr. Channon: Considerable sums of money are involved in safety. I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question in more detail in my winding-up speech. As Sir Keith Bright has made clear, safety is paramount in all that London Underground does. It is an important matter that the House will wish to debate in detail, but we shall be better informed after the inquiry into the disastrous fire at King's Cross.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will that mean that in future hard-pressed commuters in London will be able to ride in trains that are less overcrowded than they have been for many years?
Mr. Channon: That will happen as our investment programme takes effect. It is one of the purposes of the investment programme. I shall give the House some of the details of investment for the next few years. An important and very welcome development is the degree of external funding for extensions to the Docklands light railway. Three quarters of the investment planned in 1988–89 will be funded by the developers of Canary wharf, or out of the proceeds from higher land values resulting from the construction of the railway. That is a fine example of public and private sector bodies working hand in hand to regenerate an inner-city area.
As usual, the underground will account for the lion's share of LRT's investment expenditure in 1988–89. As well as providing for essential renewal of the infrastructure—signalling, track, lifts and escalators — much of the investment will yield benefits in more modern and attractive conditions for passengers, and more reliable equipment. As far as London Buses is concerned, the investment emphasis is on management systems to increase efficiency and reduce costs further. Trials of electronic ticketing systems — designed to improve boarding times for one-person operated buses—are also in progress.
As far as bus services are concerned, I expect the impetus for improved performance in the immediate future to come from a greater use of tendering. LRT will continue to push forward its programme of seeking competitive tenders for bus services. During 1988–89, it expects to increase the proportion operated under contract by 50 per cent. to about 27 per cent. of its total mileage. That should mean better value for money. LRT is realising significant net savings on routes already operated under contract with additional passengers attracted to the more reliable and generally improved services.
In the slightly longer term, we intend to see Londoners enjoying the benefits of deregulation as soon as practicable. In preparation for that, I have asked LRT to bring forward early proposals for the restructuring of London Buses Ltd. into smaller units which will be able to operate commercially in a competitive environment.
As far as the underground is concerned, the major longer-term challenge after the lessons of King's Cross

123
have been learnt is dealing with the continuing growth in demand. Some £75 million of investment has already been authorised for measures to relieve overcrowding. Those include the purchase of 16 new trains and improvements to ease bottlenecks at Angel, Tower Hill and Farringdon stations.
Further proposals are expected, and the identification and evaluation of longer-term options for increasing the capacity of the system is in hand. Within the next few months I expect LRT to bring forward proposals for a comprehensive re-equipment programme for the Central line, the cost of which will approach £500 million. A new generation of high-performance rolling stock is planned. Together with a completely new signalling system, that should result in a faster, more reliable service in the 1990s. It is likely to be followed by a similar re-equipment programme for the Northern line.
Finally, I turn to the order itself.
Mr. Robert Adley: While we welcome the Docklands light railway, is it not almost a tragic waste of time that that railway system is incompatible in operational terms with the rest of London Regional Transport and with British Rail? Will the Minister include in any future proposals the necessity of building compatible railway systems in the Greater London area?
Mr. Channon: I shall certainly examine what my hon. Friend has said. The point is not an academic one. As I have said, many imaginative proposals are coming along, some of which are from the Docklands light railway, some from London Underground and others from British Rail. Therefore, I hope that there will be all sorts of exciting new investments to improve public transport by rail in London.
I shall now move on because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall try to answer all their questions at the end of the debate, if the House will allow me.
The proposed levy will pass on to London's ratepayers the benefits of LRT's improved performance. The figures tell their own story. They reflect the way in which the business has been turned round over the past few years. A levy of 6·07p in the pound is proposed. That is 1·7p, or over 20 per cent., less than last year and 4·73p, or over 40 per cent., less than in 1985–86, the first year of the levy. That means that in real terms the burden on London's ratepayers will have been nearly halved over just three years.
I commend the draft order to the House.
10.25 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is somewhat amazing to hear the Secretary of State talking about the sound progress of London Regional Transport and passenger levels being up by 5 per cent. Everybody who is a regular user of the underground system knows that it has come in for considerable criticism, not just from my hon. Friends but from Government supporters and even from that sound advocate of Conservative policy, the Evening Standard. On 30 November, only a few days before the King's Cross disaster, the Evening Standard had a headline on its lead story, which read:
"Find out why the Tube is So Bad."
124
It talked about an independent inquiry that had been ordered by Lord Young because conditions on the underground were so bad. He said:
"Up to a dozen stations a day are often without a lift and escalator services since the decision was taken to put maintenance and installation out to private tender."
I am concerned about the Secretary of State losing his job, not because of the interest of Lord Young but because of the inability of LRT to deliver any of the goods that we have been promised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked Sir Keith Bright, the chairman and chief executive of LRT, why services on the Northern line were so bad. Sir Keith Bright rightly said that over the past two years or so up to November of last year, the number of passengers using the underground had increased dramatically. That increase was due not to any improvement in the operation of the underground system but simply because those passengers were forced on to the underground by the lousy road conditions in London and because Government decisions had not solved the road problems and, at the same time, had not done anything to solve the problems of the tube.
Sir Keith Bright went on to say:
"The sequence of events which actually occurred during the critical months of September and October now indicates that too much risk was accepted in the interest of economy and I believe we have all learned a lesson for the future."
I hope that that is right. The reality is that the Government, who have systematically under-invested in London's transport system, have had a willing ally in the penny-pinching, cost-cutting exercises of the management of LRT.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Surely the hon. Gentleman must know, even if he is not a London Member, that yesteryear the increasing subsidies went to cover operating losses. At long last we have a system whereby the revenues are now paying for much-needed capital investment.
Mr. Lloyd: The whole concept of funding capital spending directly from revenue is something that most people would recognise as nonsense. It is normal to allow revenue to cover the cost of capital in the long run, but not to fund capital from revenue. Conservative Members may laugh, but that simply indicates a lack of understanding of normal economics and accounting principles.
Even during the four years when I have been traveling regularly in London, I have seen a massive deterioration in the standards of travel on the tube. The Minister talked about reducing the number of passengers per tube as though it was a great achievement, yet, during the past five years, the number of people travelling in each carriage has increased dramatically. The response of LRT has been not to put on more trains, but to suggest removing seats from trains to make more room for standing passengers. There is no concept of comfortable travel. Instead, we shall have strap-hangers and the Japanese system of shoving people in using sticks. Indeed, LRT should import a few Japanese pushers to make sure that they can get more people into our underground trains.
The Secretary of State talked about the 16 trains that LRT is about to purchase. That purchase was planned by the Greater London council when it was in charge of London Transport, which was some years ago. The GLC planned to buy the trains because it recognised the need to reinvest in the rolling stock. But that reinvestment did]

125
not take place in the years following abolition of the GLC, and it is now paraded by the Secretary of State as a great triumph that is about to take place. Those 16 trains will increase the amount of train mileage by 11 per cent. at a time when the number of passengers has increased by 50 per cent. That is why the system is falling apart and decaying.
The reality with LRT is that, where there has been investment, it has been under-investment, and the attitude of management has been cost-consciousness and cost-saving, at the expense of the interests of passengers. The travelling public in London are not, in the final analysis, worried about the cost of the service through the rates. Of course, it is a consideration, but it is considered alongside the wish for a tube to turn up to take them where they want to go. That is equally important to them, but it is not happening on the underground today. It is also important for the public to feel safe on the underground. King's Cross has been a great stimulus to the thought that people are no longer safe on the underground. For all those reasons, the travelling public believe that they are getting a bad deal from LRT.
There has been some investment in the transport system, especially in bus garages. The garage at Plumstead was improved at a cost of about £6 million, but some time later LRT tried to close the garage which, as a result of the tendering process, became surplus to requirements. That is the sort of inane and irrelevant investment that LRT has made, which is completely irrelevant to the needs of the travelling public and a sound economy. It is relevant only to an organisation which sees cost-cutting as the only way forward.
We have seen how that cost-cutting affects all aspects of travel, especially safety. I refer at this stage not directly to King's Cross, but to a report which appeared in the Evening Standard two days after the King's Cross disaster. It stated:
"London Underground chiefs were today planning a dramatic about face on their decision to delay vital safety improvements at 10 major stations."
This could lead to a restart of the
"£9 million programme to fit false ceilings with emergency fire-breaks on all Victoria and Jubilee tunnels and escalator halls."
The LRT spokesman said:
"The programme to install these fire-breaks is one of the action points arising from the Oxford Street station fire inquiry in 1986."
That did not go ahead until the King's Cross disaster forced London Regional Transport to reassess its objectives.
The article went on:
"King's Cross was one of the 25 stations targeted for emergency fire-breaks."
126
But that was not done at King's Cross or at several other stations. It is ridiculous that in 1987–88 a cost-cutting exercise which saved £3 million prevented those safety programmes from going ahead.
Great play has been made of the fact that London Regional Transport can now fund its capital programme from revenue. We know why LRT can fund its capital programme in that way. A monopoly market is driven off the roads on to the public transport system because of the appalling state of London's roads and the travelling public is forced to use those systems and forced to accept fare increases imposed by LRT this year of more than 9 per cent. on average.
In some areas, and especially in the inner-city areas where fare increases have been higher than average for several years, 9 per cent. is no small increase. However, the travelling public will accept those fare increases because they have no choice. Yet the increases run directly counter to the objectives set for LRT as long ago as 1985. It was then stated that LRT's fare increases would be pegged no higher than the level of inflation.
On 15 December my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked the Minister
"whether the objectives for London Regional Transport laid down by the Secretary of State … are still in force."
The reply was:
"The 1984 objectives cover the financial years 1985–86 to 1987–88. They have not been superseded or supplemented and are still in force."—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 430.]
If they are still in force, the Secretary of State should explain why the objective that fare increases should be at a level no greater than inflation has been overridden in the interests of fiscal convenience for LRT and of saving the Government a few bob in their contributions to LRT.
The reality is that the sloppiness and penny-pinching financial consciousness of LRT's management has had a devastating effect on the quality of transport. However, the Government's decision to underfund LRT has meant that London has a transport system that bears no comparison with Paris, the nearest comparable capital city. The Secretary of State made great play of the number of people travelling on the underground. Some 2·5 million people a day are carried on the London system. In Paris, 5·5 million people are carried on a modern, clean, efficient system that is liked by the travelling public.
If London had such a system, if the Government were prepared to invest the money to provide such a system, and if the management of LRT was prepared to operate such a system, it would be possible to see a first-class public transportation system in London and we could also get the cars off the road. The Government are prepared to spend £50 million a mile on motorway systems. We should save that money and begin to accept that London needs public transport. That is the way to solve London's transport problems.
10.37 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate, and I hope that I am not preventing any of my London colleagues from speaking.
I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) complain that the Government's policies were forcing people off the roads and on to public transport. I thought that that had been Labour party policy for years. One of the problems of this type of debate is that the Opposition believe that they must oppose everything that the Government are doing. I constantly try to be dispassionate about these affairs, although not always to the pleasure of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I can hear the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) making strange gurgling noises. If he believes that I fail in that task, I am sure that he will gladly tell me so, and I should be pleased to give way to him. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for staying firmly in his place.
Political dogma and public transport are and always have been uneasy bedfellows. Therefore, I welcome wholeheartedly the fact that there has been an increase in the number of passengers on London's buses and underground. I can tell my ministerial colleagues that their policy of nationalising London Regional Transport has been a considerable success. They may not put matters like that, but that is what has happened. LRT was nationalised, the Government are happily taking the credit for the results of that policy, and I do not want to detract from that.
The fact that London has escaped the full rigours of bus deregulation that has taken place in other parts of the country may give us a chance to look a little dispassionately at what we intend to do in London with the buses before we subject them to the same treatment. There have been distinct advantages in some aspects of bus deregulation. Frankly, there have been some problems, too. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will look at what has happened. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport is glaring at me. I dare not criticise any aspects of bus deregulation.
My agent, who lives in a village called Burton in my constituency, and I are trying but failing to obtain assurances from private bus companies operating in that part of Dorset that they are not paying bonuses to drivers to beat each other to bus stops to pick up passengers. Serious road safety consequences could arise in that village. That is one possible by-product of deregulation which needs to be examined.
The other day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State kindly saw my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and me to discuss the effect of coach deregulation in London, which has been disastrous. Not only do the railways face grotesque unfair competition from vehicles that pay none of the fixed costs that the railways must pay, but the use of unsuitable roads by coaches, which were previously controlled by the traffic commissioners, has provided a situation that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has described as intolerable. I regret that the Conservative party's transport policy has given the Metropolitan police so much extra work to do.
Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Adley: I am being brief. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
Mr. Banks: Go on.
Mr. Adley: Very well; I shall give way.
Mr. Banks: I shall not make a speech. What was the Minister's response to the delegation? The hon. Gentleman appears to me to be the lone voice of sanity in Conservative transport policy.
Mr. Adley: That was one of the most unkind and unhelpful things that has ever been said to me. It will take me years to live it down. My right hon. Friend was totally sympathetic. He allowed us to put points with which he was not entirely familiar. He gave instructions that satisfy me that the problem will be studied in depth. If a satisfactory solution cannot be arrived at by negotiation between the coach industry and the local authorities concerned, further legislative action may be contemplated.
The side effects of deregulation cannot always be envisaged when various pieces of legislation are passed. I refer to the use of unsuitable roads and the illegal parking of commuter coaches on double yellow lines in London. Also, commuter coaches are left with their engines running for hours on end to generate air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter for passengers on coaches that are in competition with British Rail. These coaches are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. As Sir Robert Reid said to me the other day—
Mr. John Wheeler: Who is he?
Mr. Adley: He is the chairman of British Rail.
He said that if he were to park his trains where coach operators park their coaches, there would instantly be an outcry. Of course he is right.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Adley: I shall not give way in case I am praised again by the Opposition. I am not quite sure why the hon. Gentleman is waving his arms about. I am not a bookmaker. I cannot understand what he is saying. Very well, I shall give way.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that problems were not foreseeable. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) pointed to such problems time and again. They could easily have been foreseen, but they were ignored and neglected by the Government.
Mr. Adley: The persuasiveness of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) caused me not to vote for the Bill at its Third Reading. Therefore, I am entitled to make my comments now.
We thus have several undesirable consequences of deregulation: the use of unsuitable roads; illegal parking; engines left running, causing considerable pollution to many of London's citizens; and, of course, the problem of speeding.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fairly claims, while London's ratepayers are being saved a lot of money by the tremendous improvements made in the management of London Transport, many of the inner London boroughs are now having to spend money on kerb

129
extensions and the construction of rows and rows of bollards to keep coaches out of particular roads —coaches which are there as a direct result of deregulation.
My right hon. Friend has done some good things. Some of them have had unfortunate side effects. The replacement of the bad, ineffective, GLC-driven management of London Transport has been wholly welcome; and perhaps the continuing debate about the relationship between central Government, local government and public transport could benefit from what happened in the same debate about our railways in the 1950s and 1960s.
Therefore, I plead with my right hon. and hon. Friends and with Opposition Members not to let political dogma become our chief motivation in these debates on public transport.
10.46 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for being able to say, somewhat more influentially than some of us, some salient things about coach deregulation. I remember that my former hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, Mr. Ross, made very similar noises when that Bill passed through the House.
As an hon. Member representing a London constituency living less than three miles away and coming over Westminster bridge every day, I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to take serious note of the points made. Coach congestion is a major safety and amenity problem; it is totally unsatisfactory and needs serious attention.
Inevitably, a debate on an order of this kind has two elements: normally a short debate on the order and a longer debate on London Regional Transport. On the order itself, it is a foolish politician who resists a reduction in the amount of rates that his ratepayer constituents will pay, and the sharing out of the burden of paying for London transport between the grant paid by the taxpayer and the contribution paid by the fare payer is obviously a refined formula. In general terms, I do not think that any great exception can be taken to the idea that the balance be altered, although the fare payer has paid considerably more than inflation has caused prices to rise. There are some disadvantages in that—and substantial increases at any one time often discourage regular use of public transport.
I would like to put specific points to the Secretary of State about the various operations of public transport in London, starting with buses. There is still great dissatisfaction with one-person operated buses. They are slower. The most regular route from near my front door to near the front door of the House, the 53, has just gone on to one-person operation. There is the new ticketing mechanism. It is slower and results in general discontent; and at night, although I cannot remember whether the pattern has been consistent, and assaults may have gone down some of the time, for many passengers it is much more perturbing that there is only one person in charge and that person is closed in.
One-person operation is also less safe when it comes to boarding and disembarking. An elderly passenger was killed recently when her foot was trapped in the door and she was dragged along the road. That sort of accident, to say nothing of other safety risks, is one of the
130
consequences of literally one person being in charge of a bus. There is no one there to help people—people with shopping, people with young children, elderly people.
So the public are still very resistant to the idea of one-person operation, in addition to the obvious consequence that it has for the staff of London Regional Transport. I am not one of those who argue that jobs should be created for the sake of it, but creating jobs for safety, to make sure that a system is safe, is surely acceptable and appropriate. The rush towards one-person operation goes against the will of the majority of people and delays buses; there is no doubt that services are slower.
Waiting times have increased. The graph in LRT's annual report makes it clear that, although the increase is not substantial, whereas waiting times for all buses stayed the same or decreased between 1982 and 1984–85, for high and low frequency services and the underground, waiting times have increased. Not only have they increased, the average waiting time for buses was nearly seven and a half minutes for high frequency services. Over the whole day there was a 27·1 per cent. chance of waiting more than 10 minutes. The wait is increased as a result of one person operated buses.
Regularly, people have to wait not 10 or 20 minutes but half an hour, three quarters of an hour, or hours. I wrote to the chairman of LRT on this matter because it is unacceptable that when one is waiting for the last bus it never arrives. That has happened on more than one occasion when I have been waiting outside this building.
With regard to competitive tendering, Kentish Bus runs some routes—the No. 42 is an example. Someone who frequently works on my team regularly tries to use that route but reports that that bus is up to an hour late two or three times a week. The regularity and reliability of the service is crucial in any city, particularly a capital city. The service is not being maintained at a high standard.
I ask the Secretary of State to show more urgency and less complacency about this matter and to pass that complaint on to LRT. It still does not understand that it is fundamentally important to some people that the bus arrives and that there are enough buses. It does not help the productivity of the capital city if that does not happen.
There are the same problems with regard to the staffing of the underground. There are complaints that there is more graffiti, that violence is increasing and that there is more rubbish. We await the inquiry into the King's Cross tragedy, but, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said immediately after the disaster, clearly the lack of attention given to cleanliness — the passenger committee is concerned about this matter and it mentions it in its report—is because staffing has been reduced.
Increasingly, people are sleeping in tube stations. They have nowhere else to go; the Government's housing policy is not very helpful in that regard. Inevitably, on occasion such people represent a fire risk.
There must be proper and adequate staffing. The number of underground staff has reduced from 21,598 to 20,612 and the number of bus staff has reduced from 24,665 to 22,389 in a way that is a risk to safety, cleanliness and good management.
We must spend more, particularly on the underground, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would deal with my question about the Government's commitment to safety and security budgeting in the investment programme.

131
I should like to make one general point for the Secretary of State to consider. The Travelcard system is clearly right. The more that we can integrate British Rail, the underground and the buses the better. It is still impossible to obtain a Travelcard to travel across more than one zone. In the central zone one cannot obtain only a bus or tube card. An unfair financial burden is therefore placed on some people.
Every year I make the ritual plea of south London Members of Parliament for the area to receive some additional benefit from public transport. It receives substantially less than the region north of the river. The white hole still exists—look at any London Transport map. There is still no east-west connection between the northern line and the arm of the metropolitan line.
There are arguments about the sort of railway that the docklands light railway should have been north of the river, but the south does not have a docklands light railway or anything like it. The previous Minister of State said that she recognised the problem and that she would do something about it. Since I have been in the House, nothing has happened to improve the matter and fill that gap.
Secondly, I ask that we look at the security of the underground network, particularly in relation to women's security, and at accessibility for the disabled. Too often, that is still inadequate, and a means by which people could travel around the capital city is not used. For example, lifts are regularly out of order, where there are lifts, and one cannot get access.
Lastly, although £5 million is to be given to Dial-a-Ride this year, there is concern that that might be reduced. It would be helpful—and London Members have regular correspondence about this with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) — if the Secretary of State could assure those who rely for their mobility on Dial-a-Ride that the Government are committed to retain at least the real value of their commitment, and that they would plan to increase it substantially. Those most disadvantaged in transport mobility terms need public transport services most. Diala-Ride is a good example and it needs that commitment from the Secretary of State.
10.56 pm.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I welcome this opportunity to say something about what my constituents feel about the services given by London Regional Transport. I have lived in London for nearly 12 years now, and during that time, I have got about by bicycle, bus or tube, so I see a great deal of public transport in London. This evening, for instance, I went out to my constituency on the Victoria line, and I am sorry to say that that journey was like most journeys made on the tube nowadays. The trains are unpunctual. They are filthy outside and revolting inside. They do not come when it is announced that they will come. Often, the signboard says that the train will go right through to Walthamstow, but it does not. It stops at King's Cross, and everyone gets kicked off. If one is a bit luckier, it will go on to Seven Sisters and everyone is kicked out.
This evening my train stopped at Seven Sisters. Admittedly, the board said that it would, so that is fair enough. I walked through to the other platform and I
132
waited—and waited. I waited with lots of other people and during that time four other trains came up the Victoria line, all of which stopped at Seven Sisters, and more and more passengers were waiting on the platform for a train to take us to Walthamstow. We had to wait for about 15 minutes, and the people waiting with me were not very happy, and I do not blame them.
Another station that I use regularly is the Angel, which must be one of the most filthy and disgusting stations in the entire system. It is a truly horrible station, but I have to use it from time to time. Two new lifts were recently put in, but the chances are that they are out of order and one has to walk down the emergency steps. There are hundreds of them and as one gets nearer the bottom, they get smellier and smellier and even more revolting.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I agree thoroughly with the hon. Gentleman's description of the Angel station and the lifts there. Is he aware that LRT is trying to privatise the lift maintenance service, and dismiss the lift repair teams that have done the work so successfully and for so long, and that one of the major causes of delays in repairs is privatisation?
Mr. Summerson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that the Angel is due to be entirely rebuilt, which I hope will take care of the problem there. I will come on to privatisation. At the moment I am setting out what I feel is wrong with the system.
It is not only the underground — it is the buses as well. Many's the time that I have had to stand out in the pouring rain in one of those apologies for a bus shelter. The wind whips up the street and one's trouser legs and shoes become soaked. As an hon. Member, one is supposed to turn up at one's appointment looking quite smart. However, when one eventually arrives, the creases in one's trousers have disappeared. One's trousers appear all baggy around the knees and ankles and that terrible white bloom has appeared on one's shoes. One does not look at all like a Member of Parliament.
I am happy to see the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in his place. When he and I were serving on a Standing Committee, he arrived late. I do not know whether that is endemic among Labour Members, but the hon. Gentleman told me that he had been delayed on the tube. That should not happen. Despite what Opposition Members say, the tubes and buses have been funded by the Government and the ratepayer to an enormous extent; LRT gets enormous amounts of money. I am concerned to know what LRT does with that money.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) talked about staff shortages. Those of us who use the underground frequently know perfectly well that, before one can go on the escalator — if the escalator is not broken—one has to pass through a sort of pinch point where a man is sitting in a cubicle. Now, what is he doing?
Mr. Adley: Knitting.
Mr. Summerson: Yes, he may well be knitting. He is reading his paper, or doing the pools or doing his knitting. He is not in the least bit interested in the ticket that one dutifully shows him. One may have to drop all one's luggage to get the ticket out of one's wallet, and I can never find it when I want it. Eventually one gets the ticket out

133
and shows it to the man and he does not even look up. Why cannot he be sent to work sweeping the carriages or scrubbing off graffiti?
The answer does not lie in trying to keep the public transport system going as a public transport system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Now we get to it. The London underground system should be coining money. It is a monopoly. It carries millions of passengers and it is carrying more and more. It ought to be able to provide a decent, regular, clean, tidy and safe service for the people of the capital. The only way forward is to sell off the lines to private enterprise. They could be sold off individually—
Mr. Peter Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman think that if L.RT were sold off and privatised it would become as warm, caring and efficient as British Telecom?
Mr. Summerson: It will be a great deal better than British Telecom. One needs to consider the separate functions of the two companies. The function of LRT is to provide transport for the people of London, and the best way to do that is to ensure that private enterprise takes over and runs LRT. In particular, we need to sell off London Underground, which will mean a decent service both for the people of London and for visitors.
11.4 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Clearly the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) did not realise that his right hon. Friend the Minister had told the House that London Underground already makes a £92 million a year surplus. The reason why the Government are pressing on lack of staff and not doing what they should do for the London underground is that Ministers want to transfer that £92 million to the buses, which they are shortly to sell off.
Responsibility for London transport is no longer at 55 Broadway; it lies with Transport Ministers. Section 2 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 says:
"It shall be the general duty of London Regional Transport, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State",
to provide transport.
The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are, in effect, dictators for London Regional Transport because Parliament says so. I am not saying that they wish that—they probably do not—but Parliament says so and it is they who are planning the very programme that the hon. Member for Walthamstow advocates.
Page 6 of the business plan, to which the Secretary of State referred, contains an anomaly. It is clear that we are due for another set of objectives. In 1985, the Secretary of State laid down a number of objectives for London Regional Transport, which had to convert them into a strategic plan and had to convert the strategic plan into an annual business plan. One feature of those objectives was that fares should not rise, in general, more than the retail price index. The debate is taking place in the shadow of the 9 per cent., or thereabouts, fare increase earlier this month.
Clearly, the Secretary of State's objectives have been breached. My inquiries show that London Regional Transport's interpretation of that is that it was for three financial years. However, those objectives have not been replaced and in a parliamentary answer the junior Minister
134
said that those objectives still operate. I suggest that the 9 per cent. increase was made on the instructions, under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, of the Secretary of State, and breached his own objectives. If that is not so, let us hear what happened.
The Secretary of State made it clear at the start of the debate that some of the rate income—about which we have heard today — has been transferred to invest in capital and depreciation provision, but that it will not be spent on revenue support. Those hard-pressed revenue supporters, through the rates, are no longer supporting the next year's revenue—the Secretary of State told us that; they are contributing to depreciation and capital investment. That is wrong in principle and should not be happening; nor should we have had that 9 per cent. increase in fares.
The £92 million, which we heard about a moment ago, is being transferred to the buses. It is clear — the Secretary of State has said so again — that we are approaching bus deregulation in the early 1990s. That means a reversion—again, the Secretary of State said so — to a number of private firms running what, since 1933, has been a single unitary London Transport.
I do not see how that will be done because the whole purpose of public transport by bus, pioneered by the London General Omnibus Company and carried on by London Regional Transport, is that a minority of paying routes pay for those that do not pay. Parts of routes that do pay, pay for the ends that do not. The routes that pay on weekdays or in the middle of the day pay for evening and weekend journeys. That is the principle of public transport as operated in London. How that will be split up either to provide public subsidy for the £92 million taken from the underground—historically, the money used to flow the other way — is a bit of a mystery, because central London provides the bus service. How will that pay for areas such as docklands, Newham and Ilford, and the outer areas, even Walthamstow, if the surpluses are made in central London?
Will the Travelcard facilities be continued? We should be given an assurance on that, because they have been a great boon for people in London, whether travelling on the British Rail Travelcard, the London Regional Transport one or the combined one. It also speeds up the one-man-operated buses that we do not much like. Let us keep the Routemasters as long as we can, because central London is the ideal place for their operation. They should be kept because they speed up traffic and are much better for passengers in central London. It is clear that all this has been planned for some time. British Bus Engineering Limited was closed, as was the centralised bus training depot, which has a worldwide reputation. Indeed, the Minister virtually said that we are to see London Regional Transport split up.
I asked a question not long ago about the proportion of bus routes that paid. At column 532 of Hansard on 18 January, the Minister replied that he did not know, that the information was not available. I find that very hard to believe. London Transport will not cough up the information either. No doubt it has been told not to by the Minister. But it is a sensible and fundamental matter in public transport to transfer surpluses.
There is every indication that 12 to 20 private firms—maybe about 15—will be operating commercially, and there will be the virtual break-up of London Transport as we know it today and as it was created in the 1930–32

135
Parliaments. The legislation went over two Parliaments, with two Select Committees. It was bipartisan; it was introduced by my former right hon. Friend Lord Morrison under a Labour regime and was completed by a Conservative Government in the early 1930s. We had a consensus, and we had a great civic organisation, which achieved worldwide renown, and which the Government are now about to break up, without being clear about it.
It is coming out bit by bit. When LRT sends us its literature now on organising transport for London we find that the familiar circle and bar symbol has gone. London Buses is to be split up, so London Transport as we know it will no longer exist. This is highly significant, particularly for those who voluntarily gave up publicly owned transport. In my constituency we have the West Ham corporation tram depot that was. There is a depot at East Ham as well, and there are depots at Croydon and Walthamstow. They ran their own trams as well. They gave them up to London Transport because they believed that they would be run in future by the public for the public. Now the Government are to change that. It is wrong in principle, and it should be stopped.
Repairs are being done at many of the garages. When I go around, people come up to me and say, "There is all this work being done at these garages — all these changes." Are they chickens being fattened for pirates who will come and take them in two or three years' time? That is what the operatives say, and it is clearly what the Government have in mind.
Talking about selling off, the Government do not even know what they are doing about that. The Victoria line has been mentioned. It has all the latest electronic equipment in it—it was built for that equipment—but it still cannot work properly. The Northern line is worse. When the extension to Morden in the south, built with public money in the 1920s, was opened the trains ran regularly every four minutes. They do not now. Things have got worse, and it is partly the Government's responsibility. Why have they got worse?
I asked London Transport about that, and it replied that there was a shortage of drivers because they were transferring to the Piccadilly line, which has gone to one-person operation, and it was having to recruit new ones. It had not foreseen the knock-on effect of that administrative change forced on it, required of it, by the Government. One-person operation on the deep tubes is in any case questionable, and that was the result.
I recently asked how many houses had been sold off by London Regional Transport since its creation in 1984. The answer, which appeared at column 532 of volume 125 of Hansard on 18 January, was that the figure was over 800 homes built by London Transport or its predecessors, probably near the depots to enable men and drivers to get there easily and enjoy good housing.
We know from answers that the cost of housing at Morden and on the Northern line is a problem. Those houses have been sold off on the Government's instructions. I do not say that they are all on the Northern line—probably only a few are—but that is an example of what is happening. Many things that are happening on that line are the Government's responsibility. They have brought it not on themselves, but unfortunately on the hapless travellers of London, whom they are asking to pay even more than before.
136
What about long-term strategy? The Government do not have much of a clue. I asked the Minister recently about the number of people travelling in London by different modes. On 19 January I received the answer, at columns 695–696 of volume 125 of Hansard, that on the underground the figure is now 4 billion passenger miles a year—an increase of 50 per cent. On the buses it is 2·6 billion, a level that has been kept up since 1980. They have done very well to keep that number. On British Rail, the figure is 8.3 billion, an increase of 2 per cent. I also asked how many passenger miles were travelled on the roads of Greater London, and was told that no figures were available. "But", said the Minister in effect, "we think that the number of people travelling on the roads is not much greater than it was in 1980." Tell that to the marines. Any person on London's roads will say that that is not correct.
The Government do not even know the figures, which are vital. If one is constructing a transport policy for a city—all three Ministers have read Select Committee reports and travelled around—one must balance the demand for travel by various modes and the public transport network which provides the basis for that. Give people the option of travelling by private car, facing congestion in certain areas and certain risks, but give them the choice of going by public transport.
The Government do not have a strategy. They are leaving it to chance. We can see that from an answer which I received today. In November 1980, the then chairman of British Rail, Mr. Peter Parker, presented for discussion an imaginative plan called CrossRail — building standard bore tunnels to connect some London terminals from north and south and east and west. The proposal was not put to the Government formally; it was probably done informally. I asked the Minister what consideration had been given to the plan. He said:
"The Department did not comment formally on the British Rail document in 1980. No proposals were submitted by the board and it was clear that considerably more work was required to establish the cost and benefits of this project. It would be for it to consider reviving this work in the first instance if it believed that it was a cost-effective way of relieving congestion on rail services."
There is a clue — the concern is with "relieving congestion", not with providing the basic infrastructure of public transport for London which is required.
I do not believe that the Government are discharging their duties to London. The parliamentary answers show it. In breaking up London Regional Transport, which is not perfect — I have criticised it in many respects, whatever Administration were in charge — they are breaking up one of the pioneer public corporations, which had great success and was a world leader. The Government are doing that despite the needs of the London people and their complaints, whether about Dial-A-Ride, the Victoria line or the buses. Therefore, the Government are acting irresponsibly towards London. The most damaging thing that the Government can do is to break up the organisations and contributions made by public enterprise in the last century and throughout this century, particularly by corporations such as Croydon, East Ham, West Ham and Walthamstow that served the people. The Government are not serving the people.
11.17 pm
Mr. John Wheeler: It was not my intention to intervene in the debate, but I felt moved to do so having listened to the hon. Member for Newham, South

137
(Mr. Spearing) and earlier contributions. It is extraordinary that we should have this debate at all. The people least fitted to manage a business called London Regional Transport are politicians, and the sooner it is denationalised and sold into the private sector —whereby the people of London may, if they wish, own the shares of the business — the better. The last thing we should do is have this annual debate. We are not competent to decide how London Regional Transport as a business should be managed, what its levies should be, and where and how it should do its work.
Under its existing management, London Regional Transport is giving a first-class service to the people of London and the millions of people who work in it and come to see it as tourists. The business plan prepared by the chairman and managing directors of the business is ample evidence of that.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport referred to the disaster at King's Cross. We do not yet know the reason for the fire. An inquiry is being conducted. I for one would rather wait to hear what those who are conducting it say about the cause and aftermath of the fire. Meanwhile, I am confident, having a number of underground stations in my constituency, that LRT is concerned to the utmost degree with the safety of the passengers using the system. That must be said firmly if the debate is to have any value.
Let me also say a word in conclusion about the improving crime prevention record on the underground. Crime prevention is a matter with which I have concerned myself over the years. Technology, better management techniques, a better use of personnel and the co-ordination of the British Transport police have all reduced crime, and there is now only one assault for every 500,000 passenger journeys.
I welcome the work done to reduce crime on the underground, which I believe is, on the whole, a safe and effective system.
11.20 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: The best thing that can be said of the speech by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) is that his first point was one of enormous cheek. Some of us sat on the Standing Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill of 1984 which set up LRT. We had arguments with the Minister, of course. His Government stole the democratic control of London Transport from the people of London, which they had held via their local authorities. The Government were forced to pledge a debate at least once a year in the House. This is it: a debate lasting an hour and a half, which is painfully inadequate. Now he wants to take LRT completely away from the people, and give them no say whatever in their own transport system for their own city. That can only be described as enormous cheek.
The order will mean a further decline in London's already severely hard-pressed public transport system. We know the slogan about letting the train take the strain. The Government's philosophy is "Let the passenger take the strain". Because of the pressure on the system, travel is now probably much more stressful for individual Londoners than a day's work. It is certainly more stressful for the housewife who relies absolutely on the system. That is because of the cutbacks that the order will continue.
Revenue support has been run down substantially. I have the figures, which were given to me in a written
138
answer in December. In 1983, the revenue support per thousand passenger journeys at 1986–87 prices was £124·86. In 1986–87, it has been reduced to £34·75, a quarter of the level at which it was four years earlier. That has had a savage effect, with thousands of redundancies in the service. Waiting times have been made much longer, and the standard of cleanliness has fallen, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). The cutback in revenue support has reduced it to a level of squalor.
Fares have risen by much more than inflation. Moreover, safety standards have been enormously reduced. One of my constituents nearly fell out of a train at Stratford, because the doors opened during a rush-hour accident, and she was nearly killed. That is only one example of the increase in accidents.
Traffic income — fares — as a proportion of LRT's total income has increased from the 1983 level of 60·15 per cent. to 71·2 per cent. this year. Fare rises are well above inflation this year, with more to come. There is only one way to describe the position: Londoners are paying more for less.
The Government have got away with a trick in the Autumn Statement. They increased the capital for LRT by £500 million and that is very welcome. However, they cut the same amount off the revenue support. The trick is that the £500 million in capital was for one year only but the cut in revenue support is a permanent cut. That trick has been little noticed so far, but it is a scandal.
There has been insufficient investment in capital terms. I will not go through all the correspondence I have received because several of my colleagues wish to speak. However, I have received many letters about the state of the Central line. I sent some correspondence to the Minister about the terrible conditions on the Central line, which my constituents have to use. There is immense overcrowding at places such as Mile End. I wrote to Sir Keith Bright and asked him about the situation and he said that there would be 16 new trains, but that they will be for the Jubilee line. He said that a few may be released to the Central line. I wrote back and asked him how many were to be released to the Central line and he said one. That is one secondhand train. My constituents deserve better than secondhand trains and a second-hand service. I will be pursuing that with the Minister.
I should also like to raise the serious matter of concessionary fares for pensioners in London. The Secretary of State boasted that his plans for deregulation are quite well advanced. I asked him only this week about his plans for concessionary fares for pensioners after deregulation. He said that they had "not yet been made". He said that he would be paying close attention to concessionary fares, but he has not yet given a commitment that they will continue when deregulation comes into play. When he replies to the debate I urge him to give a guarantee to London pensioners that they will have concessionary fares.
This levy order is part of the process of selling London transport short and selling London short.
11.26 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: It has been interesting to hear Conservative Members talking about the case for the privatisation of London transport and asking what we know about London transport and its needs. One thing we do know is what our constituents feel about it and what

139
they wish us to say in this place. Secondly, at least some of us are aware that on the principle of private profit we simply would not have had parts of London transport in the first place. For example, in the 1960s, when working in the Cabinet Office, I was associated with the evaluation of the economic feasibility of the Victoria line. It was well appreciated that the Victoria line, on any discount rate whatsoever, would make no profit at any time. It was only by taking into account the external benefits imputed to the opening of the Victoria line, including the reduction in the cost of road traffic provisions and signalling, reducing congestion and deaths on the road, and so on, that the decision was taken to invest in the Victoria line.
If London transport is to be split up into lots of private segments, who will get the profit-making ones and who will get the loss-making ones? That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It simply does not make sense, as has been illustrated by my hon. Friend on the surplus being generated during the day rather than at the end of the day and in central London rather than peripheral London, to go for a privatisation formula. I quote an authority as radical as Adam Smith who said that nothing is more certain when two or three producers are gathered together
"even for merriment and diversion"
than that they will seek to conspire against the public interest by
"contrivance to raise prices."
That is what we will see. Prices will be raised in order to pay profits to shareholders, many of whom will not be using the service. It is a disgrace that the Government are even considering it.
Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that the bus services that are let out to the private sector may pay a modest, or even a big, profit to those who run them now, but only because they are paid a subsidy by LRT for the unsocial routes?
Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend has raised an important point.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) fluently described the consequences of private bus operators in central London. I raised this matter in connection with Channel tunnel traffic coming out of Waterloo station. Where is the integrated planning by British Rail and London Underground in relation to traffic use there? There will probably be an additional 4 million vehicles a year. I do not know how many of my hon. Friends have recently tried to take a quick cut on the other side of the river between the roundabout at the far end of Westminster bridge and Waterloo at peak passenger times. What provision is to be made for private tour operators? There has been no forward planning for additional traffic from the Channel tunnel outlet because it is assumed that there is sufficient spare capacity to accommodate it. Tell that to my constituents; they will not believe it. That is why we need these debates and why Ministers must address these issues much more seriously than they do now. We need integrated road-rail planning, not the disintegration of road-rail transport that would flow from private ownership.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What happened in the 1960s?
Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position. In the 1960s forward planning led to considerable success—for example, the Victoria line—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman like to get to his feet and tell me whether he would have preferred the Victoria line not to be built? The hon. Gentleman does not take up my invitation; that is very interesting. I am sure that those who use the Victoria line will note that point.
On the question of the OPOs, London Transport told us this morning that access to those vehicles is easier for certain categories of person, but the point that was stressed to me by the Lambeth public transport group is that many categories of persons will be unable to use those vehicles because they are less secure for them, or they feel less secure on them. The estimate is that householders would prefer not to use them. The Government say in other contexts that they are concerned about the interests of the consumers. If they are concerned about these consumers, they ought to be listening to their voices rather than simply supporting LRT by pushing through OPOs.
11.32 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate is a travesty. Very few hon. Members are present for this debate, which is being held late at night. That is what passes for democracy for the people of London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) explained, London Regional Transport was taken away from any form of democratic control.
I am very worried about this order. It demonstrates exactly the direction in which the Government wish to go with London Regional Transport. The levy order includes an estimated grant of £190 million for LRT—the lowest public transport subsidy of any capital city in western Europe and of many cities in the United States. That is why there is to be a 10 per cent. fare rise, why trains and buses are dangerously overcrowded and why safety has been reduced.
We should be discussing the travel needs and priorities of the people of London. Last year was horrendous for many people in London. The King's Cross fire was a disaster. It was, by any stretch of the imagination, terrible, but it was not an isolated incident. Many other accidents and incidents occurred on the London underground network last year. If one cuts back on staff to the extent that London Transport has done, at some point safety must obviously be put seriously at risk.
The Government have not heaped all the horrors of bus deregulation on London, although I understand that many Conservative Members want that to happen. They want us to return to the dangers of the 1930s and before, when there were races between buses in an effort to get to the bus stop first. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) outlined what is happening in Dorset. There can be no doubt that what is happening there will happen in London if bus deregulation is introduced here.
I ask the Minister to look seriously at what the traffic commissioners and others are doing to check the safety of buses on the routes that are being sold off, the training that is being given to the drivers and the medical condition of some of those bus drivers. I say that as one who is genuinely concerned about the safety of passengers and not by way of criticism of the drivers.
The Government's record is one of producing unremitting disaster for those who have worked for and given their lives to LRT. The morale of the staff is

141
extremely low, and that is hardly surprising when 5,000 underground workers have lost their jobs, along with 3,000 bus workers and many members of the ancillary grades. Many of those who have not lost their jobs have been told that they will face the rigours of private competition. Against that background, it is hardly surprising that lifts and escalators are out of action for so long. The organisation involved is a private company that is not even based in London. A perfectly adequate maintenance service was provided by London Transport before the advent of this form of privatisation.
We are spending nationally £190 million on LRT, and 65 per cent. of that sum is provided by London ratepayers. The comparative benefits of spending another £200 million on London Transport would be marvellous. There would be cheaper fares, better services, better buses and less congestion on the roads. A better public transport system would take many private motorists off the roads. Unfortunately, a Government who are obsessed with providing tax concessions for company cars and spending money on road building will not contemplate that approach. London Regional Transport has been provided with a subsidy of £190 million while the cost of two and a half miles of road to Canary Wharf will be over £200 million.
I ask the Government to observe a sense of priorities. Let them cut major road building in London and invest the moneys thereby saved in public transport. That is the way to reduce congestion — improve safety and improve services for the travelling public.
We want to see the restoration of planning in London. We are suffering the reality of a nightmare — the implementation of privatisation, speculation and the destruction of all that is good about London. This is the consequence of the destruction of the Greater London council and the curtailment of planning powers within the boroughs. I want to see a democratically controlled public transport system in London, including the British Rail network within the Greater London area. We must have the sensible, planned public transport network that the capital so desperately needs.
11.37 pm
Mr. Channon: I have listened to the debate with close attention and I shall try to answer as many questions as I can in the brief period that is left for me. If I fail to answer any questions now, I shall write to hon. Members or ensure that London Regional Transport responds directly.
First, I make clear to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that I intend to improve both the road and rail systems in London. It is not a matter of either/or. I intend to have a large road improvement programme in London and a considerable investment in LRT. I am sure that that is what the majority of citizens in London wish to see.
It cannot be said that LRT is perfect or that it cannot be improved. No one is complacent. Having heard some of the comments made this evening, no one would think that I have announced a large reduction in what the ratepayers of London have to spend on LRT. There will be a reduction of 20 per cent. on last year's spending by the ratepayer, and that will be accompanied by a large increase in investment in LRT.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) rightly drew attention to the problem of crime, and I acknowledge that there is still far too much
142
crime on the underground. However, there is only one assault for every 500,000 passenger journeys. Of course, any crime within the underground system is unacceptable, but the rate here is better than in many other countries. About £15 million has been made available over three years to follow up reported crime on the underground.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) talked about one-person operated buses. Accidents are extremely rare and records show that door-buses are four times safer than open-platform buses. There are fewer instances of crime within door-buses, and the drivers are twice to four times safer than the conductors on open-platform buses. There has been a 25 per cent. reduction in assaults.
Mr. Holland: What about accidents to children?
Mr. Channon: Of course, any accident is one too many. But the figures show that there are fewer accidents on those buses than on the ones to which hon. Members wish to return. There is no proposal to go for 100 per cent. one-person-operated buses in London. Someone said that we were rushing to increase the number, but there will be only a modest increase next year.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) made a somewhat understated speech. We shall invest a great deal in the London underground to resolve some of the problems about which he and his constituents are worried. He drew attention to the Angel, Islington, which is a very overcrowded station. That is why vast sums of public money—about £20 million—will be spent to improve conditions there. Similar sums will be spent at other underground stations.
Several hon. Members mentioned fares. Despite the 1988 increase, fares on London Regional Transport are lower in real terms today than they were eight years ago, at a time when London wages have increased by 35 or 40 per cent. As a proportion of earnings, LRT fares are much lower than they were a few years ago. Some hon. Members have given a false impression of fares.
I was astonished that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned investment. Next year, we shall invest £365 million in London Regional Transport, compared with £193 million in 1984. In real terms, the figure is up by well over 50 per cent. Indeed, investment in real terms has increased every year since the Government took over responsibility from the GLC. So much for the nonsense talked by some hon. Members about the golden days of the GLC before my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I—whom the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), colourfully but inaccurately, called the dictators of London Regional Transport—took over. Investment is one third higher in real terms since 1984–85, and we have planned a further increase of 19 per cent. in real terms for next year. The elimination of the need for revenue support has released funds for capital investment, enabling investment to be increased while the burden on taxpayers and ratepayers is reduced.
If we are to achieve a better service for Londoners, we must invest in the capital expenditure on London underground, which has been necessitated by the massive increase in passengers during the past few years. Under the policies pursued in the past, public money was spent on keeping down fares and very little capital was spent on improving services.
Mr. Holland: It was generating revenue.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows — I am amazed that he challenges me on it — that this Government's record on investment in London Regional Transport is the best ever. We inherited a system starved of investment, and we have increased it enormously.
The 1988–89 figures for Dial-a-Ride are £6·25 million, not £5 million, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said. That is an inflation-matching increase over the current year and a 40 per cent. real increase over the last GLC year. I know of no threat to Dial-a-Ride, which is an extremely important service.
I reassure the hon. Member for Newham, South that there is no reason why Travelcards should not be retained after deregulation. There is no reason why prepaid tickets, including multi-operator cards organised by LRT, should not continue. Hon. Members need have no worry about concessionary fares, as I shall make clear when I make a full statement about our proposals for deregulation.
The hon. Member for Stretford said that it was nonsense to fund capital from revenue. No business man would agree with that. After depreciation and renewals expenditure, LRT is a long way from making a surplus. London Regional Transport is short by some £175 million. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stretford stated that the Paris Metro carried more people than the underground system in London. Yes, that is true. However, the Paris Metro carries more people but for far shorter distances. The average passenger miles per year are higher in London than in Paris. The analogy drawn by the hon. Member for Stretford is wholly incorrect.
I will study the points that have been made in the debate. We are setting LRT on course so that it will have more investment. Over the next few years we shall be able to provide a better service for Londoners and for hon. Members' constituents, whether they travel by bus or underground. We will do that at a time when fares are lower than they were eight years ago. I ask the House to approve the order.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.

PETITION

  Rating Reform
  11.45 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I come to the House this evening to present a petition from the convenor and members of East Lothian district council calling on the House to repeal the legislation under which the Government propose to impose a poll tax in Scotland, which is likely to be set at £361 per head for the people of East Lothian regardless of whether they live in a hostel or a castle.
  The people in every part of my constituency are making it clear that they object to the grossly unjust principle of the poll tax. It is both important and significant that our elected council is one of many Scottish local authorities that have resolved not to co-operate with the imposition of such a primitive and arbitrary system of taxation on the people of Scotland.
  I strongly support the appeal from the members of East Lothian district council to the House to repeal this oppressive and offensive legislation.
  To lie upon the Table.

Deep Mining (East Fife)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.46 pm
Dr. Lewis Moonie: Just over six months ago, in my maiden speech to the House, I described the coal industry in my constituency. I little thought that I would come to the House tonight to give its epitaph.
My constituency stands on layer upon layer of coal, which extends down more than a mile beneath the surface. Coal has been mined there for centuries—that is, until two weeks ago, when the tradition ended. British Coal announced the closure of Seafield colliery because of low production and heavy losses and it managed to buy the acquiescence of the work force through short-term bribes that it has instituted to persuade men to take early retirement and redundancies.
Why was Seafield colliery closed? Was it exhausted? No. Estimates suggest that there are more than 200 million tonnes of coal left in the measures that I am discussing tonight. Is it poor quality coal? No, it is not. It has the highest calorific value of any coal mine in the United Kingdom. It is low in sulphur and chlorine. It is a high-value product when we consider that domestic coal in this country sells at more than £100 a tonne retail. That is the quality of the coal that we are talking about. Are conditions difficult in the pit? Yes, they are. However, I wonder whether they were difficult enough to force its closure.
There are problems of combustibility with the coal, which have led to a loss of faces because of fires. There are also problems of steep gradients. Steep seam working is difficult. Seafield colliery has been the leader in this country in steep seam working involving gradients up to 1:1·5. Working gradients on that scale must be seen to be believed, particularly when the machine comes down the face stripping off three feet of coal at a time. Seafield has been a model for other areas. We could continue to learn from that pit about the use of that type of technology which we will need in future. British Coal often refers to averages. It refers to average cost and it averages out its losses. We are not talking about an average pit producing average coal at Seafield.
Was the problem industrial unrest? Last year, the work force of the pit gave up their Christmas break to fight a fire. The pit had a tradition of good labour relations. They were soured occasionally, I admit, by certain factors, but they were basically sound. Therefore, what was the reason for the closure?
The fault lies firmly at the door of British Coal and, to some extent, the Government. There is a poor investment record at Seafield. There has been a failure to invest in the modern equipment that the pit deserves. It can take over one third of a man's shift to get down to and up from his workplace. When a man is travelling down to and up from the coal face, he cannot cut coal. One of the problems was a lack of investment in belts for transporting coal out and for transporting men in. Belts were old-fashioned and in need of renewal. There were constant breakdowns in man-riding belts and in coal-carrying belts. When that happens, with no storage space underground, the line comes to a halt. That has been one of the main problems of low production over the past six months.
146
The other problem is the fact that there is only one working face at the pit. Again, it is all or nothing. If the face is working and everything is going well, coal is produced at a decent rate. If not — there have been many stoppages—production levels rapidly fall. In turn, that has led to a fall in the morale of the work force. It is particularly due to the fact that, last year, British Coal promised new investment in the pit. That promise was not fulfilled.
There has been a lack of sophistication in British Coal's management. It has good managers when it comes to producing coal. There is no doubt about that. They are engineers — they know their jobs — but they are poor handlers of men. Man management and personnel relations have been a failure. For example, last year, after the fire, British Coal paid off many underground technicians, skilled workers, electricians, and so on. The next thing we know is that it is bringing in private contractors to do the job, at two or three times the wages of the miners who were paid off. Oddly enough, the miners found out about it. That was scarcely conducive to good relations in the pit thereafter. Quite frankly, it is incredible that a company could act in that way.
The most important factor in the closure of Seafield is British Coal's failure to develop the new long-term markets that it needs for its product, particularly a product of such quality. It has failed to look abroad to places such as Scandinavia and other areas in which people are trying low-sulphur, good-quality coal to burn and avoid the pollution problems with which we are so familiar.
British Coal's marketing policy has left a great deal to be desired. It has spent the past three or four decades in the pockets of two consumers, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board. It has been quite content to sit back, accept their markets and not go out and look for the alternatives for which it should have looked. That is fine when electricity use is expanding and when buyers will take all the coal that British Coal produces, but it is no good when electricity consumption stops rising at the expected rate. Suddenly, we find a captive seller who is forced to sell at the price that the consumer wants. That possibility should have been foreseen, and the market should have been diversified.
There is also the Government's attitude to dependence on nuclear power. That is a mortgage on our future. We still do not know how we shall dispose of the ruins of the power stations that we shall close over the next 10 years. We still do not know what we shall do with nuclear waste. Yet we are expanding our use of technology that has been stopped in the United States of America. We are starting to introduce the self-same power plants that the United States has banned, to the cost of our indigenous coal industry, and the pit in my constituency in particular.
So I believe that the Government have had a role to play in this situation. But which Scottish Minister has shown any interest in the Scottish coalfields over the past few years? None of them. They do not discuss the subject at all. They say that it is the Department of Energy's problem and nothing to do with them. The fact that the coalfield is part of their country means nothing to them. They have no interest whatsoever. Can no one in the Government, or in British Coal for that matter, see the need to maintain the type of technology that we have developed in these pits, steep seam technology — so

147
important, yet just thrown away? Can no one see that the quality of the coal that is being abandoned is such that we cannot afford to lose it?
The result is quite simple: 4,500 jobs have been lost in the Fife coalfield since 1983, and another 650 jobs were lost two weeks ago. We have a young work force—average age, 33—with no hope of re-employment in an area where male unemployment is well over 20 per cent. There will be more job losses in the workshops in Cowdenbeath; there will be a knock-on effect on local business and suppliers, who will also be hard hit; there are diminished prospects for school leavers and for the excellent courses at the local technical college on mining engineering. We see all the usual stories of missed opportunities, of failure—everything thrown away.
What does British Coal think it is doing? I do not know. There have been precious few statements nationally about the problem. Are they quarrelling over the succession to Sir Robert Haslam, perhaps? Who knows? They are certainly not talking about Seafield. What is the Secretary of State for Energy doing? He is racking his brains over how to privatise electricity in the way that the Government want, keeping Lord Marshall off their backs at the same time mutually incompatible objectives, I fear, as can be seen from the worried expressions on the faces of certain Ministers in the Department of Energy.
From my criticism of British Coal, I exclude Mr. George McAlpine, its manager in Scotland, because the tragedy is that British Coal in Scotland now has a manager with vigour and vision, the manager it needs to lead the industry into the 1990s, while nationally we see the management hellbent on closing down the Scottish coalfield. I believe that we will see the end of deep mining in Scotland in the next five years. That is our future under British Coal. When Torness comes fully on stream, while there are still signs of low prices for the oil and gas used in other power stations, when there are these alternatives, when there will be a low, and falling, demand for coal from the South of Scotland Electricity Board, then British Coal will reduce its operations in Scotland, reduce its peripheral operations elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and end up by concentrating production on a few pits in the midlands, in Yorkshire and in Leicestershire.
This is not necessary. British Coal has made promises—well, one could almost call them promises—about the future of mining in Kirkcaldy. It says that it would like to mine the Dysart Main seam where there is 100 million tonnes of coal–40 years' output — and other seams below that. It has promised to consider investment, and I understand that it will begin prospecting near the Frances colliery site to the north of Seafield in April, with a view to a phased development, looking initially at opencast and later, so it says, at putting in a drift mine to take the deep coal out. Looking at the record of British Coal, we can be pretty sure that we will get the opencast, if it can get planning permission for it, but I would not like to stake my future on getting a deep mine at the end of it.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. As he well knows, I worked those seams in the east Fife coalfield for 30 years at the coalface—my father was killed in a pit in that area. But on the point that he makes about the reserves of coal in that area, will he agree with me that we are talking about an area
148
which is the largest proved coalfield in the whole of the United Kingdom, that it covers between 104 and 110 square miles, that there are seams outcropping to about 100 ft? Will he agree that it is absolutely monstrous to think about opencasting there? Opencast is a physical impossibility. Does my hon. Friend think that, with regard to the case that he is advancing, the Minister must give a positive reply about investment in this gigantic coalfield? Not to develop it would be a form of vandalism and a scandal for the people of Scotland.
Dr. Moonie: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. It is the largest coalfield in Britain, and the seam that I am talking about is only one of several that can be mined there. Other seams below it can be reached using modern technology. There are others below that which admittedly would be more difficult. We are talking about an enormous coalfield and we must receive some guarantees about its future.
I do not know how feasible British Coal's proposals for opencast mining are. It obviously considers it worth while to explore the possibility — opencast mining is a very profitable operation for it. However, it can be a threat to deep mining in Scotland, not an adjunct.
British Coal wants several conditions satisfied before it proceeds with its investment. It wants planning permission, but that would be fairly simple to obtain, provided guarantees are given about the future of deep mining. It wants guarantees on flexible working. There is no way that I or any other politician can give those; that is a matter for the NUM. There were signs from the local work force that, for the sake of their pit, they were prepared to work almost any hours requested of them.
British Coal wants opencast mining first. What guarantees do we have that there will be anything afterwards? It could be opencast first and last, and in five or six years we would have nothing but a dirty hole to the west of our town, which would, we hope, be reinstated.
British Coal wants guarantees about long-term markets. I thought it was the job of British Coal and the Government to secure long-term markets. What is being done? Can the Minister give any assurances that long-term markets are being sought to sell the product that the industry is producing? It is not much to ask for the Scottish Office, the Department of Energy, the DTI — the Department of enterprise, as it is known — to get together on a project such as this in which 1,000 jobs and an investment of £150 million are involved. If a Japanese company were involved, those Departments would be falling over themselves to be involved. What is wrong with doing it for the coalfield? Can guarantees be given to consumers that long-term supplies will be made available? Can finance be sought from the EEC?
Those questions must be answered, because the people of Fife and my constituency are sick and tired of empty promises. They want action, decisions and investment in our future.
12.2 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I begin by paying a sincere tribute to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and his hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for their efforts in raising the future of deep mining in east Fife. Last month, they met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and registered a number of

149
points—some of which have been repeated tonight—with him. As promised, my right hon. Friend raised those matters with British Coal. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy recognised, they fall within the management responsibility of British Coal. However, 1 should like to put the issues under discussion in perspective and then confirm one or two points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
The east Fife coalfield, which straddles the town of Kirkcaldy, has been worked for over 100 years, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Midlothian. The Frances pit, which at one time was Scotland's oldest working unit, was connected underground with the nearby Seafield colliery in March 1980. Both Frances and Seafield were exploiting undersea reserves, and working Britain's most consistently steep seams, with gradients as great as 1 in 1.2. Mining conditions have proved extremely difficult, with some seams, I understand, particularly prone to heating. During the long and pointless miners strike of 1984–85, both units were badly affected by underground fire, and its two main faces were lost, D51 at Frances and LO1 at Seafield. It was one of those fires which caused the Frances end of the unit to be closed down, and production resumed after the strike in two faces at the Seafield end.
British Coal recognised the potential of the unit and, contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, invested over £8 million in replacement faces, and the unit was well on its way to producing its target of four tonnes per manshift, which would have been an acceptable survival level. I have to say that the efforts were not helped by a series of local disputes.
However, production was nearing its target, and the future of the unit seemed to be safe. But over the Christmas and new year holidays just over a year ago there was another tremendous fire which resulted in the loss of the major production face, L15. The work force rallied round magnificently, working round the clock over the Christmas and new year holidays, to contain that fire. It was successful in saving one face. It is that face, D19, which has been worked over the past 12 months.
The area director, Mr. George McAlpine, to whom the hon. Gentleman advisedly paid tribute, said just over a year ago that in order for the pit to remain viable, a reduction in the work force was necessary. The local unions recognised this and accepted that decision. The agreed target, or four tonnes output per manshift, was reached for the first time in April 1987. Mr. McAlpine said at that time that on the basis of that level of production he was prepared to agree in principle to the development of a new face at an estimated cost of £10 million.
Unfortunately, further setbacks occurred. During September the men walked out in dispute over dust levels brought about by efforts to control a further heating underground, and there was a significant loss of production. Sixteen days later the unit was brought to another standstill by a further dispute. A coal shearer broke down, and members of the union responsible for repairing it, the Scottish Colliery Enginemen, Boilermen and Tradesmen's Association, refused to repair it, wrongly claiming that such action would constitute a breach of the national overtime ban, and losing even more production. In addition, the national overtime ban cost Seafield over £1 million in lost production.
All of these factors, combined with what everyone recognises were difficult mining conditions, meant that the
150
unit was operating well below its target — only two tonnes output per manshift and not the required four. The unit was facing a loss of £11 million for this financial year, and was causing a drain on the rest of the coal industry in Scotland. At a colliery review meeting at the end of November, Mr. McAlpine told the unions that the situation at Seafield was now extremely serious and that there was no justification for continuation unless costs could be reduced substantially, and the production targets met. The unit was to be given a final chance. It was agreed to hold a reconvened meeting on 11 January. Operating performance did not improve, and on 11 January the area director proposed that Seafield should close. That proposal was agreed by the majority of the unions involved, and production actually ceased at Seafield last Friday.
As well as promising that there would be no compulsory redundancies arising out of the closure, and that transfers would be available for those wishing to remain in the industry, Mr. McAlpine promised that a substantial amount of money—some £750,000—would be available for exploratory work to assess the viability of mining the substantial reserves north of Seafield which could be accessed from a possibly reopened Frances colliery.
The Government have made and are making substantial amounts available for investment by British Coal — more than £2 million every working day and more than £5·5 billion since 1979. However, the question of further investment at a particular colliery is one for British Coal management. To take a decision about Frances, British Coal must first be sure that there is a firm market for the coal—as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy recognised at the price at which it can be produced—and it will need to look closely at the future markets for the coal in electricity generation and other industrial markets. It will also need to compare this project with other possibilities.
Secondly — the hon. Gentleman referred to this —flexible working would have to be agreed by all unions concerned. As Sir Robert Haslam said less than a fortnight ago, flexible working is vital to the industry if it is to survive against fierce competition and expand the market for coal, and it is the only way to create more jobs and secure those already existing in the industry. Thirdly, I understand that the project would need to obtain planning permission in the usual way from the local authorities, and that is not in dispute.
Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a proposition to the House based on three assertions. The first concerns the availability of saleable coal—a new feature of the Government's case. Here we have a coalfield that is like a gold mine, yet the Government question whether the coal can be sold. Does the Minister agree that the second assertion then falls flat on its face? Six-day working will not solve anything if British Coal does not try to find a market for the coal that is produced. That places the men in the area in an impossible position. I wonder whether the Minister would reflect on that.
Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman, who is extremely experienced and well versed in these matters, will know that the market depends upon the price at which one is selling — particularly in the context of present world prices. Of course, the cost of coal, and therefore the price

151
that British coal fetches, is crucial in determining whether there will be a market. We have made no bones about that. We have never tried to disguise the fact that once the electricity supply industry is privatised it will be free to purchase coal where it wishes. We hold the firm view that British Coal has the capacity and the capability to compete against all-comers. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have superb reserves and a superb capability for producing coal. There is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and us on that. The only thing that we say is that we must exploit the coal so as to make it competitive. That will create the markets that we require.
I should also draw the attention of the House —[Interruption.] I must say that we are honoured by the presence of a very high-powered team of Opposition Members, considering that it is so late at night. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is important."] I quite agree. I should draw the attention of the House to the measures being taken by British Coal to mitigate the effects of the closure in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. Starting today, all 638 men on the colliery's books will be interviewed to determine how many wish to transfer to other units in Scotland. Those seeking redundancy will enjoy the generous terms available under British Coal's own arrangements.
Including the £5,000 supplementary lump sum, the redundancy benefits to younger miners with limited service are even greater than those available under the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme—something that is not generally recognised. For those with longer service, total lump sums of up to almost £40,000 are available, including statutory lump sums and cash in lieu of concessionary fuel.
152
Under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, the Government are providing 75 per cent. grant aid towards those redundancy costs, as well as towards the transfer costs of those who choose to take another job in the industry. I understand that British Coal expects to be able to offer alternative jobs locally to those who do not wish to take redundancy.
As both my right hon. Friend and I have made clear, the decisions which will decide the future of deep mining in east Fife are ultimately ones for the British Coal corporation. However, to a very large extent they will rest on the existence of dependable markets and a realistic attitude on the part of the work force.
In conclusion, as the Minister responsible for this issue, I hope that Opposition Members who have great influence in these matters, and many of whom have close connections with the unions concerned, will play their part in ensuring, in the interests of British Coal, and indeed of the country—forgetting party politics—[Interruption.] No, it is in the interests of British Coal that we forget politics and get down to considering how best to put the industry back on it feet.
This debate, which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has raised astutely — in the context not just of his constituency, but of the industry as a whole—sharply pinpoints the choices that lie ahead. Either the industry is run down or, if we get the industry and the working practices right, it can be put back on its feet. I very much welcome the debate and hope that it will result in a positive outcome in his part of the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Mental Illness)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on diagnoses of mental illness among the prison population(a) before and (b) after entering prison; what percentage included schizophrenic psychoses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information available is as follows.

  A census taken by prison medical officers on 1 October 1986 of sentenced inmates serving six months and over showed that there were 329 who were considered to require specialist therapeutic facilities by reason of mental illness.

  Figures from the latest returns of the number of inmates considered to be suffering from mental disorder of a type or degree such that they would be detainable under the Mental Health Act 1983 are included in the medical statistics on page 69 of the report on the work of the prison service 1986/87 (Cm. 246), a copy of which is in the Library. They show that on 31 March 1987 there were 240 (95 sentenced, 145 unsentenced) diagnosed as mentally ill.

  Prison Population (Psychiatric Profile)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the planned psychiatric profile of the prison population from the institute of psychiatry, university of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 October 1990. This important study is intended to produce over a three-year period a definitive statement of the dimensions of the problem of mentally disordered offenders in the prison system. It will provide a sound basis on which the Department is able to consider the further development of its policies.

  Mrs. J. V. N. Ball
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received correspondence dated 26 November 1987 regarding Mrs. J. V. N. Ball of Nottingham; and when he expects to reply.

  Mr. Renton
  The correspondence was received on 30 November. I replied to the hon. Member on 19 January.

  Incest
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of incest have been reported to the police for each of the last five years; and if he will provide a breakdown of the family relationship involved.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of offences of incest recorded by the police is published annually in the 2
  Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library. The most recent issue (Cm. 233) gives annual figures for 1976 to 1986 (table 2.15). Details of the relationships involved are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) convictions and (b) prosecutions there have been for incest for each of the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the numbers proceeded against and found guilty of incest is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", supplementary tables, vols. 1 and 2, copies of which are in the Library, in tables S1.1(A) and S2.1 (A) under offence classification 23.

  Michael Ryan (Firearms Certificate)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police as to when the perpetrator of the Hungerford massacre applied for and received his firearms certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 22 January at columns 869–870.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been in each of the past five years for breaches of the game licence legislation.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available centrally, which may be incomplete, is given in the following table:

  Defendants convicted under the Game Licences Act 1860 England and Wales

  Year

  Total found guilty

  1982

  141

  1983

  170

  1984

  146

  1985

  135

  1986

  90

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made as to the cost of policing fox hunting recreational activities, broken down by police authority areas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Information on this matter is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. John Porter
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the chief constable for South Wales into the circumstances surrounding he original disappearance of Mr. John Porter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of South Wales police that inquiries are still
  3
  continuing into why Mr. Porter, who is no longer registered as a missing person, originally disappeared from his house.

  Prisons
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the female prison population for England and Wales for the latest date available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Friday 22 January the female prison population in England and Wales stood at 1,810, including 21 held in police cells.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average female prison population in England and Wales during(a) 1984, (b) 1985, (c) 1986 and (d)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The average female population of prison department establishments in each of the years 1984 to 1986 was published in table 1.4 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1986" (Cm. 210), a copy of which is in the Library. The provisional average population for 1987 was about 1,700. The average number of females held in police cells in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 was 13, 8, 41 and (provisional) 68 respectively.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in England and Wales were committed to Crown court for sentence by magistrates' courts during 1986; and how many of those persons received a custodial sentence.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", supplementary tables volumes 1 and 3, (tables S1.1(A) and S3.6(B) of the issue of 1986) copies of which are in the Library. In 1986 6,450 offenders were sentenced by the Crown court after summary conviction by magistrates, 4,550 of whom were given a custodial sentence.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Effectiveness, Rewards and Morale
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what new proposals he has to improve the effectiveness, rewards and morale of the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  I am constantly seeking new ways in which to increase the effectiveness of our already highly professional Civil Service. The Government's policies of moving towards flexible pay and merit pay will reward high achievement and help to improve morale.

  Departmental Forms
  Mrs. John Browne
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he has taken to improve the clarity and presentation of Government forms, to make them more easy to use and to eliminate those which are unnecessary.

  Mr. Luce
  Government forms are now easier to understand, simpler to complete and more attractive than ever before. In December 1987 Government Departments won two of the eight annual awards presented by the Plain 4
  English Campaign. Since 1985, 20,000 forms have been improved and a further 11,000 have been scrapped. A copy of the latest progress report on this work has been placed in the Libraries of Parliament.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places are available under the assisted places scheme in each local authority area for 1988–89; and how many applications have been received in each area.

  Mr. Dunn
  The present number of assisted places available by reference to local authority area for take-up in September 1988 is as listed. We are currently considering how the assisted places scheme will be expanded in line with our manifesto commitment. Information regarding applications for assisted places is not collected centrally.

  Assisted places available for take-up in 1988–89

  11–13

  VI form

  Total

  Barking

  14

  5

  19

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  37

  10

  47

  Croydon

  89

  20

  109

  Ealing

  28

  10

  38

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  7

  5

  12

  Harrow

  31

  6

  37

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  7

  3

  10

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  25

  5

  30

  Merton

  26

  10

  36

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  30

  10

  40

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  61

  15

  76

  Sutton

  12

  5

  17

  Waltham Forest

  21

  5

  26

  Inner London

  468

  90

  558

  Birmingham

  67

  10

  77

  Coventry

  35

  5

  40

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  45

  5

  50

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  105

  15

  120

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton

  101

  15

  116

  Wirral

  140

  20

  160

  Bolton

  76

  10

  86

  Bury

  65

  10

  75

  Manchester

  140

  23

  163

  Oldham

  60

  10

  70

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  60

  10

  70

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  28

  10

  38

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  16

  5

  21

  Bradford

  40

  —

  40

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  5

  11–13

  VI form

  Total

  Kirklees

  40

  5

  45

  Leeds

  78

  15

  93

  Wakefield

  47

  10

  57

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  145

  25

  170

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  218

  57

  275

  Bedfordshire

  80

  12

  92

  Berkshire

  48

  20

  68

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  3

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  97

  22

  119

  Cheshire

  58

  15

  73

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  25

  10

  35

  Cumbria

  25

  14

  39

  Derbyshire

  36

  15

  51

  Devon

  113

  19

  132

  Dorset

  30

  10

  40

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  55

  15

  70

  Essex

  56

  20

  76

  Gloucestershire

  5

  5

  10

  Hampshire

  216

  40

  256

  Hereford and Worcester

  119

  21

  140

  Hertfordshire

  143

  46

  189

  Humberside

  48

  8

  56

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  51

  27

  78

  Lancashire

  143

  31

  174

  Leicestershire

  44

  12

  56

  Lincolnshire

  35

  10

  45

  Norfolk

  48

  12

  60

  North Yorkshire

  30

  7

  37

  Northamptonshire

  45

  10

  55

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  50

  10

  60

  Oxfordshire

  86

  23

  109

  Salop

  14

  5

  19

  Somerset

  82

  23

  105

  Staffordshire

  86

  9

  95

  Suffolk

  68

  22

  90

  Surrey

  123

  55

  178

  Warwickshire

  55

  10

  65

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  10

  —

  10

  ENGLAND

  4,486

  1,020

  5,506

  Student Grants
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to change the student grant regulations with regard to parental contributions in cases where students are estranged from their parents.

  Mr. Jackson
  No.

  Instrumental Music Schemes
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in favour of permitting instrumental music schemes of local education authorities to opt out of local authority control, as provided for maintained schools in the Education Reform Bill; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Dunn
  None. The Bill now before Parliament provides only for county or voluntary schools to apply to become grant-maintained. However, my right hon. Friend 6
  will today meet the national executive of the Schools Music Association to discuss the implications for school music provision of our proposals for education reform.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he plans to make available to schools in the maintained sector that have opted ou: under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, the services of the instrumental music scheme and other support services provided by local authorities.

  Mr. Dunn
  Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools will be free, if they wish, to negotiate with any local education authority for the purchase of goods arid services. Some may prefer to look elsewhere.

  School Playgrounds (Accidents)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has of the number of accidents in 1987 in school playgrounds; and if he will introduce measures to improve the safety of school playground surfaces.

  Mr. Dunn
  My Department does not collect detailed statistics of accidents in school playgrounds but monitors the general situation.

  My Department has recently consulted a sample of local education authorities on their experiences with climbing equipment and various types of surface used beneath it. We shall consider whether any sufficiently clear lessons can be drawn to offer general guidance.

  Black Report
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 807, on what evidence the recommendations of the Black report relating to cultural bias in tests were based.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The report of the task group on assessment and testing recommends that assessment tasks be reviewed regularly to seek to detect and eliminate any bias, particularly in respect of gender and race. I understand that the conclusions and recommendations of the task group were based on evidence from and discussion with a variety of individuals and organisations, including schools, local authorities and bodies responsible for existing assessment schemes, in addition to the collective experience of task group members. We have welcomed the broad framework of the report and will be considering its detailed recommendations, together with any comments received on them.

  East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's(a) planning and (b) spending on education of recent projections published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that East Anglia will have in the next 13 years the greatest proportionate population increase of both people moving in and of new births of any English region.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department's plans take account of projected changes in the population at national level; these projections are the aggregate of projections for
  7
  individual regions. Most education in East Anglia is provided by the local education authorities for the area; these authorities will wish to take account of the recent projections in their planning. My right hon. Friend takes account of the particular circumstances of each local authority area when making decisions affecting individual authorities.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EC Affairs
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to bring forward proposals for greater parliamentary scrutiny of European Community affairs following the implementation of the Single European Act and in line with the resolution of the House of 5 March 1986,Official Report, column 402.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The resolution of the House of 5 March 1986 related to the recommendations of the First Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation (Session 1985–86). Those recommendations which were addressed to the Government have already been accepted. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office reported this to the House on 23 April 1986 at column 393. Guidance has been given to Departments on the necessary changes in scrutiny arrangements, which came into operation when the Single European Act came into force on 1 July 1987. The Government will continue to keep the scrutiny process under review, particularly as the impact of the Single European Act becomes clearer.

PRIME MINISTER

  Glorious Revolution
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the special events being organised in the current year in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution.

  The Prime Minister
  Comprehensive information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost; but I am placing in the Library a copy of a provisional programme of events compiled by the William and Mary Tercentenary Trust.

  State Security
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the present definition of national security adopted by Ministers in Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  This term is generally understood to refer to the safeguarding of the state and the community against threats to their survival or well-being. I am not aware that any previous Administration has thought it appropriate to adopt a specific definition of the term.

  Crown Prerogative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether the public interest criteria of the code for Crown prosecutors, issued pursuant to section 10 of the 8
  Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are exempt from consideration of alleged offences committed under the auspices of the prerogative right of the Crown;

  (2) whether, pursuant to her answer of 18 January, Official Report, column 492, any alleged criminal actions in exercise of a prerogative right of the Crown have, since 1979, not been subject to prosecution as a result of the exercise of the public interest criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors.

  The Prime Minister
  Prosecutions are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and the other prosecuting authorities.

  Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has yet replied to the letter sent to her by Mr. Ian MacPhail on 13 January regarding cruelty to animals in Hong Kong; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have recently received a letter from Ian MacPhail, European co-ordinator of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, enclosing one he has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be replying as soon as possible.

  Trawsfynydd (Test)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her oral reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on the Central Electricity Generating Board's test experiment on the Trawsfynydd nuclear plant, 19 January,Official Report, column 819, whether Her Majesty's Government have informed the European Community Commission of the test under the requirement of Euratom treaty, article 34, prior to her reply of 19 January.

  The Prime Minister
  The test proposed at Trawsfynydd will take place only if the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is totally satisfied that it will be safe. Article 34 is not therefore relevant.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Passports
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the joint Home Office/Foreign and Commonwealth Office working group was set up to study the question of the introduction of diplomatic passports; what is the membership of that committee; when it expects to report and to whom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The joint Home Office/Foreign and Commonwealth Office working group was set up in September 1987 and consisted of officials from the passport department of the Home Office and nationality and treaty department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its report will be submitted to Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers shortly.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from diplomats or their representatives concerning the issue of diplomatic passports by the United Kingdom to its diplomatic staff overseas.
  9
  Mr. Eggar
  There have been representations from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office trade union side from time to time on this question. It has been a subject of discussion within the Diplomatic Service generally for a number of years.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why, in view of there being to his knowledge no country other than the United Kingdom which does not issue diplomatic passports to its diplomatic staff overseas, the United Kingdom Government do not issue such passports for the protection and convenience of United Kingdom diplomats.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the past it has not been considered necessary to issue United Kingdom diplomatic passports to assist diplomats in carrying out their duties. In view of changed conditions in the world it was decided to review the position.

  Mr. and Mrs. E. P. Wright
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact has been made by his Department with Mrs. E. P. Wright and her husband, who is currently in a diabetic coma in Cyprus and about whom the hon. Member for Macclesfield has written to him; what steps have been taken by his Department to assist Mrs. E. P. Wright with the health care of her husband in Cyprus; and if he will arrange for the husband of Mrs. E. P. Wright to be flown to the United Kingdom from Cyprus to receive medical care.

  Mr. Eggar
  The British high commission, Nicosia, was aware of Mr. Wright's illness and was in touch with his wife. Mr. Wright was due to be admitted to the Royal Military hospital at RAF Akrotiri for assessment on 18 January 1988 with a view to possible medical repatriation by the RAF at his own expense. Mr. Wright, sadly, died shortly before admission.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe concerning the freezing of the savings of Mrs. E. P. Wright; what progress has been made in negotiations with the Government of Zimbabwe concerning the releasing of the savings of former Rhodesian nationals; and if he will make it his policy to suspend all overseas aid payments to Zimbabwe until such time as it relaxes its freeze on the savings of former Rhodesian nationals.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are not in negotiations with the Zimbabwe Government over the release of savings of former Rhodesian nationals. In their exchange control regulations the Zimbabwe authorities have made provision for special consideration of individual cases on hardship grounds. Her Majesty's high commission in Harare continues to make representations on individual cases when this is thought to be appropriate and helpful. It remains ready to consider doing so for Mrs. Wright, with whom my officials have been in correspondence. I do not accept that there is a case for imposing a suspension of all overseas aid payments as suggested. The chief purpose of our aid to Zimbabwe is to strengthen the 10
  Zimbabwe economy so that the conditions leading to the predicament of such persons as Mrs. Wright may be resolved.

  Hong Kong (Rare and Endangered Species)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet replied to the letter sent to him on 13 January by Mr. Ian MacPhail regarding cruelty to animals in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My noble Friend the Minister of State replied on 22 January.

  Nuclear Materials
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he possesses on the commission of inquiry recently established in the European Parliament to examine the accountability and control of nuclear materials in the European Community under Euratom regulations.

  Mr. Mellor
  A European Parliament committee of inquiry is to investigate the movement of radioactive waste from the treatment plant at Mol in Belgium and to report within four months. It is composed of 15 members representing all groups and includes three British members.

  Terms of reference include consideration of the handling and transport of material, the existing Community regime for handling radioactive waste and the Commission's obligations covering the safeguards aspects of the nuclear material involved (including the question of plutonium in barrels supposedly containing radioactive waste), Euratom treaty obligations and application of the existing requirements for the cross-border transport of nuclear waste.

  Black Rhino
  Mr. Tony Banks
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any funds are made available by the British Government directly or indirectly for conservation of the black rhino.

  Mr. Eggar
  The black rhino is a protected species under the convention in international trade in endangered species of fauna and flora. The United Kingdom plays a full arid active part in encouraging the implementation of this convention. Our 1987 contribution to the CITES secretariat was US$37,863 (£26,478).

  The Overseas Development Administration also provide a contribution in the form of an adviser working with the Zimbabwe Department of National Parks on schemes to encourage wildlife conservation. One of the principal beneficiaries of such schemes should be the black rhino. The ODA is also in contact with "Rhino Rescue" about the possibility of co-funding a project in Kenya, the principal aim of which is the preservation there of the black rhino population.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Buildings (Repairs)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make additional funding
  11
  available to the Northern Ireland educational boards to enable them to tackle the backlog of repairs to school buildings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In December I announced that I was allocating £250 million for the recurrent expenditure, including maintenance of buildings, of the five education and library boards for the next financial year. This represents an overall increase of 5 per cent. over estimated expenditure for this year. I have also recently announced that I will provide an additional £0·5 million for the current financial year to supplement the boards' schools buildings maintenance budgets.

  Kilroot Power Station
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of Kilroot phase II in the light of his recent statement supporting a new private-sector lignite-fired power station in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The press statement issued on 22 December 1987 re-affirmed the Government's belief in the merits of a private sector power station provided that it is in the interests of the consumer and the economy of Northern Ireland as a whole. Kilroot II is one of the options under consideration in the competition for new generating capacity and I will not be in a position to comment on its future until all proposals have been evaluated and the competition drawn to a conclusion.

  Lecturers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will ensure that appropriate financial estimates be made for 1988–89 to enable any salary award for further education lecturers eventually agreed to be made retrospective to 1 April 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Estimates provision will be sought in this financial year to take account of the likely salary award which may be made with effect from 1 April 1987.

  Lignite
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what safety precautions his Department recommends relating to the use of lignite in power stations.

  Mr. Viggers
  All commercial power stations in Northern Ireland are required to comply with the safety provisions contained in the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the Factories Act (Northern Ireland) 1965. These provisions would apply to a lignite-fired power station.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies his Department has conducted into the case for additional power stations in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  Northern Ireland Electricity carried out a review of future requirements for new generating capacity in 1982 and this was revised and updated in 1986. The Government have accepted the conclusions of these studies which show that there is an unavoidable 12
  requirement for new capacity in 1995–96. The studies also showed that further capacity will be needed around the turn of the century.

  Economic Strategy
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what approaches he has had from trade unions in Northern Ireland for discussions on the Government's economic strategy.

  Mr. Viggers
  Over the past two years there have been 12 occasions on which Ministers have met trade union delegations to discuss a range of industrial and economic issues.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs were created during 1987 in the constituency of Strangford.

  Mr. Viggers
  Figures are not available on a constituency basis. However, in the Ards and Castlereagh borough council areas in the financial year 1986–87, 655 jobs were promoted by the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. In addition some 200 ACE and Enterprise Ulster jobs were also created.

  Mr. John D.Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs were promoted during 1987 by(a) the Industrial Development Board and (b) the Local Enterprise Development Unit.

  Mr. Viggers
  Job promotion figures are compiled on a financial year basis. The figures for 1986–87, were 4,187 and 4,244 respectively.

  Anti-poverty Programmes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been expended in Northern Ireland by the European Economic Community and by Her Majesty's Government under the current antipoverty programmes under European Economic Community directive 85/8; what sums remain; when the programmes will end; and if he will seek an extension of funding for those programmes.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Two four-year action research projects have received funding as follows:

  EC

  DHSS(NI)

  £211,743

  £173,246

  Assuming satisfactory progress, it is expected that the following sums will be spent over the next two years:

  EC

  DHSS(NI)

  £220,609

  £180,500

  The anti-poverty programme will end on 30 November 1989.

  It is for the European Commission to decide whether funding should be extended beyond that date.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the vehicles purchased and
  13
  used in Northern Ireland and the cost of each of them under EEC directive 85/8 dealing with anti-poverty programmes.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The rural action project has purchased and is using two mobile advice and information units. They cost £20,196 and £21,908. The Belfast and Derry unemployment project does not own any vehicles.

EMPLOYMENT

  Interviews (Travelling Expenses)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the practice of the Health and Safety Executive in respect of reimbursement of travelling expenses to candidates called for interview.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Candidates interviewed at open competition run by the Civil Service Commission for recruitment to the Health and Safety Executive are required to contribute £4 towards their travelling expenses. Their net claim is reimbursed by the Civil Service Commission.

  Candidates recruited to HSE locally for administrative posts are reimbursed travelling costs where these exceed £4 to the limit of the second class rail fare.

  Candidates called for interview by Health and Safety Executive promotion boards are reimbursed all appropriate travelling expenses.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many class I B factory inspectors have been promoted in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of 1B factory inspectors promoted in each year since 1978 are as follows:

  Number

  1978

  10

  1979

  9

  1980

  2

  1981

  4

  1982

  14

  1983

  7

  1984

  7

  1985

  15

  1986

  12

  1987

  12

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors class 1B have five or less years of experience of inspection in that grade.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Forty-two.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff of the Health and Safety Executive hold formal qualifications in personnel management.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's records show that eight of its staff hold formal qualifications in personnel management.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a regional breakdown of employment in manufacturing industry in August, September and October of 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates of employment in regions are made only for quarter months. The latest information on net changes to September 1987 is as follows:

  Employees in employment in manufacturing industry: net changes between June and September 1987

  Change

  South East

  16,000

  East Anglia

  5,000

  South West

  -1,000

  West Midlands

  1,000

  East Midlands

  4,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,000

  North West

  -2,000

  North

  -1,000

  Wales

  5,000

  Scotland

  -3,000

  Some of the decreases in the figures will be the result of the reclassification of jobs such as industrial cleaning, computer services and road haulage, previously done by manufacturers' own employees and now done by subcontractors. This developing feature of our economy has the effect of exaggerating the extent of the move from manufacturing to service sector employment.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of youth unemployment in the Peterlee and Seaham areas of his Department.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment rates by age are not calculated below national level. However, on 8 October 1987 the numbers of unemployed claimants aged under 18 in the local authority wards' which most closely correspond to the Peterlee and Seaham areas were 200 and 110 respectively.

  1 The wards which cover Peterlee are Shadforth, Acre Rigg, Blackhalls, Dene House, Easington Colliery, Easington Village, Eden Hill, Haswell, Horden North, Horden. South, Howletch, Passfield, Shotton, South Hetton.

  The wards which cover Seaham are Dawdon, Deneside, High Colliery, Murton East, Murton West, Park, Seaham, South.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies were registered in the Peterlee and Seaham jobcentres in November and December 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The numbers of vacancies notified to Peterlee, Seaham and Wingate jobcentres between 8 November and 4 December 1987 was 364. Separate figures for Seaham and Peterlee jobcentres are not collected. Figures are not yet available for the period 5 December 1987 to 8 January 1988.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the number of people employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in (i) Vale Royal district and (ii) Winsford in each of the last five years;

  (2) what proportion of the employed population in Winsford were employed in (a) manufacturing and (b) service industries in each of the last five years.
  15
  Mr. Lee
  Information about employment in local areas is available only for years in which censuses of employment are conducted. The available employee estimates for the Vale Royal local authority district, and for the area comprising the five local authority wards approximating most closely to the Winsford area, taken from the September 1981 and September 1984 censuses of employment, are as follows. An industry breakdown for the Winsford area is not available for the earlier year, but in 1984 the proportion of employees working in manufacturing and service industries was 53·6 per cent. and 43·7 per cent. respectively.

  Employees in employment1

  (thousands)

  Vale Royal local authority district2

  Winsford area3

  September

  September

  1981

  1984

  1981

  1984

  All industries and services

  Male and female

  35·6

  35·7

  7·6

  7·5

  Full-time

  28·0

  27·9

  6·5

  6·3

  Part-time4

  7·6

  7·8

  1·1

  1·2

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

  2 The district is defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981.

  3 Defined as the area comprising the five local authority wards of Wharton, Gravel, Swanlow, Over One and Over Two: ward boundaries as at 1981.

  4 Part-time workers are defined as those not working more than 30 hours a week.

  Job Release Scheme
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the Peterlee and Seaham areas of his Department have retired under the job release scheme in the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987 to date.

  Mr. Lee
  I am afraid that the information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tourism
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to encourage the American tourist and travel agencies to make more use of northern airports, hotels and travel facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I am keen to spread the benefits of tourism more widely around the country. I welcome the work done by northern regional tourist boards to promote their regions both at home and abroad.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will grant aid to more tourist information centres on the A 19 from Dishforth to the Tyne tunnel and the A1 from Dishforth to Newcastle.

  Mr. Lee
  I understand that both the Nurthumbria and Yorkshire and Humberside tourist boards are considering the provision of tourist information on the main routes north. The English tourist board is prepared to consider applications for assistance from the section 4 scheme towards the costs of developing tourist information facilities in appropriate locations.
  16
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure that, upon completion of the Channel tunnel, tourist traffic will have good access to the north-east.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department, as well as the Department of Transport, is represented on the British tourist authority's Channel tunnel tourism working party which is studying the impact of the tunnel on the tourist industry and identifying how best to exploit its tourism potential to the benefit of the whole country.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the implications for the development of the tourism industry of the introduction of a general certificate of secondary education examination in travel and tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  I understand that there are developments taking place in this area. While I welcome initiatives which help to make education more relevant to the needs of industry and commerce including tourism, it is too early as yet to assess the full implication for the industry of this particular development.

  Deaths and Accidents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage increase between 1981 and 1986 of deaths and serious accidents(a) in manufacturing industry and (b) the construction industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The percentage increases for the number of reported deaths and major injuries to employees at work are given in the table.

  Percentage increase

  (a)

  (b)

  Manufacturing

  Construction

  Number of reported deaths 1981 to 1986–871

  -8

  -14

  Number of reported major injuries 1981 to 1985

  +17

  +32

  Minus represents a percentage decrease.

  1 Provisional data for the year commencing 1 April 1986.

  The increase in reported major injuries relates to the years 1981 and 1985. Figures for 1986 are not comparable, since they involve a widened definition of major injury.

  Dock Workers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount of Government funding in the years 1972 to 1986 for the severance of registered dock workers from the ports covered by the dock labour scheme; and how many permanent registered dock workers left the industry in this period under severance arrangements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: In the period 1 April 1972 to 31 March 1987 the Government provided grants of £80 million and loans of £162 million to the National Dock Labour Board towards the cost of severances of registered dockworkers. In the same period 34,361 registered dockworkers left the industry under the national employers' release arrangements.

ENERGY

  Electricity Prices
  Mrs. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from firms in north-east Derbyshire on the proposed increase in electricity prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has received two representations from north-east Derbyshire about the proposed increase in electricity prices.

  My right hon. Friend made a statement to the House on this matter on 3 November last year.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding electricity prices.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about the future plans for the coal industry in 1988.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal regarding flexible working in the coal mining industry in the various areas.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will detail the number of job losses in deep mining in Scotland since March 1985, up to the latest date available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Coal advises that 4,236 men were employed in Scottish deep-mining on 26 December 1987. The corresponding figure for 30 March 1985 was 11,263.

  Electricity Industry (Cost Savings)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what cost savings have been achieved in the electricity industry since 1979; and what are the cost saving targets for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Electricity Council estimates that operating costs of electricity supply per unit sold fell in real terms by 10·3 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1986–87. The present performance aim for the industry is a reduction of 6·1 per cent. in controllable costs between 1983–84 and 1987–88. The performance aim for the next financial year is under discussion between my Department and the industry.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to support research and development into water-generated electricity in the immediate and in the longer term.
  18
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department will continue to support any renewable energy electricity generation scheme which shows promise of economic viability in the commercial market.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportions of the anticipated electricity generation for the next 10 years will be met by(a) nuclear, (b) coal-fired, (c) oil-fired, (d) hydro, and (e) other, power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  At present the industry estimates that in 1998 the proportions of electricity generating capacity in England and Wales would be:

  per cent.

  (a) nuclear

  14

  (b) coal fired

  60

  (c) oil fired

  17

  (d) hydro

  3

  (e) others

  5

  It will, of course, be for the privatised industry to make its own investment plans.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to encourage the casual production of electricity as a by-product of other industrial processes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The production of electricity associated with heat for industrial use is already widespread. I hope to see expansion in this field.

  Electricity (Economy Tariffs)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on measures to improve the take-up of electricity economy tariffs by customers of area boards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Area boards have extensive publicity programmes aimed at making sure that their customers are able to choose the most economic tariff appropriate to their needs.

  Gas and Electricity (VAT)
  Mrs. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will raise at his next meeting with the consumer bodies of the electricity and gas industries the implications for the industry and consumers of the levying of value added tax on gas and electricity, in view of the imminent decision of the European Court of Justice on the case initiated by the Commission on 15 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As my hon. Friend will understand, it would be inappropriate to enter into such discussions in advance of a judgment by the court.

  Power Stations and Overhead Lines (Public Inquiries)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he undertook and what representations he has received regarding the statutory instrument on the conduct of public inquiries into power stations and overhead lines laid before the House on 18 December 1987.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The new rules governing public inquiries into power stations and overhead lines, on which
  19
  the Council on Tribunals was consulted, implement changes envisaged by the consultation paper on inquiries procedure issued in December 1986 by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. A number of representations were received in response to that consultation paper.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives he proposes to take in the field of domestic energy efficiency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My energy efficiency office continues to promote energy efficiency in the domestic sector through information, advice, and its support for the community insulation projects.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he intends to take to encourage energy efficiency in(a) industry, (b) Government Departments and (c) domestic households over the next three years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on 22 January at columns 885–86, I announced the Government's decision on the way forward for the energy efficiency office in the light of an assessment of the office's programmes. There will be a continuing role for the EEO to fulfil. Initiatives in the domestic sector and in the Government estate will continue to be pursued vigorously. In industry and commerce, programmes are being examined to see how the contribution from those who benefit can be increased.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he is yet in a position to announce the outcome of the review of the energy efficiency office.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on 22 January 1988, at columns 885–86.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for the future of the energy efficiency survey scheme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In order to improve value for money the short survey category of the scheme will be discontinued with effect from 31 January 1988. Other aspects of the scheme will be considered as part of the further work on energy efficiency programmes which I announced on 22 January 1988.

  Offshore Supplies Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement regarding the health of the offshore supplies industry following the oil price slump of 1986.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The health of the offshore supplies industry has recovered significantly from the oil price slump of 1986. Drilling activity has risen to 1983 levels, the third highest level recorded, with a consequent upturn in the workload of orders for the service sector in general. However, I am conscious of the difficulties currently being experienced by the fabrication industry. Nevertheless, my Department approved 13 projects in 1987 and these should provide considerable work opportunities for the fabrication industry in the future.

  Oil Reserves
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the implications of the changes in known United Kingdom oil reserves since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Since 1979 estimates of initially recoverable reserves have risen by over 13 per cent. from 2,009 million tonnes to 2,280 million tonnes. This reflects the high level of appraisal and development activity in the United Kingdom continental shelf. On current estimates, the United Kingdom is likely to remain self-sufficient in oil well into the 1990s.

  Electricity Industry (Desulphurisation Programme)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has discussed the desulphurisation programme with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have discussed the Central Electricity Generating Board's flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) programme with Lord Marshall. The board's plans to retrofit 6,000 MW of existing generating capacity at Drax and Fiddlers Ferry power stations were announced in October last year. In addition, all future coal-fired power stations will be required to be fitted with FGD.

  Electricity Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairmen of the area electricity boards to discuss privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I last met the area board chairmen as a group on 13 January. No arrangements for further meetings have yet been made.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has examined suggestions for divesting the electricity area boards of their high-street showrooms, when electricity privatisation takes place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am examining a number of suggestions for the future structure of the area electricity boards.

  Energy Management Conferences
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for future energy management conferences.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In the past my Department has organised national energy management conferences. Increasingly, however, the private sector is showing interest in arranging events of this sort and I am glad to say that the Energy Systems Trade Association is planning to hold a national conference in Birmingham in December this year.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many existing power stations are expected to come to the end of their useful life in the next(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) 15 years; and what is their total electricity output.
  21
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations his Department received against the experiment proposed by the Central Electricity Generating Board at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received a number of representations. Most sought clarification.

  Fast Breeder Reactor Programme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on recent progress in the fast breeder reactor programme.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The United Kingdom's fast reactor programme has made some impressive advances in recent years. The R and D has led to significant design improvements. From the current financial year the CEGB has become a co-funder of the programme.

TRANSPORT

  Section 8 Grants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the operation of the section 8 grants system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Yes, the scheme is a major Government/industry partnership to help the environment and the results are impressive.

  London Underground
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the future development of the London Underground system.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend last met Sir Keith Bright on 14 December 1987, when a number of matters concerning London Regional Transport and the prospects for its main businesses were discussed.

  Ferry Boarding Passes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in his discussions with ferry operators on the use of boarding passes.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Government issued draft proposals on 4 November 1987 to require the use of boarding cards and a meeting was held with ferry operators on 21 December to discuss these proposals. I now expect orders to be laid before Parliament during February.

  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 14 January,Official Report, column 358, whether radioactive materials from Sellafield are
  22
  flown by air under international regulations; where they go to outside the United Kingdom; and what representations he has made to the International Atomic Energy Agency in the light of its current review.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not collect detailed information on individual consignments but I understand that radioactive materials from Sellafield are transported by air to France and in very small sample quantities to one or two other European countries. The United Kingdom will play a full part in the IAEA review. We have expressed no initial views.

  Buses (Concessionary Fare Schemes)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he intends to make, in his plans for deregulation of London buses, for maintaining on all buses concessionary fares and passes for retirement old-age pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Detailed plans for deregulation of buses in London have not yet been made. We shall be giving close attention to the arrangements for concessionary travel.

  Trams
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage the reintroduction of tramways into any cities or towns in Great Britain.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Outside London it is for local authorities to consider any passenger transport needs in their areas and, if they judge it appropriate, to work up proposals for the reintroduction of tramways or the provision of light rail systems My Department is already in touch with a number of local authorities and others who are formulating proposals for tramways and light rail systems. Where an application for Government funding for a particular scheme is made, this is considered on its merits. It is also open to the private sector to promote schemes and there may often be useful scope for private sector participation in schemes promoted by local authorities, such as the Greater Manchester light rail system on which I made an announcement on 18 January at column 533 in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wynthenshawe (Mr. Morris).

  Within London, the private sector is contributing some £68 million to the Bank extension of the Docklands Light Railway. The eastern extension to Beckton, subject to parliamentary approval, will be funded by the private sector out of the increased land values in the Royal Docks, attributable directly to the extension. My Department is involved in studies of the feasibility of further light rail developments, which will be considered on their economic merits.

  Thames (Tunnel)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to promote a tunnel under the River Thames instead of a bridge as part of the proposed extension of the A406 to the A2; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  The Department's proposals for a bridge across the Thames and counter-proposals for a tunnel
  23
  were examined at the public inquiry into the East London river crossing. I have recently received the inspector's report, which is at present being considered.

  London-Sheffield Railway Line
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future planned investment for the British Rail main line between London St. Pancras and Sheffield midland station.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The future planned investment for a particular line is a matter for the board. BR operates an HST service on this line and I understand that BR has just completed a £25 million programme to modernise the signalling on the Midland main line.

  Roads
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's(a) planning and (b) spending on roads of recent projections published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that East Anglia will have in the next 13 years the greatest proportionate population increase of both people moving in and of new births of any English region.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Projections by OPCS are taken into account along with other factors in the Department's forecasts of local traffic growth. The forecasts play an important part in the assessment of need and priority when determining how best to use the resources available for providing new and improved roads. They are revised regularly as more up-to-date information, such as the recently published figures, becomes available. The forecasts are taken into account when the Department is considering additions to the national programme of trunk and motorway improvements.

  M2/A2 Roads
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give urgent consideration to the capacity of the M2/A2 roads between the M25 motorway and Dover, and what recent studies have been undertaken on those routes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following a study, a scheme to widen the present dual two-lane section of the M2 between junctions 1 and 3 was added to the programme last year. Work to provide hard shoulders on the A2 from the London boundary to the M2, phased over a six-year period to 1991, will continue. No other major improvements to the A2/M2 route are planned at present. The position will be kept under review.

  Heavy Goods vehicles
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicles from abroad are currently checkweighed each month; what proportion of the total number this represents; and what proportion are found to be overweight.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Monthly statistics are not available. The Department expects to weigh some 8,800 foreign vehicles during the current financial year. This represents nearly 3 per cent of the incoming foreign vehicle movements. Many vehicles are regular visitors,24
  which increases the probability of being weighed at some time during the year. About 24 per cent. of the vehicles weighed are found to be overloaded. Checking is targeted on vehicles likely to be overweight.

  Pilotage
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce the appointed day under the Pilotage Act 1987.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend will announce the appointed day as soon as possible; it seems certain to be in the second half of this year. In setting a date it is necessary to take account of progress made with the preparation of schemes for the winding-up of the existing pilotage authorities, as well as to the need to avoid delay to the implementation of the Act.

  Cross-London Rail Link
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he made to the proposals of the British Railways Board contained in the booklet "Cross-London Rail Link", published in November 1980; and what study he has made of these proposals as a means of resolving current problems of congestion on London rail services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Department did not comment formally on the BR document in 1980. No proposals were submitted by the board, and it was clear that considerably more work was required to establish the costs and benefits of the project. It would be for it to consider reviving this work in the first instance if it believed it was a cost-effective way of relieving congestion on rail services.

  Air Agreements
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the bilateral liberalised air agreements he has made in 1987, and on the agreements he expects to make in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The major air services achievements in 1987 have been the adoption of the European Community liberalisation measures and the negotiation of a liberal air services agreement with Canada; further liberalisation was also agreed with the Scandinavian countries. Our objectives for 1988 include building on the European Community measures with our bilateral partners.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  DROPS
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government, as vendors of Leyland trucks to DAF, gave any undertaking or warranty in respect of Government contracts yet to be performed, including the demountable rack off-loading pick-up systems contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The commercial aspects of the merger of Leyland Trucks and Freight Rover with DAF of Holland were a matter for the Rover Group. Neither they nor Her Majesty's Government gave any warranties of undertakings on future business.

  English Industrial Estates
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the level of funding by English Industrial Estates in non-inner areas in 1988–89.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1987–88 English Estates planned programme in the assisted areas was increased from £33.5 million to £37 million. In the event, through increased levels of asset sales, they are likely to achieve a record programme of £47 million. In 1988–89 we have asked them to plan for a programme £5 million higher than this year's—£42 million. In practice we expect that they may exceed this figure and we have authorised them to spend up to £49 million if they can generate the necessary funds from their own resources.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the future role of English Industrial Estates will be outside the inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department's White Paper of 12 January made clear that English Estates will continue to provide industrial and commercial premises in the assisted areas where there is no prospect of private sector provision.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the level of development commitment to(a) the county of Durham and (b) Easington by English Industrial Estates in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Washing machines

  1975

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Sales by United Kingdom manufacturers

  £ million

  99

  168

  178

  167

  178

  207

  210

  230

  231

  187

  Thousands

  1,249

  1,309

  1,219

  1,117

  1,231

  1,371

  1,349

  1,430

  1,317

  978

  Per cent. of Saks exported

  By value

  16

  9

  9

  9

  6

  5

  6

  6

  5

  6

  By number

  17

  10

  10

  11

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  Per cent. of United Kingdom market taken by imports

  By value

  27

  28

  27

  32

  32

  32

  34

  36

  38

  35

  By numbers

  29

  31

  29

  38

  36

  35

  36

  39

  45

  38

  1 First 9 months only.

  The sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25 prior to 1983 and 100 for subsequent years.

  Fridges and Freezers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of domestic refrigerators and freezers in Britain, the percentage

  Domestic Refrigerators and Freezers

  1975

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Sales by United Kingdom manufacturers

  £ Million

  62

  91

  102

  106

  113

  131

  147

  156

  153

  125

  Thousands

  1,379

  1,253

  1,240

  1,188

  1,250

  1,315

  1,387

  1,419

  1,408

  1,099

  Percentage of Sales exported

  By value

  14

  19

  17

  12

  11

  10

  8

  8

  8

  12

  By number

  13

  17

  16

  13

  12

  10

  9

  9

  8

  8

  26
  Mr. Atkins
  The levels of the development programmes for individual areas for 1988–89 are currently under consideration by English Estates. The levels for 1989–90 will not be established until next year.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what developments have been carried out by English Industrial Estates in the county of Durham in the last five years, and at what cost.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the period January 1983 to January 1988 English Estates has completed 228 units in the county of Durham on behalf of my Department totalling 785,233 sq. ft. and costing £16.8 million.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what level of support English Industrial Estates will direct towards inner city areas in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Atkins
  The level of the new managed workspace programme for the inner cities has not yet been finalised, but it will be additional to the planned expenditure under the existing programme for he assisted areas.

  Washing Machines
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of washing machines in Britain, the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  What information is available is shown in the table.

  exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in 1958, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  What information is availbale is shown in the table.
  27

  1975

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Percentage share of United Kingdom market taken by imports

  By value

  46

  54

  48

  48

  48

  50

  46

  43

  46

  47

  By number

  40

  50

  45

  48

  48

  50

  47

  45

  46

  46

  1 First 9 months only.

  The sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25 prior to 1983 and 100 for subsequent years.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of television sets in Britain, the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  What information is available is shown in the table.

  Television Sets1

  Year

  Sales2

  Exports/Sales

  Import Penetration

  £ million

  Percentage

  Percentage

  1973

  326

  2·4

  27·0

  1975

  286

  14·3

  17·6

  1979

  393

  15·2

  22·4

  1980

  395

  18·5

  24·6

  1981

  405

  14·2

  33·5

  1982

  431

  13·3

  33·3

  1983

  508

  11·9

  36·0

  1984

  494

  19·9

  38·6

  1985

  494

  23·8

  34·8

  19863

  516

  30·0

  40·9

  19873 4

  265

  37·0

  37·0

  1 Video monitors are included with television sets.

  2 Sales refer to those of United Kingdom manufacturers with a minimum employment of 25.

  3 Provisional.

  4 First 6 months only.

  Radios
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of domestic radio receivers, the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  What information is available is shown in the table.

  Radio Receivers1

  Sales2

  Export/Sales

  Import Penetration

  Year

  £million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1973

  16·4

  8·9

  71·6

  1975

  13·1

  14·0

  74·1

  1979

  18·9

  35·9

  90·1

  1980

  11·6

  65·6

  93·9

  1981

  11·6

  32·2

  84·6

  1982

  11·3

  90·4

  98·8

  1983

  8·2

  111·2

  100·9

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1986

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Radio receivers exclude those combined with record decks, cassette recorders (other than car radio-cassettes) or music centres. Tuners and tuner/amplifiers, sold as audio separates are included but

  28

  amplifiers on their own are excluded.

  2 Sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25.

  n/a= Not available.

  British Telecom (Maintenance Service)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he anticipates Professor Carsberg will be able to complete his inquiries into the charges for British Telecom's premium maintenance service; on what date Professor Carsberg began his inquiries; what income British Telecom has derived from its interim half-rate charge to emergency organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  This is entirely a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications, Professor Bryan Carsberg. I understand he will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Portable and Car Telephones
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has of how many(a) car and (b) portable telephones were purchased in Britain for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are no official statistics but the information I have is as follows:

  Number of units

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Mobile telephones

  31,500

  56,000

  71,500

  Portable telephones

  10,500

  24,000

  38,500

  Note: Includes trans-portable and hand portable.

  Source: BIS MacKintosh Ltd.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has as to how many(a) portable telephones and (b) car phones are currently registered in Britain;

  (2) what information he has as to how many (a) handheld car-portable telephones and (b) voice-activated car-portable telephones are currently in use in Britain.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department does not keep a register of portable telephones and car phones and does not keep statistics on the number of car-portable telephones in use in Britain. We understand that the mobile radio network operators keep their own register of numbers of subscriber units but these figures are commercially confidential. However, the companies estimate that there are approximately 50,000 portable telephones and 210,000 car phones in use. Separate estimates on hand-held car-portable telephones and voice-activated car-portable telephones are not available.

  International Tropical Timber Organisation
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement of the results on the International Tropical Timber Organisation meeting held in Japan between 11 and 20 November 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  The third session of the ITTO held in Japan in November 1987 continued the steady progress of the previous meetings characterised by growing co-operation between producer and consumer countries. Agreement was reached on the budget for 1988 and on the arrangements for ITTO's headquarters. Twelve projects and three pre-projects were approved.

  Iran
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many trade missions went from the United Kingdom to Iran in 1977, 1978, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department provided financial support for six trade missions to Iran in 1977, five in 1978 and three in 1984. There were no dti-supported missions to Iran between 1985–87.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations have been made to him since 11 June 1987 about United Kingdom trade relations with Iran; and what are the prospects in 1988 of United Kingdom trade with Iran.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No representations have been made since I 1 June. United Kingdom exports to Iran are likely to remain constrained by Iran's acute shortage of foreign exchange due to the war and reduced oil revenue.

  Vicuna Wool and Cloth
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how much finished vicuna wool has been imported into the United Kingdom in each of the past five years;

  (2) how much finished vicuna cloth has been exported from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Vicuna wool and vicuna cloth are not separately identified in the Overseas Trade Statistics. But there are two triune headings ("Of alpaca, llama, vicuna") in the OTS broken down into, not carded or combed (5302 9400) and carded or combed tops (5305 3100). In the new HS-based United Kingdom tariff the distinction is carried through only for the not carded or combed (510210 300). Imports under the two headings mentioned above for January to November 1987 (latest figures available) were:

  £

  5302 9400

  79,000

  5305 3100

  1,665,000

  BP Shares
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what action the Office of Fair Trading is intending to take in relation to the shareholding in BP by Kuwaiti interests;
  30
  (2) what steps he is taking to monitor compliance by Kuwaiti interests with the undertaking given on the acqusition of shares in BP.

  Mr. Maude
  The Kuwaiti Investment Office holding is being considered under our merger control procedures by the Director General of Fair Trading. He will advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State whether there may be a "merger situation" which qualifies for investigation and, if so, whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for further investigation.

  Inner City Task Forces
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidelines his Department has issued to civil servants administering funds allocated to inner city task force projects to ensure access to employment and training opportunities for residents of the task force areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The aims of the inner city task forces include:providing more jobs for local people by identifying and removing impediments to their recruitment by local employers, and by encouraging local enterprise development;
  encouraging and facilitating enterprise by local people through the provision of enterprise training, financial and managerial assistance;
  improving the employability of local people, including those about to enter the labour market, by training programmes aimed at specific employment opportunities or identified gaps in the labour market.

  Funds are available to the task forces to address these aims, and I am satisfied they are being spent accordingly.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the expected outturn of expenditure in the next financial year on regional development grants in England, Scotland and Wales respectively.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The planned provision for expenditure on regional development grants in 1988–89 in England, Scotland and Wales is as follows:

  £million

  England

  155·7

  Scotland

  58·3

  Wales

  63·4

  These amounts are net of recoveries but gross of receipts from the European regional development fund.

  Non-life Insurance
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the reply of the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 13 January,Official Report, column 321, if he will make a statement setting out the elements of the proposed directive on non-life insurance which were agreed at the Internal Council meeting on 18 December.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: Yes. The most important element of the non-life insurance services directive agreed at the Internal Market Council on 18 December 1987 was the level of the thresholds above

  31
  which a more liberal regime will be applied to cross-frontier transactions. Other important elements include the circumstances under which a company already established in a member state may do business there on a service basis, treatment of technical reserves (the provisions held by insurers to meet their underwriting liabilities), matching (the requirement of an insurer to hold a proportion of his assets in the currency of his risks), provisions relating to compulsory insurance and provisions relating to taxation of insurance premiums. The directive will also make certain amendments to the non-life insurance establishment directive.

  The United Kingdom welcomes this agreement, which represents substantial progress in opening the EC market to cross-frontier transactions and should benefit both the producers and consumers of insurance. We hope the Council will now be able to reach an early common position on the directive.

  Weights
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the current weights corresponding to those given in table F1 of the monthly review of external trade statistics, together with export unit values for each entry in the second quarter of 1987 using these weights.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Information for the calculation of current weights in 1987 is not yet available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the export weights used in table F8 of the monthly review of external trade statistics are the current weights; and if he will provide an estimate for the end of 1987 figures based on changes in exchange rates and on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The weights used in the table are 1980 base weights. International data on rates of inflation in the fourth quarter of 1987 are not available. Estimates based on changes in effective exchange rates only are in the following table.

  Relative export unit value indices 1987 Q4 (Based on changes in effective exchange rates) 1980=100

  Indice

  United Kingdom

  93·2

  United States

  109·4

  Austria

  95·1

  Belgium

  89·4

  Canada

  76·9

  Denmark

  112·9

  FR Germany

  100·3

  Finland

  104·2

  France

  102·5

  Italy

  95·9

  Japan

  111·9

  Netherland

  86·7

  Norway

  87·2

  Spain

  98·4

  Sweden

  93·6

  Switzerland

  128·9

  Sources: International Monetary Fund; Bank of England

DEFENCE

  Plutonium
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the use in nuclear weapons of plutonium produced under the civil programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  One letter has been received recently from a member of the public.

  RAF Binbrook (Near Miss)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report on the near miss which took place over RAF Binbrook in Lincolnshire between an Air UK civil airliner Short 360 and a Phantom fighter-bomber in April 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. It is not the practice to publish reports on such incidents, the efficient investigation of which relies upon information volunteered on a confidential basis.

  NATO and Warsaw Pact (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide an updated estimate of the size of the nuclear weapons held by NATO and that of Warsaw pact countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Information on the numbers of nuclear weapons held by NATO and the Warsaw pact is contained in annex A, figures 15 and 16 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987". This will be updated in SDE 88.

  Nuclear Installations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what, in current prices, was the expenditure in each of the last five financial years of the decommissioning and redevelopment of nuclear-related plant, sites and installations of his Department, and what was the expenditure on such decommissioning in the half year April to October 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Expenditure, in current prices, on the decommissioning of nuclear-related defence plant, sites and installations was as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  5·5

  1983–84

  0·9

  1984–85

  2·5

  1985–86

  4·4

  1986–87

  5·0

  April 1987 to October 1987 £2·4 million

  Integrated Command Control System
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the ICCS command control computer system at High Wycombe strike command headquarters works to the requirements as set out in the original specifications.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The relatively small element of the ICCS command control computer system for strike command headquarters at High Wycombe has been
  33
  satisfactorily tested in a working configuration against the original specification and will be installed at High Wycombe as soon as building work permits.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the ICCS command control computer system at High Wycombe.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The High Wycombe element of the ICCS command and control computer system represents but a small part of the total and cannot be separately identified. The United Kingdom national contribution to the whole ICCS computer system is some £40 million.

  Year

  Accidents resulting from training and exercises

  Casualties resulting from training and exercises

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Civilian

  Total

  Civilian

  1975

  76

  —

  —

  51

  2

  1976

  75

  4

  —

  48

  —

  1977

  111

  1

  —

  71

  1

  1978

  89

  3

  —

  62

  —

  1979

  66

  2

  —

  54

  1

  1980

  94

  5

  —

  56

  —

  1981

  111

  —

  —

  76

  —

  1982

  120

  5

  —

  51

  —

  1983

  122

  3

  1

  62

  —

  1984

  162

  1

  —

  84

  —

  1985

  149

  1

  —

  95

  3

  1986

  133

  3

  —

  98

  —

  1987

  155

  6

  —

  97

  1

ENVIRONMENT

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive a report from United Kingdom Nirex concerning the dumping of low-level nuclear waste, following the recent publication of the consultative document "The Way Forward".

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend expects United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. to submit its recommendations for a deep dual-purpose disposal facility for low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste by the end of the year.

  Cap de la Hague Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what indication he has of the level of pollution in the Channel from the Cap de la Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing plant; what representations Her Majesty's Government have received expressing concern at the possibility of radioactive pollution crossing the Channel; what indication he has of French plans for expansion in nuclear reprocessing capacity at Cap de la Hague; what implications this has for safety in the United Kingdom; whether Her Majesty's Government propose to make any representations to the French Government on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Expansion of the Cap de la Hague facility is a matter for the French authorities. However, as a signatory to the Euratom treaty France has an obligation under article 37 to provide the Commission with such general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever from as will make it possible to determine whether the implementation of such a plan

  Explosives Accidents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what, for each year since 1975, was the number of explosives accidents and casualties resulting from Army training and exercises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The following table gives the figures according to Army records for accidents involving Army ammunition during Army training and exercises.

  is liable to result in contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another member state. Any information provided is reviewed by the Commission through a group of experts comprising representatives from member states. We understand that currently some refurbishment of the Cap de la Hague facility is taking place which will lead to a reduction in the discharge levels, in particular alpha bearing wastes.

  Representations to Her Majesty's Government expressing concern at the possibility of radioactive pollution crossing the Channel have been received only from Guernsey. Her Majesty's Government have communicated this concern to the French authorities, who have taken note. I understand that French nuclear installations are subject to similar stringent regulatory requirements as those in the United Kingdom.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carries out regular monitoring for radioactivity in the marine environment around the British Isles, including the Channel Islands, and the results are published annually and placed in the Library of the House. These studies indicate that the concentrations of radioactivity in the marine environment attributable to Cap de la Hague are of negligible radiological significance.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money has had to be underwritten by the Exchequer for Ordnance Survey commercial publications which have failed to make a profit since the introduction of the Ordnance Survey commercial arm in 1981.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 November 1987, at column 681.
  35
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the copyright royalties for Ordnance Survey co-publication products are charged as a cost against the revenue from sales whereas the royalties to be paid by private sector map-makers are based on the quantity printed, regardless of the quantity sold.

  Mr Moynihan
  Copyright royalty on Ordnance Survey maps used in co-publications is a cost which, together with origination and production charges, is set against revenue from sales of the product for the purpose of assessing profitability and return on investment. The royalty cost figure itself is calculated on print quantities in the same way as that applied to publishers who reproduce Ordnance Survey material in their own publications.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Ordnance Survey not to prevent national mapping, identified by the Serpell committee as being required in the national interest and paid for by the Exchequer, from being used by the private sector as the basis for commercial mapping which does not compete against the, so defined, national mapping.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 20 November 1987, at column 682. Ordnance Survey does not unreasonably restrict the use of such mapping in these circumstances.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now arrange for an independent investigation, as opposed to audit, of how Ordnance Survey allocated its costs for the production of the Temple Press-Ordnance Survey "Motoring Atlas of Great Britain" which was produced in 1982.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are no plans to arrange such an investigation. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 November 1987, at column 569.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by the urban development corporations in Tyne and Wear and Cleveland since their inception.

  Mr. Trippier
  Expenditure from 15 May 1987, when both urban development corporations were established, to the end of 1987 was £963,700 by Tyne and Wear development corporation and £2,211,800 by Teesside development corporation.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the chairman, vice-chairman and board members, and their remuneration, of the urban development corporations in Tyne and Wear and Cleveland.

  Mr. Trippier
  For information on membership I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 7 July 1987, at column 134. The deputy chairman of Teesside development corporation has since been ennobled and is now Lord Dormand of Easington.

  All the posts are part-time. The chairman of Teesside development corporation is paid £18,234 a year on the basis of a time commitment of two days per week. The chairman of Tyne and Wear development corporation is paid £13,676 a year on the basis of a time commitment of
  36
  one and a half days per week. Both deputy chairmen are paid £6,188 a year on the basis of a time commitment of one day per week. Members are paid at a flat rate of £3,625 a year.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has over the next three years to provide financial assistance to help remedy the effects of the October 1987 hurricane.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 December that the date by which work eligible for 75 per cent. special financial assistance must be completed had been extended to 1 March 1988. For 1987–88 he proposes to exclude from total expenditure, in effect to relieve from block grant losses, all storm-related revenue expenditure above the threshold defined in the Bellwin scheme whether or not eligible for special financial assistance, including revenue contributions to capital outlays made by the end of March 1988. For 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 he also proposes to exclude from total expenditure all debt charges incurred in respect of capital expenditure on storm damage up to the end of March 1989.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the capital spending plans for the English water authorities for 1988–89 will enable the authorities(a) to implement COPA part II, (b) to extend the list of bathing waters as specified under the European Community directive and (c) to meet by 1992 the European Community drinking water directive with particular reference to nitrates.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The public expenditure White Paper, published on 20 January, provides for investment of the English water authorities to rise by about 10 per cent. in volume terms over the next three years. This is in addition to the 40 per cent. volume increase since 1980–81. The amounts provided are slightly higher than shown in water authorities 1987 corporate plans which indicated significant progress would be made towards the implementation of COPA-II, and the EEC drinking water and bathing waters directive.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list those organisations which will not be allowed to obtain copies of the community charge register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Under paragraph 14(3) of schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Bill the Secretary of State may authorise the sale of an extract from the community charges register. In the light of representations that have been made, my right hon. Friend is considering whether and how that power should be exercised.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the community charge officer will be able to access sources of information other than those data held by a local authority; and if he will make a statement.
  37
  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), at column 601.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department intends to hold a copy of all community charge registers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on 11 January at column 78.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 278–9, he will add to the note

  Relationship of rates and community charges1, both gross and net, to net household income in each band of equivalent net income (England, 1986–87 prices)

  Ranges of equivalent net household income (£ per week)

  Under 50

  50–75

  75–100

  100–150

  150–200

  200–250

  250–300

  300–350

  350–400

  400–500

  500 +

  AH house-holds

  Average local tax bill (£ per week)

  Gross rates

  6·07

  6·17

  6·72

  7·32

  7·95

  8·31

  8·72

  9·27

  9·95

  10·54

  13·64

  7·40

  Gross community charges

  6·00

  6·36

  7·27

  8·03

  8·12

  8·01

  7·59

  7·36

  7·09

  7·42

  7·00

  7·41

  Net rates

  1·64

  3·04

  5·94

  7·18

  7·90

  8·29

  8·71

  9·27

  9·95

  10·50

  13·62

  6·37

  Net community charge

  1·63

  3·13

  6·31

  7·64

  7·91

  7·89

  7·52

  7·31

  7·03

  7·34

  6·89

  6·25

  Average local tax bill (as a per cent, of net income in each equivalent income band)

  Gross rates

  11·0

  7·7

  5·3

  3·8

  3·2

  2·9

  2·7

  2·6

  2·5

  2·3

  2·1

  3·8

  Gross community charge

  10·8

  8·0

  5·7

  4·2

  3·3

  2·8

  2·3

  2·1

  1·8

  1·6

  1·1

  3·8

  Net rates

  3·0

  3·8

  4·7

  3·8

  3·2

  2·9

  2·7

  2·6

  2·5

  2·3

  2·1

  3·3

  Net community charge

  2·9

  3·9

  5·0

  4·0

  3·2

  2·7

  2·3

  2·1

  1·8

  1·6

  1·1

  3·2

  1 Assuming full replacement of rates.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is carrying out the duties and commitments previously carried out by John Mills, previous deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The chairman, board members and officers of the corporation.

  Sales of dwellings to sitting tenants—Cheshire

  District

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Chester

  226

  244

  135

  147

  160

  Congleton

  233

  176

  103

  121

  135

  Crewe and Nantwich

  289

  130

  104

  121

  122

  Ellesmere Port and Nantwich

  671

  299

  167

  139

  181

  Halton

  999

  149

  109

  161

  134

  Macclesfield

  189

  220

  255

  210

  222

  Vale Royal

  526

  285

  289

  216

  196

  Warrington

  394

  263

  179

  167

  292

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were housed by(a) Vale Royal and (b) Chester from their waiting lists through allocation procedures in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local authorities' annual housing investment programme returns include the numbers of dwellings let on secure tenancies, in the years ending 31
  38
  placed in the Library tables updating figure F5 of Cmnd. 9714 showing the relationship of rates and poll tax to net household income on the same equivalent net income basis.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library a table updating figure F5 of the Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government", (Cmnd. 9714). The table shows the relationship of rates and the community charge to household income by bands of equivalent net income. The basis for adjustment to equivalent income figures is provided in paragraph F14 of the Green Paper. Even on this basis the community charge is a lower percentage of net income, both before and after rebates, for the lowest income group.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been bought by council house tenants in each of the last five years in each district in Cheshire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Figures reported by each district are as follows:

  March, to households under normal waiting list allocation procedures. Figures for individual authorities appear in column E9C of the "HIP1 all items print" for 1983, 1986 and 1987 and in column D9C for 1984 and 1985; copies of all these documents are in the Library.
  39
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many landlords were recorded on local authority housing waiting lists at a convenient date in each of the last five years in(a) Vale Royal and (b) Chester.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not available.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of homeless families in(a) Vale Royal and (b) Chester; and what has been the figure in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of households for whom the authorities reported accepting responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of Housing Acts, in each year from 1981 to 1986, appear in a table which is available in the Library.

  Vale Royal reported 152 acceptances in January to September 1987 and Chester reported 110 acceptances in the first half of the year.

  Empty Property (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of empty council properties in the London borough of Wandsworth on 31 March 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  According to information provided by the council, 1,078.

  Rate Support Grant (Cumbria)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the value in money terms of the domestic resource equalisation component in the rate support grant settlement to the county of Cumbria for 1984–85.

  Mr. Chope
  The value in 1984–85 is estimated to have been £15·6 million.

  Hampstead Heath
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many consultation papers have now been issued by the London residuary body in respect of Hampstead Heath; what was the date of issue and the consultation period in each case; and when he now expects a conclusion to be reached.

  Mr. Chope
  The London residuary body has issued three consultation documents on the future of Hampstead Heath. The first was issued in July 1986 and was intended to provide a starting point for discussion about the future of the heath. The consultation period ended on 30 September 1986. The second was issued on 30 January 1987 and sought comments by 30 April 1987 on the main options which had emerged. The most recent was issued on 11 January this year. It sets out further details of the current options and asks for comments by 19 February. As I stated in my answer on 20 January, at column 758, the LRB expects to make its recommendations to the Secretary of State thereafter with a view to a formal transfer of the heath as from 1 April 1989.

  Leisure Facilities
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the originators of the 352 responses to the consultation paper "Competition in the Management of Local Authority Sport and Leisure Facilities"; and if he will place the responses in the Library.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The organisations and individuals who have responded to the consultation paper are as follows. We are confirming with them that they have no objection to the release of their replies and copies will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Local Authority Associations

  Association of District Councils

  London Boroughs Association

  Association of London Authorities

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of County Councils

  Welsh Office of the Association of District Councils

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Local Authorities

  North Devon District Council

  City of Coventry

  Wealden District Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  South Oxfordshire District Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

  City and District of St. Albans

  Worthing Borough Council

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Borough of Boston

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Kincardine and Deeside District Council

  Runnymede Borough Council

  Borough of Hove

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Wycombe District Council

  North Kesteven District Council

  Midlothian District Council

  Ettrick and Lauderdale District Council

  Borough of Blackburn

  City of Norwich

  Mole Valley District Council

  Horsham District Council

  Taunton Deane Borough Council

  Babergh District Council

  South Ribble Borough Council

  Reading Borough Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  Wansdyke Borough Council

  Harrogate Borough Council

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  West Dorset District Council

  District Council of Uttlesford

  Stafford Borough Council

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Amber Valley District Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Inverness District Council

  Borough of Blyth Valley

  Cleveland County Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  London Borough of Bromley

  Leicester City Council

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  Hertfordshire County Council

  City of Portsmouth

  City of Salford

  Cambridge City Council

  London Borough of Islington

  Cannock Chase District Council

  41

  Wokingham District Council

  City of Nottingham

  Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  Thanet District Council

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Great Grimsby Borough Council

  Derby City Council

  South Derbyshire District Council

  London Borough of Southwark

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  London Borough of Merton

  Borough of Thamesdown

  Leicestershire County Council

  Lancaster City Council

  City of Bradford Metropolitan Council

  New Forest District Council

  Warrington Borough Council

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  South Norfolk District Council

  Borough of Redditch

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Winchester City Council

  West Oxfordshire District Council

  Borough of Macclesfield

  Council of the City of Chester

  Burnley Borough Council

  Staffordshire County Council

  Allerdale District Council

  Borough of Torfaen

  Newport Borough Council

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  Monmouth District Council

  Islwyn Borough Council

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  Dunfermline District Council

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  Borough of Tamworth

  Halton Borough Council

  Holderness Borough Council

  City of Liverpool

  Inverclyde District Council

  Clydesdale District Council

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  London Borough of Camden

  South Derbyshire District Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Borough of Blaenau Gwent

  Cambridge County Council

  City of Westminster

  Tendring District Council

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Norfolk County Council

  City of York

  Metropolitan Borough of Stockport

  London Borough of Newham

  West Lindsey District Council

  Derbyshire County Council

  Wealden District Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Town Council of Whitworth

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  Wreking Council

  London Borough of Hackney

  Borough of Milton Keynes

  South Hams District Council

  City of Sheffield

  Bracknall District Council

  Chorley Borough Council

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  London Borough of Bexley

  London Borough of Brent

  Stirling District Council

  42

  City of Edinburgh District Council

  Moray District Council

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Suffolk County Council

  London Borough of Lewisharn

  Bearsden and Milngarie District Council

  London Borough of Redbridge

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  Wiltshire County Council

  Borough Council of Taff-Ely

  Borough of Sunderland

  Roxburgh District Council

  Oxford City Council

  Cheshire County Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough

  Gwent County Council

  Kerrier District Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  Borough of Crewe and Nantwich

  London Borough of Lambeth

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Hull City Council

  Sports National Bodies

  Sports Council

  Sports Council for Wales

  Scottish Sports Council

  Central Council for Physical Recreation

  British Olympic Association

  National Council for School Sports

  British Council of Physical Education

  Scottish Physical Education Association

  Womens Sports Foundation

  Governing Bodies of Individual Sports

  Amateur Athletics Association

  English Schools Swimming Association

  English Mini Basket Ball Association

  Scottish Basket Ball Association

  National Greyhound Racing Club

  National Small-Bore Rifle Association

  Golf Foundation

  National Federation of Sea Anglers

  Speedway Control Board

  British Crown Green Bowling Association

  Surf Life Saving Association of Great Britain

  Royal Yachting Association

  Badminton Association of England

  British Canoe Union

  English Ski Council

  British Schools Lawn Tennis Association

  Welsh Curling Association

  Welsh Baseball Union

  Keep Fit Association of Wales

  Welsh Yachting Association

  Table Tennis Association of Wales

  British Amateur Gymnastics Association

  British Mountaineering Council

  Squash Rackets Association

  Welsh Bowling Association

  British Sub-Aqua Club

  Jockey Club

  Football Association

  English Basketball Association

  English Volleyball Association

  Board of Control for Cricket in Wales

  Hockey Association

  Scottish Amateur Swimming Association

  English Pool Association

  All England Netball Association

  Lawn Tennis Association

  Amateur Swimming Association

  Scottish Volleyball Association

  Welsh Shooting Council

  Scottish Trampoline Association

  Scottish Sub-Aqua Club

  Scottish Sports Association

  Welsh Women's Hockey Association

  43
  Other sport organisations

  East Midlands Regional Council for Sports and Recreation

  Yorkshire & Humberside Regional Council for Sport and Recreation

  South East Council for Sport and Recreation

  South Western Council for Sport and Recreation

  North West Council for Sport and Recreation

  Eastern Council for Sport and Recreation

  West Midlands Council for Sport and Recreation

  London Council for Sport and Recreation

  Southern Council for Sport and Recreation

  Northern Council for Sport and Recreation

  Wrekin & District Sports Advisory Council

  Worthing and District Sports Council

  Hereford Sports Council

  Weymouth and Portland Sports Advisory Council

  Yorkshire Union of Golf Clubs

  Bromley Sports Council

  Bromley Ladies Athletic Club

  Bromley Gymnastic Association

  Leicestershire Playing Fields Association

  Yorkshire and Humberside Orienteering Association

  Chadderton Amateur Swimming Club

  Haringey Sports Council

  Bulwell Forest Golf Club

  Northern Sunday League

  Oldham Metropolitan Swimming and Water Polo Association

  Northern Counties Women's Amateur Athletics Association

  Incorporated West Herts Golf Club

  Eskvale Hockey Club

  Norwich Sports Council

  Yorkshire Women's Amateur Athletics Association

  Yorkshire Cricket Association

  Thamesdown Sports Council

  Hyde Seal Swimming Club

  Crompton Classics Amateur Swimming Club

  Salford Metropolitan Sports Council

  Verlea Athletic Club

  Lewisham Sports Council

  Cumbria Amateur Athletic Association

  Sport Hall Athletic Association

  Cambrian Cave Council

  Border City Swimming Club

  Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews

  Bingley Harriers and Athletics Club

  North Farnborough Football Club

  Barrowford Bowling Club

  Christie Miller Gymnastics Club

  Havant Athletic Club

  Federation of Sport and Recreation Organisations (W Midlands)

  Oswestry and District Sports Council

  Conference of Sport and Recreation (South East Region)

  Woking Athletic Club

  Dudley Sports Council

  Leicester Handball Club '73

  Tynedale Sports Council

  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Sports Council

  Leeds City Sports Federation

  Kendal Amateur Athletic Club

  Football Trust

  Sussex County Playing Fields Association

  Hammersmith and Fulham Advisory Council

  Sussex County Hockey Association

  Kent Athletic Coaching Committee

  Cleethorpes and District Athletics Club

  Southern Counties Hockey Association

  Walthamstow Athletic Club

  19 proforma letters from members of the Satellite Swimming Club (Macclessfield)

  22 proforma letters from users of Borough of Blackburn's sports facilities

  Private sector companies

  Fitness Company Limited

  Arthur Young International

  Crossland Leisure (Holdings) Limited

  Public Sector Management

  Bourne Leisure Group Limited

  44

  Association of Independent Businesses

  Lifestyle Engineering

  MTM Leisure

  Plimley Estates Limited

  Rank Leisure

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Price Waterhouse (Office of Local Government Services)

  Professional bodies and trade unions

  Association of Metropolitan District Engineers

  Institution of Civil Engineers

  Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management

  Institute of Baths and Recreation Management

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

  Chief Leisure Officers Association

  National Union of Public Employees

  Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers

  Association of Directors of Recreation, Leisure and Tourism

  Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators

  Trades Union Congress

  Midlothian Trades Council

  Scottish Association of Community Education Staff

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Institution of Environmental Health Officers

  Other Organisations and Individuals

  Audit Commission

  District Audit Service

  Colehill Residents' Association

  Holt Park Middle School

  Scottish Tourist Board

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Mr. P. Stickley

  YMCA British Urban Group

  Mr. W. J. Balshaw

  Mr. N. A. Sumnersgill

  Fareham Alliance Group

  Penicuik and District Singers

  Linlithegow Community Education Association

  National Turfgrass Council

  British Resorts Association

  Edinburgh Federation of Community Centre Mangement Committees

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  Coronary Prevention Group

  Local Government Training Board

  National Union of Ratepayers' Association

  Lawrence Graham Solicitors

  South Side Association

  West Lothian Federation of Management Committees

  Marchment Regional Council

  Mr. A. Jack

  Mr. A. James

  Welsh Health Promotion Authority

  Mr. H. Stovin

  Mr.P. K. Lyers

  Mr. D. J. Morris

  Commission for New Towns

  Dr. E. L. Lloyd

  Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Conservative Group)

  Councillor I.R. Kimm (London Borough of Southwark)

  De Aston Sports Centre

  Lothian Regional Council

  Mr. H. E. Knott

  Health Education Authority

  Water Meters
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been done to design water meters which are unaffected by the abrasive qualities of water; and how often it will be necessary to remove and replace such water meters.
  45
  Mr. Moynihan
  There is no evidence to suggest that water meters of the type used in Britain are affected by the abrasive quality of water, although, as part of the proposed metering trials, the in-service performance of meters will be carefully monitored. Current research suggests that meters have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years.

  Game licences issued in England and Wales

  Game (red)

  Game (green)

  Game (blue)

  Game occasional

  Game dealer

  Game keeper

  Totals

  1982–83 Number issued

  24,525

  457

  9,718

  1,232

  1,435

  825

  38,192

  Revenue

  £147,150

  £1,828

  £38,872

  £2,464

  £5,740

  £3,300

  £199,354

  1983–84 Number issued

  25,131

  466

  10,206

  1,148

  1,336

  814

  39,101

  Revenue

  £150,786

  £1,864

  £40,824

  £2,296

  £5,344

  £3,256

  £204,370

  1984–85 Number issued

  24,862

  545

  9,773

  1,249

  1,233

  820

  38,482

  Revenue

  £149,172

  £2,180

  £39,092

  £2,498

  £4,932

  £3,280

  £.201,154

  1985–86 Number issued

  23,647

  581

  10,175

  1,172

  1,415

  809

  37,799

  Revenue

  £141,882

  £2,324

  £40,700

  £2,344

  £5,660

  £3,236

  £196,146

  1986–87 Number issued

  11,342

  463

  9,589

  920

  436

  264

  23,014

  Revenue

  £68,052

  £1,852

  £38,356

  £1,840

  £1,744

  £1,056

  £112,900

  Administration costs for game licences are not available separately from those for dog licences. Total costs were:

  £K

  1982–83

  3,680

  1983–84

  3,816

  1984–85

  3,311

  1985–86

  3,469

  1986–87

  3,098

  Maen Valley Caravan Park, Falmouth
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for the local inquiry into the called-in-planning application of the proposed chalet development at Maen Valley caravan park, Falmouth, to be convened at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. I shall write to my hon. Friend to let him know the date when it is fixed.

  The Firs, Mawla, Redruth, Cornwall (Planning Appeal)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to publish his decision on the recommendations of the inspector, Mr. J. J. Tackley, following the public inquiry on 16 to 19 June 1987 into a planning appeal involving The Firs, Mawla, Redruth, Cornwall; and why it has taken so long to arrive at a decision.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A heavy work load in the Department's planning inspectorate has delayed the inspector's report.

  The report was submitted to the Secretary of State earlier this month and a decision will be issued as quickly as possible.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many game licences were issued in each category during each of the last five years; what revenue was in each category, respectively; and what were the administrative costs involved.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The following table shows the numbers of game licences issued and the related revenue:

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the proposed regional managers for the National Rivers Authority will be answerable to(a) the central National Rivers Authority and (b) to the non-executive consultative committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The National Rivers Authority will inherit water authorities' statutory obligation to consider the advice of regional fisheries advisory committees, and will also have a statutory obligation to consider the advice of the new regional river advisory committees. Regional staff of the National Rivers Authority will be responsible to the authority itself.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any intention of creating regional National Rivers Authority boards.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As the December policy statement made clear, the National Rivers Authority will have a strong regional management structure. No decisions have yet been taken about the internal management organisation of the National Rivers Authority.

  East Anglia
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's(a) planning and (b) spending on measures to protect the environment of recent projections published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that East Anglia will have in the next 13 years the greatest proportionate population increase of both people moving in and of new births of any English region.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Both the plans and expenditure of bodies concerned with the protection of the environment, are subject to regular procedures of review and revision.
  47
  I am sure that at the next occasion for review the bodies concerned, including where appropriate my Department, will want to take into account revised population projections from the OPCS wherever they are relevant to their proposals.

  Expenditure
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the estimated outturn net and gross capital expenditure, in total, by region, for each year from 1981–82 to 1986–87, with the comparable planned figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  Planned figures for estimated net outturn and gross capital expenditure by region for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are not available. Estimated outturn net and gross capital expenditure by region for the period 1981–82 to 1986–87 are not readily available on a basis comparable with the planning figures.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the planned, budgeted and outturn net and gross capital expenditure, in total, for each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The figures for gross and net capital expenditure on a public expenditure basis (that is DOE/LA1) are as follows. Data on budgets are not available.

  Capital expenditure in DOE/LAI

  Gross capital expenditure

  Net capital expenditure

  Plan £ million

  Outturn £ million

  Plan £ million

  Outturn £ million

  1981–82

  4,007

  3,739

  3,139

  2,510

  1982–83

  4,541

  4,654

  3,385

  2,607

  Table 1

  Capital allocations by service 1987–88

  £'000

  Education

  Personal social services

  Transport

  Housing

  Other services

  Urban programmes

  Total

  Cell 291

  Cell 292

  Cell 293

  Cell 294

  Cell 295

  Cell 296

  Cell 297

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Column 4

  Column 5

  Column 6

  Column 7

  South-east

  103,216

  24,595

  217,039

  608,298

  104,826

  257

  1,058,231

  South-west

  32,114

  4,867

  50,461

  89,224

  22,033

  1,054

  199,753

  East Anglia

  15,101

  2,458

  21,914

  42,795

  10,789

  0

  93,057

  West Midlands

  31,264

  7,500

  63,222

  144,457

  26,353

  0

  272,796

  East Midlands

  23,292

  3,907

  41,373

  83,996

  19,348

  0

  171,916

  North-west

  40,238

  11,197

  128,257

  206,729

  37,165

  0

  423,586

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  31,893

  5,553

  72,267

  123,072

  32,474

  0

  265,259

  Northern region

  19,882

  3,296

  38,484

  80,612

  17,353

  0

  159,627

  Table 2

  Capital allocations by service 1988–89

  £'000

  Education

  Personal social services

  Transport

  Housing

  Other services

  Urban programmes

  Total

  Cell 291

  Cell 292

  Cell 293

  Cell 294

  Cell 295

  Cell 296

  Cell 297

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Column 4

  Column 5

  Column 6

  Column 7

  South-east

  139,325

  29,778

  236,213

  522,117

  80,878

  0

  1,008,311

  South-west

  32,285

  5,769

  59,135

  71,820

  20,015

  0

  189,024

  East Anglia

  15,349

  2,018

  16,853

  33,593

  9,127

  0

  76,940

  West Midlands

  32,541

  8,745

  58,660

  119,320

  22,283

  0

  241,549

  East Midlands

  27,744

  4,944

  41,567

  61,302

  18,262

  0

  153,819

  North-west

  52,301

  10,250

  90,023

  147,605

  27,825

  0

  328,004

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  43,426

  5,921

  51,284

  102,490

  22,414

  0

  225,535

  Northern region

  25,990

  3,300

  39,817

  68,272

  14,625

  0

  152,004

  48

  Gross capital expenditure

  Net capital expenditure

  Plan £ million

  Outturn £ million

  Plan £ million

  Outturn £ million

  1983–84

  4,731

  5,367

  2,935

  3,264

  1984–85

  4,438

  5,617

  2,453

  3,520

  1985–86

  4,031

  5,047

  1,911

  2,911

  1986–87

  4,304

  4,955

  2,369

  2,386

  1987–88

  4,927

  n/a

  2,834

  n/a

  1988–89

  5,173

  n/a

  2,551

  n/a

  n/a = not available.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the capital allocation to each local authority, within each expenditure block and in total, in 1987–88 and 1988–89, showing the percentage change for each authority between the two years in their total allocation;

  (2) if he will publish the capital allocation in total to the local authorities within each region, by expenditure block, in 1987–88 and 1988–89, showing the percentage change for each region.

  Mr. Ridley
  Tables 1 and 2 give capital allocations (issued) by expenditure block in 1987–88 and 1988–89 by region. Tables 3 and 4 showing the information by local authority will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Comparison of year-on-year total allocations is not meaningful because only £1·3 million (0·3 per cent.) urban programme allocations have been issued in 1987–88 and no urban programme allocations have been issued for 1988–89. A significant proportion of the total allocations excluding urban programme has also not been issued: £70 million (2·6 per cent.) and £250 million (9·5 per cent.) in 1987–88 and 1988–89 respectively.
  49
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish proposals for the reform of capital expenditure control.

  Mr. Ridley
  When I am ready.

  Palace of Westminster
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is contemplating any form of sprinkler protection against fire risks in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  There is already a system of sprinkler protection in the car park beneath New Palace Yard. There are no proposals to install sprinklers elsewhere.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the average winter temperatures when the House is sitting of the Members' Tea Room, the Strangers' Cafeteria, the Members' Cafeteria, the Harcourt Room, the Members' Dining Room, the Strangers' Dining Room, the Library and the Committee rooms.

  Mr. Chope
  Temperatures are not recorded continuously, so information is not available in the form requested. When the House is sitting, readings are taken at 9 am, 11 am, 2 pm and 7 pm in all the rooms listed except the Committee rooms, where the 7 pm readings are omitted, and the Harcourt Room, where no readings are taken.

  During the period 2 November 1987–15 January 1988 the minimum temperature recorded was 58°F and the maximum 75°F. Both readings were taken in Committee rooms.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average cost of heating for the Palace of Westminster for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Chope
  Expenditure on fuel for the parliamentary estate has been:

  £

  1982–83

  769,169

  1983–84

  748,282

  1984–85

  821,951

  1985–86

  909,957

  1986–87

  901,051

  It is not possible to identify separately the costs which relate specifically to the Palace of Westminster. Nor is it possible to exclude expenditure on gas for cooking, or electricity for lighting and appliances.

  Greater London Council (Seaside and Country Homes)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of the Greater London Council's seaside and country homes likely to be disposed of to the North British Housing Association.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 3,443.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any of the former Greater London Council's seaside and country homes have been disposed of by the London residuary body.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 24 have been sold under the right to buy.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply of 20 January,Official Report, column 758, if he will detail for each of the services there listed, the potential successor body with which the London residuary body is negotiating and the current stage of the negotiation, together with the looked-for completion date for transfer.

  Mr. Chope
  The housing association mortgages remaining with the London residuary body are the subject of the London Government Reorganisation (Housing Association Mortgages) (No. 2) Order currently before the House, which provides for transfer by 30 March 1988.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 20 January at column 758, with regard to Hampstead Heath.

  It is the responsibility of the London residuary body to negotiate successor bodies as appropriate for the other services listed in my reply of 20 January, at column 758.

  Vicuna Wool
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the importation of vicuna wool into the United Kingdom during the past five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Except for one consignment of yarn in February 1983 from a European country to which it had been legitimately imported prior to 1975, no permits have been issued for the import of vicuna wool into the United Kingdom during the past five years.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many submissions or other representations had been received at 31 December 1987 by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, in relation to each of the metropolitan districts in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire in connection with the current Boundary Commission reviews which started on 1 September 1987.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: None. It is for the commission to consider such representations and to report to my right hon. Friend when it considers it is in a position to do so. At this stage, the Department has no need of such information.

  Faslane and Coulport
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civilians residing in Dumbarton district are presently employed on the expansion of facilities at Faslane and Coulport.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: I understand from the contractors and consultants concerned that about 800 of their employees on the Clyde submarine base development have addresses in Dumbarton district. In addition, about 100 civilian Government employees engaged full-time on the development have addresses in Dumbarton district. Comparable figures for the Strathclyde region as a whole are about 1,650 and 100 respectively.

  Olympic Games, Seoul
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the safety of United Kingdom competitors when they attend the summer Olympic Games in Seoul, in the light of the current civil unrest in South Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to review the situation in the Republic of South Korea during the period between now and the Olympic games in Seoul. I understand that the number of incidents has declined sharply since the presidential elections on 16 December 1987.

  Whitefronted Geese
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many whitefronted geese on Islay will be shot under the terms of the licences issued; how the killings will be monitored; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to state how many Greenland whitefronted geese will be shot under licence. As the primary purpose is to scare, few geese will be shot. The shooting will be monitored by my officials.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Greenland whitefronted geese are currently on Islay; and what has been the population in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  On the basis of data collected by the Wildfowl Trust, the population of whitefronted geese on Islay over the five-year period from 1982–83 to 1986–87 has risen as follows:

  Numbers

  1982–83

  3,300

  1983–84

  3,900

  1984–85

  4,600

  1985–86

  5,300

  1986–87

  6,300

  In the current year the population has been estimated as being in excess of 7,270.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Soil Erosion
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to discourage the growing of winter cereals on the grounds of increased risk of soil erosion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Soil erosion caused by autumn rather than spring sowing of cereals, although significant in some localities, is not widespread and autumn sowing can be advantageous in other respects—for example, by helping to reduce the level of nitrate leaching from the soil. In these circumstances, I do not believe that any restrictions on the cultivations of winter cereals would be justified, although I would urge all cereals growers to follow ADAS advice designed to reduce soil erosion when preparing land for the sowing of winter cereals.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy farmers in each county in England and Wales produce milk up to the quota; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is not immediately available, but I will reply to him as soon as possible.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are at present employed in agriculture in the United Kingdom; what were the corresponding figures for 1968 and 1978; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The figures requested are as shown and are taken from the results of the June census. Statistics on salaried managers, farmers, partners, and directors and their spouses were not collected in 1968 and therefore cannot be shown. The "All workers" category represents whole and part-time regular workers and seasonal or casual workers.

  Number of Persons Employed on Agricultural Holdings in the United Kingdom

  Thousands

  1968

  1978

  11987

  Salaried Managers

  —

  8·3

  8·0

  Farmers, Partners, Directors, (doing farm work)

  —

  303·3

  287·1

  Spouses of Farmers, Partners Directors· (doing farm work)

  —

  79·8

  77·3

  All Workers

  450·1

  365·6

  298·1

  Total Labour Force

  —

  757·0

  670·5

  1 Provisional

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest assessment of the prospects for farm incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply 22 October 1987, c.886]: A White Paper setting out the conclusions of the 1988 annual review of agriculture is being laid before Parliament today. The White Paper shows that gross output at current prices is expected to be much the same in 1987 as in 1986, partly reflecting the poor weather. Total inputs and the gross product of the industry are also very similar to the previous year. Aggregate farming income is estimated to have fallen by around 11/2 per cent. to £1·404 million in 1987. There were marked variations over the United Kingdom as a whole with farming income forecast to have improved in 1987 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The White Paper includes fuller information than in previous years on the general financial position of the industry, distinguishing between type, size and tenure of farm businesses.

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting on 18 and 19 January in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 January 1988, c. 835]: A further meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers took place over the weekend of 23 and 24 January in Brussels at which I represented the United Kingdom. The meeting continued discussions of measures to stabilise expenditure on the common agricultural policy. This was in preparation for the European Council meeting on 11 and 12 February which will be discussing the Community's future financing arrangements. No decisions were reached and a report is now going to the Foreign Affairs Council.

  The German presidency proposed that the European Council should be asked only to give its general approval in principle to the need for stabilisers for products other than cereals, oilseeds and proteins and that the details should be left to subsequent discussion after the European Council had made its decisions on the future financing. I made it clear that the German president's approach on this was not acceptable to the United Kingdom and that it would not lead to an agreement at the European Council. On this aspect we were supported by seven other member states.

  Much of the discussion centred on a text by the German presidency covering changes in the stabilisers for cereals and oilseeds which had been before the last European Council in Copenhagen in December.

  For oilseeds, the changes amount to increases in the guaranteed quantities and an alteration in the formula for

  Table 1: Total1 Number of Consultants by Specialty and Health Board: 30 September 1980

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  AU specialties

  95

  78

  19

  48

  71

  68

  123

  519

  63

  126

  277

  1

  2

  135

  6

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENT Surgery

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  3

  4

  19

  2

  3

  6

  —

  —

  4

  —

  General Surgery

  10

  6

  3

  3

  5

  6

  9

  36

  8

  14

  20

  1

  2

  10

  2

  Neurosurgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Ophthalmology

  4

  3

  —

  3

  3

  2

  5

  18

  3

  3

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  5

  4

  2

  3

  4

  4

  6

  26

  3

  11

  11

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Plastic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Surgical Paediatrics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  13

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetics

  9

  14

  3

  5

  11

  9

  16

  75

  5

  10

  44

  —

  —

  17

  1

  Communicable Diseases

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Dermatology

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  10

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  General Medicine

  10

  7

  3

  4

  6

  7

  13

  45

  6

  16

  23

  —

  —

  11

  1

  Cardiology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Endocrinology and Diabetes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gastroenterology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homoeopathy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rheumatology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Geriatric Medicine

  4

  2

  1

  2

  3

  2

  4

  17

  2

  4

  8

  —

  —

  5

  1

  Medical Paediatrics

  4

  3

  1

  2

  3

  2

  3

  15

  2

  4

  10

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Neurology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Radiotherapy and Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  13

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Rehabilitation Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Respiratory Medicine

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  16

  2

  1

  6

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Restorative Dentistry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  9

  5

  —

  3

  6

  7

  5

  31

  4

  11

  16

  —

  —

  7

  1

  54
  price adjustment if production exceeds these quantities. For cereals, the proposed guaranteed quantity is higher and the stabiliser mechanism based on a different approach which is less automatic and certain than that discussed in Copenhagen. Greater emphasis is now being given within the mechanism to the cereals co-responsibility levy, including an increase and changes in the method of applying it. I firmly resisted, supported by my Dutch colleague, attempts to water down this part of the package.

  The Council also continued its consideration of the Commission's proposal for an enlarged set-aside scheme for arable land on the basis of a text prepared by the presidency. Some progress was made and, although certain issues remain to be settled, I believe that it should now be possible to reach agreement on this aspect of the package. The most important point in this context is that the German presidency has now accepted, as we insisted, that a set-aside scheme should be complementary to, and not a substitute for, stabilisers.

SCOTLAND

  Consultants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of consultants by specialty in each health board of Scotland in 1979 and 1987, showing in each case how many consultants were on full-time National Health Service contracts in both years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information for 1979 in the form requested is not available except at disproportionate cost. The total number of consultants and the numbers with whole-time contracts by specialty and health board for 1980 and 1987 are shown in the tables.
  55

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  2

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  2

  5

  1

  1

  6

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Forensic Psychiatry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Mental Handicap

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Mental Illness

  15

  5

  3

  7

  7

  8

  12

  41

  7

  14

  27

  —

  —

  15

  —

  Psychotherapy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blood Transfusion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical Chemistry

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Clinical Genetics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Haematology

  3

  2

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  13

  1

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Immunology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Microbiology

  2

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  15

  2

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nuclear Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathology

  4

  3

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  16

  1

  6

  8

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Radiodiagnosis

  5

  7

  2

  3

  6

  4

  9

  30

  4

  12

  21

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Virology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Includes whole-time, part-time and maximum part-time consultants.

  Table 2: Whole-time Consultants by Specialty and Health Board: 30 September 1980

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  All Specialties

  79

  66

  19

  35

  65

  65

  96

  417

  60

  121

  217

  1

  2

  121

  5

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENT Surgery

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  13

  2

  3

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  General Surgery

  6

  4

  3

  2

  5

  6

  7

  22

  7

  13

  15

  1

  2

  8

  1

  Neurosurgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Ophthalmology

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  10

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  4

  3

  2

  2

  3

  4

  4

  19

  3

  10

  5

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Plastic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Surgical Paediatrics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  7

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetics

  9

  13

  3

  4

  11

  9

  11

  62

  4

  10

  36

  —

  —

  15

  1

  Communicable Diseases

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Dermatology

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  General Medicine

  8

  6

  3

  4

  6

  7

  11

  36

  6

  14

  13

  —

  —

  9

  1

  Cardiology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Endocrinology and Diabetes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gaslroenterology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homoeopathy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rheumatology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Geriatric Medicine

  4

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  4

  16

  2

  4

  7

  —

  —

  5

  1

  Medical Paediatrics

  4

  3

  1

  2

  3

  2

  3

  14

  2

  4

  9

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Neurology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Radiotherapy and Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  13

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Rehabilitation Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Respiratory Medicine

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  16

  2

  1

  6

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Restorative Dentistry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  4

  4

  —

  1

  6

  6

  2

  18

  4

  11

  11

  —

  —

  5

  1

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  2

  5

  1

  1

  5

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Forensic Psychiatry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Mental Handicap

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Mental Illness

  14

  5

  3

  7

  6

  8

  12

  36

  7

  14

  25

  —

  —

  15

  —

  Psychotherapy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blood Transfusion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical Chemistry

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Clinical Genetics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haemalology

  3

  2

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  13

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Immunology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Microbiology

  2

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  15

  2

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nuclear Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathology

  4

  3

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  16

  1

  6

  8

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Radiodiagnosis

  5

  6

  2

  3

  6

  4

  7

  24

  4

  12

  19

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Virology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Table 3: Total1 Number of Consultants by Specialty and Health Board: 30 September 1987

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  All Specialties

  116

  96

  27

  53

  82

  81

  156

  489

  76

  160

  292

  1

  2

  159

  6

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENT Surgery

  3

  3

  —

  2

  2

  3

  4

  12

  2

  5

  6

  —

  —

  5

  —

  General Surgery

  11

  7

  3

  5

  6

  6

  10

  31

  9

  13

  19

  1

  2

  10

  2

  Neurosurgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Ophthalmology

  6

  3

  —

  1

  2

  4

  5

  14

  3

  4

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  56 57

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  6

  6

  2

  3

  4

  4

  9

  22

  3

  12

  11

  —

  —

  11

  —

  Plastic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Surgical Paediatrics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  3

  3

  11

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetics

  12

  17

  4

  7

  12

  10

  20

  76

  9

  26

  47

  —

  —

  22

  1

  Communicable Diseases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Dermatology

  3

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  3

  9

  2

  2

  4

  —

  —

  4

  —

  General Medicine

  14

  12

  3

  4

  6

  8

  13

  31

  6

  17

  21

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Cardiology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Endocrinology and Diabetes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Gastroenterology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homoeopathy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Rheumatology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Geriatric Medicine

  5

  4

  2

  2

  4

  4

  7

  19

  2

  5

  10

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Medical Paediatrics

  4

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  6

  18

  2

  4

  13

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Neurology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Radiotherapy and Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  9

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Rehabilitation Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Respiratory Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  11

  2

  —

  5

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  6

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Restorative Dentistry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  9

  6

  1

  3

  6

  6

  8

  27

  5

  11

  15

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  3

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  1

  3

  6

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Forensic Psychiatry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Handicap

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Mental Illness

  19

  7

  4

  7

  11

  10

  12

  45

  8

  15

  27

  —

  —

  17

  1

  Psychotherapy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Blood Transfusion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical Chemistry

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Clinical Genetics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Haematology

  3

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  13

  2

  5

  6

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Immunology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Microbiology

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  11

  2

  2

  5

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Nuclear Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathology

  3

  4

  —

  2

  3

  2

  4

  15

  2

  7

  8

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Radiodiagnosis

  7

  8

  2

  3

  7

  5

  10

  29

  5

  16

  21

  —

  —

  13

  —

  Virology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational Health

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1 Includes whole-time, part-time and maximum part-time consultants.

  Table 4: Whole-time Consultants by Specialty and Health Board: 30 September 1987

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  All Specialties

  86

  77

  25

  43

  77

  71

  127

  396

  71

  144

  220

  1

  2

  147

  5

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENT Surgery

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  6

  2

  4

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  General Surgery

  5

  5

  3

  4

  5

  4

  8

  23

  9

  10

  11

  1

  2

  8

  1

  Neurosurgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Ophthalmology

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  4

  3

  10

  3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  5

  3

  2

  2

  4

  4

  5

  13

  3

  11

  4

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Plastic Surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Surgical Paediatrics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  4

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetics

  10

  14

  4

  5

  12

  9

  12

  63

  8

  23

  36

  —

  —

  21

  1

  Communicable Diseases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Dermatology

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  General Medicine

  10

  11

  3

  4

  6

  7

  12

  25

  6

  15

  17

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Cardiology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Endocrinology and Diabetes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Gastroenterology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homoeopathy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rheumatology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Geriatric Medicine

  5

  4

  2

  2

  4

  4

  7

  18

  2

  5

  8

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Medical Paediatrics

  4

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  6

  16

  2

  4

  12

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Neurology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Radiotherapy and Oncology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  9

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Rehabilitation Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Respiratory Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  11

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Restorative Dentistry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  58 59

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  5

  4

  1

  1

  5

  4

  6

  19

  5

  11

  9

  —

  —

  6

  1

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  2

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  3

  4

  1

  3

  5

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Forensic Psychiatry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Handicap

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Mental Illness

  17

  6

  4

  7

  11

  10

  12

  38

  8

  15

  24

  —

  —

  17

  1

  Psychotherapy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Blood Transfusion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical Chemistry

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Clinical Genetics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Haematology

  3

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  13

  1

  5

  5

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Immunology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Microbiology

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  11

  2

  2

  5

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Nuclear Medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathology

  3

  4

  —

  2

  3

  2

  4

  15

  2

  6

  8

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Radiodiagnosis

  6

  7

  2

  3

  7

  5

  8

  23

  5

  13

  17

  —

  —

  12

  —

  Virology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational Health

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on nurse training in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and how much has been spent by each of the health boards on nurse training in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Annual expenditure

  Colleges of nursing and midwifery etc.

  Health boards

  Year

  £ million

  £ million

  1977–78

  4·4

  —

  1978–79

  4·8

  —

  1979–80

  5·8

  —

  1980–81

  7·7

  —

  1981–82

  8·4

  —

  1982–83

  9·7

  —

  1983–84

  10·6

  36·5

  1984–85

  11·5

  39·2

  1985–86

  12·7

  38·1

  1986–87

  15·7

  38·3

  The first column includes the salaries, national insurance and superannuation costs of nurse teachers and

  £ million at 1987–88 prices1

  Trunk road

  Local road

  Financial year

  Construction

  Maintenance2

  Construction

  Maintenance

  1980–81

  72.7

  17.8

  108.1

  168.4

  1981–82

  74.1

  30.6

  126.5

  166.2

  1982–83

  85.3

  28.5

  130.6

  167.7

  1983–84

  74.2

  34.7

  128.0

  170.2

  1984–85

  86.4

  29.9

  122.9

  163.2

  1985–86

  87.4

  30.9

  133.5

  155.8

  1986–87

  81.2

  36.1

  128.6

  156.1

  1987–883

  89.5

  39.2

  4128 5

  5165.5

  1988–896

  7

  7

  7

  7

  1990–916

  7

  7

  7

  7

  1 Figures for trunk roads revalued to constant 1987–88 prices using the roads output price index which is specifically designed for trunk road construction work. Figures for local roads have been revalued using GDP deflators.

  2 Includes structural, routine and winter maintenance.

  3 Estimate.

  4 Baseline provision.

  5 Local authority budget estimates of expenditure.

  6 Forecast.

  7 To be announced later this year.

  60
  support staff at colleges of nursing and midwifery, including midwifery teachers in 1986–87 and the costs of the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland and its predecessors. The second column includes learners' national insurance, superannuation and salary costs, but makes no allowance for the service contribution made by learners during training, which varies according to the course and the particular college of nursing. Figures for expenditure on learners' remuneration for years prior to 1983–84 are not directly available, and figures for individual health boards are not held centrally.

  Road Costs
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show annual outturn expenditure 1980–81 to 1986–87, estimated expenditure for 1987–88 and forecast expenditure for 1988–89 and 1990–91, in real terms at current prices on(a) trunk road construction, (b) trunk road maintenance, (c) local road construction and (d) local road maintenance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  61
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show 1986–87 outturn expenditure, 1987–88 estimated expenditure and 1988–89 planned expenditure on (i) trunk roads, broken down into(a) new construction and improvement, (b) structural maintenance, and (c) routine maintenance, and (ii) local authority roads broken down into (a) new construction

  £ million cash

  1986–87 Outturn1

  1987–88 Estimated

  1988–89 Planned2

  1. Motorways and trunk roads

  (a) New construction and improvement

  79·2

  89·5

  4

  (b) Structural maintenance

  15·9

  20·2

  4

  (c) Routine and winter maintenance

  19·3

  19·0

  4

  2. Local authority roads

  (a) New construction and improvement

  128·6

  133·9

  4

  (b) Maintenance

  156·1

  172·5

  4

  3. Public transport administration2

  25·1

  27·8

  4

  4. Local authority car parks

  (a) Capital

  0·8

  1·9

  4

  (b) Current (net)

  —

  —

  4

  5. Road safety in Scotland3

  1·5

  1·6

  4

  1 Local authority outturn figures are provisional only.

  2 Local authority expenditure on administration of roads and transport services.

  3 Excludes expenditure by the Department of Transport on national road safety publicity. Expenditure on new construction and improvements and on maintenance also contributes to road safety, as do various specialist staff costs.

  4 To be announced later this year.

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

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There has been a 15 per cent. increase in vehicle mileage on roads in Scotland between 1982 and 1986, the latest year for which figures are available. The figure relates to motorways, all-purpose trunk roads and principal local roads. Statistics are not held centrally for other classes of road.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from foundries and other intensive energy users in Scotland about the flexibility of electricity prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received one such representation, to which a response will be made shortly. Electricity tariffs for all categories of consumers, including intensive energy users, are a matter for the electricity boards.

  Renal Failure
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the figures, for the last five available years in Scotland, of patients diagnosed as suffering from end-stage renal failure for the first time; and if he will give for the same years the numbers dying from end-stage renal failure, or complications arising from such failure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of new patients diagnosed as suffering from end-stage renal 62
  and improvements, and (b) maintenance, (iii) public transport administration and (iv) local authority car parks, broken down into (a) capital and (b) current (net), and (c) road safety in Scotland.

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

  failure is not centrally available. However, all such patients who are referred to consultants, and would in their clinical judgment benefit from renal dialysis, receive the treatment. The number of new patients being accepted for dialysis in the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1982

  159

  1983

  175

  1984

  213

  1985

  225

  1986

  245

  Specific information on the number of deaths arising from end-stage renal failure or complications from such failure is not centrally available.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the figures for the last five available years of the average numbers of patients receiving kidney dialysis treatment in Scotland, showing the average or median number of months they have been on such treatment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of patients receiving kidney dialysis treatment in all its forms in Scotland is as shown. Information on the length of time they have been receiving treatment is not centrally available.

  Number

  1982

  521

  1983

  579

  1984

  631

  1985

  615

  1986

  658

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide, for the last five available years,
  63
  the figures of successful kidney transplants performed in Scottish hospitals, showing how many such operations were being conducted on patients for a second or subsequent time.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of kidney transplant operations carried out in Scotland is as shown. Information on how many of these operations were successful, and how many involved second or subsequent grafts, is not available.

  Year

  Number

  1983

  132

  1984

  149

  1985

  126

  1986

  111

  11987

  102

  1 Provisional.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost, in terms of equipment resources, staff, drugs and supplies of kidney dialysis treatment in Scotland(a) in total, (b) per patient month or year and (c) per patient over the course of treatment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information sought on the cost of treatment by kidney transplant is not centrally available.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current cost, in terms of equipment, resources, staff, drugs and supplies, of kidney transplants in Scotland(a) in total per year, (b) per transplant carried out and (c) per patient per annum after transplantation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of treating patients by renal dialysis is provisionally estimated to be for the current year as shown:

  Cost per patient per year £

  Total cost per year £

  Hospital dialysis

  17,900

  4,545,900

  Home dialysis

  9,100

  1,635,100

  Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

  7,900

  2,346,000

  8,545,000

  Number of General Dental Practitioners (Number Per 100,000 Population)

  Health Board

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Argyll and Clyde

  89

  91

  97

  102

  102

  110

  114

  113

  127

  130

  (19)

  (20)

  (21)

  (22)

  (22)

  (24)

  (25)

  (25)

  (28)

  (29)

  Ayreshire and Arran

  95

  95

  98

  104

  107

  113

  119

  112

  116

  122

  (25)

  (25)

  (26)

  (28)

  (28)

  (30)

  (32)

  (30)

  (31)

  (32)

  Borders

  21

  20

  23

  23

  23

  25

  27

  32

  34

  33

  (21)

  (20)

  (23)

  (23)

  (23)

  (25)

  (27)

  (31)

  (33)

  (32)

  Dumfries and Galloway

  28

  29

  31

  30

  30

  33

  31

  33

  36

  35

  (20)

  (20)

  (22)

  (21)

  (21)

  (23)

  (21)

  (22)

  (24)

  (24)

  Fife

  74

  76

  76

  78

  79

  84

  84

  86

  90

  94

  (22)

  (22)

  (22)

  (23)

  (23)

  (24)

  (24)

  (25)

  (26)

  (27)

  Forth Valley

  57

  58

  61

  65

  67

  63

  67

  65

  68

  71

  (21)

  (21)

  (22)

  (24)

  (24)

  (23)

  (25)

  (24)

  (24)

  (26)

  Grampian

  97

  91

  97

  104

  108

  110

  114

  113

  119

  130

  (21)

  (19)

  (21)

  (22)

  (22)

  (22)

  (23)

  (23)

  (24)

  (26)

  Greater Glasgow

  236

  244

  246

  250

  268

  263

  273

  264

  287

  286

  (23)

  (24)

  (24)

  (25)

  (27)

  (27)

  (28)

  (27)

  (30)

  (30)

  Highland

  43

  45

  49

  50

  54

  52

  56

  52

  53

  58

  64
  The length of time on treatment varies between patients, and no information is centrally available about cost per patient over the course of treatment.

  Intensive Care Units
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the figures, for the last five available years, of(a) the number of intensive care units which exist or have existed in Scottish hospitals, (b) the number of patients who have been dealt with by the units concerned in these years, (c) the numbers of patients who have died in these units in these years and (d) the number of kidneys which have been made available for transplant because of these deaths.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of intensive care units in Scotland, the number of patients dealt with by these units and the number of patients who have died in these units is not centrally available in the form sought.

  Organ Donation
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will authorise the compilation of a survey of medical staff in Scotland concerning their attitudes to organ donation for transplant, with particular reference to those concerned with dying patients and their attitudes to asking relatives about potential organ donation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Dental Surgeons
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of general dental surgeons in practice in Scotland in each of the last 10 years, showing a breakdown of these numbers per 100,000 population in each of Scotland's health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table. The numbers of general dental practitioners (as they are now known) are the numbers in contract with their health board as at 30 September each year. The numbers of dentists per 100,000 population are based on population figures at 30 June each year except for 1987 where the 1986 population figure is used.
  65

  Health Board

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  (23)

  (24)

  (26)

  (26)

  (28)

  (26)

  (28)

  (26)

  (26)

  (29)

  Lanarkshire

  112

  112

  116

  132

  129

  134

  136

  129

  138

  143

  (20)

  (20)

  (20)

  (23)

  (22)

  (23)

  (24)

  (23)

  (24)

  (25)

  Lothian

  223

  226

  232

  234

  238

  243

  250

  251

  258

  264

  (30)

  (30)

  (31)

  (31)

  (32)

  (33)

  (34)

  (34)

  (35)

  (36)

  Orkney

  3

  3

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1(16)

  (16)

  (17)

  (11)

  (16)

  (16)

  (15)

  (15)

  (16)

  (16)

  Shetland

  3

  4

  3

  3

  4

  6

  8

  4

  4

  5

  1(14)

  (18)

  (13)

  (12)

  (16)

  (26)

  (34)

  (17)

  (17)

  (21)

  Tayside

  101

  106

  113

  120

  121

  119

  120

  121

  124

  129

  (25)

  (26)

  (28)

  (30)

  (30)

  (30)

  (30)

  (31)

  (32)

  (33)

  Western Isles

  3

  4

  5

  5

  7

  7

  7

  8

  10

  12

  1(10)

  (13)

  (17)

  (16)

  (22)

  (22)

  (22)

  (25)

  (32)

  (38)

  Scotland

  1185

  1204

  1250

  1302

  1340

  1365

  1409

  1386

  1467

  1515

  (23)

  (23)

  (24)

  (25)

  (26)

  (26)

  (27)

  (27)

  (29)

  (30)

  1 National figures.

  Pharmacists
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of pharmacists in Scotland in each of the past 10 years, giving a breakdown per 100,000 population in each of Scotland's health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested. The table sets out the number of registered pharmacists in Scotland for each of the past 10 years. "Scottish Health Statistics", copies of which are in the Library, contain from 1979 onwards by health board the information requested in respect of hospital pharmacists and from 1981 onwards the number of pharmacies contracted to provide primary care pharmaceutical services.

  Number of registered pharmacists

  1977

  2,800

  1978

  2,832

  1979

  2,842

  1980

  2,822

  1981

  2,929

  1982

  2,960

  1983

  3,000

  1984

  3,048

  1985

  3,070

  1986

  3,092

  Alcoholism
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the definition of alcoholism for the purposes of statistics on the treatment of alcoholism among prisoners changed between 1985 and 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information on numbers of inmates in Scottish penal establishments treated for alcoholism in 1986 (as reported in the annual "Prisons in Scotland" report for 1986) was collected in the same way and on the same basis as figures for 1985 and earlier years.

  The substantial fall in the number of male inmates treated for alcoholism in 1986 continued a similar downward trend evident in earlier years as follows:
  66

  Male inmates treated for alcoholism in Scottish penal establishments

  Year

  Inmates

  1983

  1,730

  1984

  1,560

  1985

  1,165

  1986

  649

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average expenditure per pupil in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in(a) Scotland, (b) Belgium, (c) the Federal Republic of Germany, (d) France, (e) Holland, (f) Denmark and (g) Spain.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Comparable figures are not readily available.

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take urgent steps to stop the proliferation of amusement arcades in urban centres in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 9 December 1987, at column 420, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall).

  School Management
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school boards would be created under his proposals contained in the consultative paper "School Management and the Role of Parents" in(a) the Tayside regional council area and (b) the Dundee district authority area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Consultation on the proposals in "School Management and the Role of Parents" showed that there was a widespread wish to have a separate school board for each primary, secondary and special school in Scotland. In the conclusions we recently announced, we have agreed to meet that wish. There are 251 schools in the Tayside regional council area of which 73 are in the Dundee district; each would have its own board.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representatives from Tayside regional
  67
  council would be required to take part in the meetings of the school boards proposed by his consultative paper "School Management and the Role of Parents".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No education authority representatives would be required to attend school board meetings. In the light of comments made by authorities in response to the consultative paper, the Government have concluded that education authorities should have a right, but not a duty, to be represented at school board meetings by a non-voting assessor.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of patients awaiting(a) urgent and (b) non-urgent operations in (i) the Tayside health board area and (ii) the Dundee district authority area, on the latest available figures; and if he will give the corresponding figures for the previous six and 12 months, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Emergency cases are dealt with immediately and information is not available for local authority areas. The numbers of people on waiting lists for in-patient hospital treatment in Tayside health board were as follows:

  Number

  31 March 1986

  6,658

  30 September 1986

  6,214

  31 March 1987

  5,653

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the existing laboratories for the testing of cervical cancer are distributed in the Tayside health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are two such laboratories, one in Dundee royal infirmary and the other in Perth royal infirmary.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Tayside police force spent on crime prevention projects in cash terms and real terms at 1986–87 prices for each year since 1979; how much of its total budget this represents; and how much it is proposed to spend next year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about expenditure by individual police forces on local crime prevention projects is not held centrally.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the most recent figures available to him on the number of households registered on the housing 68
  waiting list in the Dundee district authority area who have remained on the waiting list for (a) less than one year, (b) between one and two years, (c) between two and three years, (d) between three and four years, (e) between four and five years and (f) over five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Rented Houses
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many privately owned dwellings in the Dundee district authority area suitable for letting are not available for letting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information on unoccupied private sector dwellings was published in "Scottish Development Department Statistical Bulletin HSIU No. 1. Unoccupied Dwellings: a survey following the 1981 census", a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  Industrial Projects
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many factories and industrial sites in(a) the Tayside region and (b) the Dundee area are standing empty or unused.

  Mr. Lang
  For the latest information readily available centrally on vacant factories I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 17 November at column 541.

  Provisional figures for Tayside region at 31 March 1987 show 64 sites allocated for industry of which 26 were in Dundee city district.

  Islay (Geese)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the alleged damage to Islay caused by Greenland whitefronted geese.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of Greenland whitefronted geese wintering on Islay has more than doubled in recent years and large flocks of up to 500 birds are causing serious damage to grassland on certain farms outwith the sanctuary areas.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local authority ward in the Dundee district council area the number unemployed at the latest available date; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Unemployment statistics on a local authority ward basis are available only from 1983. The following table shows the number of unemployed claimants in each local authority ward in city of Dundee district for December 1987 (the latest date for which information is available) and the corresponding figures in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.
  69

  City of Dundee District

  Unemployed claimants (December)

  Ward

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Ancrum

  169

  211

  207

  181

  171

  Ardler

  458

  443

  457

  428

  376

  Balgillo

  101

  139

  114

  130

  107

  Baxter Park

  270

  272

  279

  301

  261

  Blackshade

  418

  390

  425

  389

  355

  Broughty Ferry

  172

  186

  184

  164

  167

  Caird

  578

  538

  542

  487

  430

  Central

  315

  395

  346

  378

  366

  Clepington

  147

  147

  142

  145

  137

  Coldside

  325

  371

  361

  342

  325

  Craigie Bank

  165

  217

  274

  240

  265

  Craigie Burns

  136

  152

  155

  145

  127

  Douglas

  460

  425

  415

  390

  356

  Downfield

  269

  256

  236

  231

  201

  Drumgeith

  566

  538

  568

  536

  522

  Dudhope

  396

  462

  537

  660

  405

  Eastern

  146

  133

  156

  147

  140

  Fairmuir

  228

  190

  195

  197

  185

  Fintry North

  602

  600

  565

  480

  484

  Fintry South

  558

  547

  487

  430

  414

  Gillburn

  423

  419

  416

  428

  350

  Gourdie

  361

  356

  317

  298

  292

  Gowrie

  149

  154

  148

  172

  130

  Hilltown

  421

  410

  391

  372

  334

  Law

  221

  257

  255

  218

  209

  Lochee East

  475

  425

  424

  397

  380

  Lochee West

  386

  344

  347

  309

  281

  Logie

  183

  219

  204

  185

  186

  Longhaugh

  765

  827

  825

  799

  662

  Maryfield

  264

  281

  291

  326

  290

  Menzieshill

  285

  311

  285

  243

  216

  Midmill

  831

  720

  749

  713

  676

  Monifieth East

  145

  164

  166

  165

  151

  Monifieth West

  122

  133

  118

  130

  116

  Pitalpin

  396

  424

  345

  317

  283

  Riverside

  177

  199

  216

  206

  183

  Rockwell

  151

  186

  171

  154

  159

  St. Marys

  432

  366

  378

  333

  303

  St. Ninians

  304

  279

  257

  246

  226

  Sidlaw

  215

  226

  239

  225

  202

  Trottick

  711

  703

  639

  565

  528

  Wellgate

  323

  451

  541

  579

  411

  West Ferry

  266

  261

  266

  216

  219

  Whitfield

  919

  977 .

  940

  806

  677

  Total

  15,404

  15,704

  15,573

  14,803

  13,258

  Due to changes in the compilation of the statistics during the intervening periods these figures are not directly comparable.
  70
  This information is available in the Library.

  Forestry
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the report "Birds, Bogs and Forestry: the Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland", published by the Nature Conservancy Council; whether he proposes to approve further forestry planting in Caithness and Sutherland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have today written to the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council in the following terms:"As you know, the Government have been considering carefully your Council's report 'Birds, Bogs and Forestry: the Peatlands of Caithness and Sunderland' and your representations about the relationship between afforestation and nature conservation in the area. You will be aware that helpful discussions have taken place between Departmental and NCC officials to clarify certain aspects of the report. Officials have also had the benefit of seeing some of the detailed scientific material which will in due course be incorporated in your report 'The Flow Country'.
  It would clearly not be right to attempt to reach final conclusions on this matter at the present time. First, 'The Flow Country' has not yet been finalised. Second, the Highland Regional Council have, as you will be aware, set up a working party to propose a land use strategy for the area. The working party is currently assessing evidence and is likely to report next month. We have, however, sought to form an interim view on your findings in order to consider their implications for forestry in the short term. In this, we have been helped by the receipt of interim responses to your report from the Highland Regional Council, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Crofters Commission.
  We acknowledge the important service which your Council have rendered by highlighting the exceptional nature conservation interest occurring in Caithness and Sutherland. We agree that much of the two counties is of national and international importance for conservation. We do not think, however, that the whole of the area identified in 'Birds, Bogs and Forestry' can be considered to be of uniformly high importance. Indeed, the detailed evidence contained in your own work suggests that there are varying degrees of conservation significance, and we believe therefore that it is possible to identify a selection of key areas which should be safeguarded, amounting in total to a very substantial are a of peatland. These would require a substantial expansion of the SSSI network and, taken together with the sizeable area within existing SSSIs, might amount to around half of the total unafforested peatland area of some 350,000 hectares. We envisage that these areas would, in particular, include the most important bog systems and bird habitats, especially on the wet flows.
  It seems to us that some new planting needs to take place in Caithness and Sutherland both in order to contribute to the overall national forestry planting programme and to maintain local employment in forestry and maximise the opportunities for future investment in wood-processing industry. We consider, moreover, that the evidence points to the view that Caithness and Sutherland can accommodate some further afforestation without affecting the conservation significance of the area as a whole.
  There is, of course, no question of any forestry approval being given or grant offered without full regard to the conservation case and, as you know, the consultation arrangements which currently apply throughout Caithness and Sutherland provide for disputed cases to be referred, if necessary, to me. I have seven such cases before me at the moment as a result of NCC objections. I have advised the Forestry Commissioners that I support their view that grant should be offered for a substantial part of the area subject to application at Limekiln and Whitewell. I have examined the available evidence carefully and have concluded that the conservation evidence is not sufficient to justify opposing forestry over the very large tract of land involved. However, I am aware that the southern part of this site does contain
  72
  some wetland and pool complexes which are of considerable interest and I have asked the Commissioners to seek NCC's detailed views before determining the precise boundary of the area which may be approved for planting.
  I have also decided to support the Forestry Commissioners' intention to approve the applications at Jubilee Wood (Shinside), and Loubcroy, subject to certain modifications suggested by the Commission's Wildlife and Conservation Officer in respect of the Jubilee Wood application. I am proposing a further discussion with NCC about areas of peatland that might be excluded from planting at Sciberscross where, however, I have given general approval to the planting proposals. All these are areas outside the main region of prime peatland, and not of outstanding intrinsic conservation value according to the information before me.
  The remaining three cases, on the other hand, do lie in the heart of the flow country and involve land comprising peatlands and wader habitat of high quality and I have asked for these cases to be referred back to your Council for a decision on future designation. I shall be considering further cases in the next few months and it may be appropriate to give additional approvals. Each case will, however, be scrutinised with great care, and the conclusions I have reached on the present tranche should not be taken as establishing a presumption in favour of forestry on other sites in their vicinity.
  The present arrangement under which consultations with your Council on forestry grant applications extend to the whole of Caithness and Sutherland is, of course, an interim measure only, pending the more precise definition of the conservation interest and the establishment of the appropriate measures to protect it. It is therefore essential that high priority is given by NCC to the work of identifying those parts of the area which are of prime importance for nature conservation so that they can be safeguarded.
  With regard to the means of protection, we consider that the notification of SSSI's is the only satisfactory approach to the conservation of areas of prime importance in Caithness and Sutherland, though your suggested approach of seeking to make ad hoc management agreements may provide a convenient means of protection where this is necessary to secure protection in advance of the SSSI programme. While the selection of SSSIs is, of course, ultimately a matter for NCC, it would I believe be helpful in this case for the various officials involved within NCC, the Departments concerned and the Highland Regional Council to get together at an early date so that the site selection process can be tied in with the on-going work of the HRC working party, with the application of the forestry consultation procedures and with the assessment of the financial implications arising from potential management agreements.
  I shall arrange for my officials to get in touch with yours to discuss the next steps.
  I propose to make this letter public, along with an announcement about the forestry cases referred to above."

  The letter refers to a number of forestry grant applications which are before me at the moment. I have advised the Forestry Commissioners that I am content for grant to be offered in the four cases listed, subject to further consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council about the boundary of the area to be planted in the first two cases and subject to some minor modifications to improve the planting design in the third case. These cases concern the following applications:

  Proposed area to be planted

  Location

  (hectares)

  Limekiln and Whitewell, Caithness

  1,307

  Sciberscross, Sutherland

  790

  Jubilee Wood, Shinside, Sutherland

  19

  Loubcroy, Sutherland

  202

  Prisons
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his plans on prisons and penal policy.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I made today a comprehensive statement on penal policy and the future operation of the Scottish prison service. I am arranging to have a copy of this statement placed in the Library.

  Fine Defaulters
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in 1986 were committed to prison in Scotland for default in payment of fines.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1986 there were 10,626 receptions to penal establishments for fine default. This represents a reduction of 8 per cent. from the corresponding figure of receptions in 1985 (11,564) and relative to the number of persons fined by the courts there was also a decline to 74 per thousand in 1986 from the corresponding level in 1985 (of 78 per thousand). There was a particularly marked reduction in receptions in default of fines for less serious offences such as breach of the peace (down from 3,423 in 1985 to 2,918 in 1986) and drunkenness (down even more sharply from 631 in 1985 to 271 in 1986).

  The average daily population of fine defaulters in 1986, however, was 329 or 5·9 per cent. of the total average population in penal establishments in 1986.

THE ARTS

  Buildings (Maintenance and Refurbishment)
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what priority he gives to the maintenance and refurbishment of the buildings under the responsibility of the Office of Arts and Libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  I attach a high priority to the maintenance and refurbishment of the buildings occupied by the institutions for which my Department is responsible.

  I have increased next year's grant-in-aid to the 11 national museums and galleries for their building and maintenance programme to some £49 million. This represents an increase of more than 20 per cent. on the equivalent figures for the current year.

  Northern Regional Arts Association
  Mrs. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of funding in 1988–89 for the Northern Regional Arts Association.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the Arts Council to determine the level of funding of individual regional arts associations; the 1988–89 funding level for Northern Arts has not yet been announced.

  Museums (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any proposals for the funding of museums in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Luce
  This is not a matter for me but for the responsible authority, whether public or private, in the case of each museum.

  Theatre and Music (Youth Participation)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage youth participation in the theatre and music in Britain.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council and the regional arts associations encourage all subsidised theatre companies to develop policies for young people, and theatre-in-education schemes. The council does not, as a rule, give direct financial support to youth theatre companies and orchestras, but I have been encouraged to see that several such bodies have attracted very substantial sponsorship. They are doing excellent work.

  Arts (Plural Funding)
  Mrs. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the concept of plural funding for the Arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced at Newcastle in July of last year the start of a long-term plan for the funding of the arts. The aim of the plan is to maintain the level of support from public funds in a way which encourages subsidised bodies in the performing arts, museums and libraries to become more self-reliant in their development and growth. My announcement last November of a substantial increase in arts funding for 1988–89 and the two subsequent years represented an important practical step towards the implementation of this plan. My announcement included specific provision for incentive schemes for the performing arts and for help to museums and galleries to improve their management and marketing.

  Arts (Business Sponsors)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many first-time business sponsors of the arts have been attracted by the business sponsorship incentive scheme so far; and what is his estimate for 1987–88 as a whole.

  Mr. Luce
  The scheme has attracted 618 first-time business sponsors since it began in 1984.

  This includes 179 in 1987–88 and the figure for the complete year should be over 210.

  Arts (Funding)
  Mrs. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the 1988–89 budget for the Greater London Arts association.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council has yet to announce its grant to Greater London Arts for 1988–89.

  Mrs. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chairman and director of Greater London Arts to discuss its budget for 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) earlier today.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the level of funding for the arts in Wales in 1988–89.
  75
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council to discuss the level of funding for the arts in Scotland in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  I expect to be meeting the chairmen during the year, and funding is likely to feature in our discussions.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of funding for the arts in the west midlands in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council has yet to announce its allocation of grant to West Midlands Arts for 1988–89. The chairman will keep me informed of its decisions.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the chairman of Yorkshire Arts to discuss the level of funding for the arts in Yorkshire in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  Yorkshire Arts' grant allocation for 1988–89 has yet to be announced, but funding will certainly feature in any discussions I have with the chairman this year.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to visit Cumbria to discuss the funding for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no immediate plans to do so, but I expect to be meeting the chairman of Northern Arts this year and funding in the region is likely to feature in our discussion.

  Mrs. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of the Arts what information he has on the level of funding for the arts in Scotland in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council expects to be in a position to announce the Scottish Arts Council's allocation shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland makes a number of grants to national institutions and other arts bodies in Scotland, and these, too, will be announced shortly.

  Community Plays
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will encourage the expansion of the concept of community plays; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council sees the large-scale community play, with a cast of local people and a small core of professional directors, designers and writers, as an important part of drama provision. The council encourages the creation of these plays through its theatre writing scheme; the productions themselves are generally funded by local authorities, with assistance and advice from the regional arts associations.

  Libraries (Funding)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to increase the funding of libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  It is the responsibility of local library authorities to decide what resources to allocate to public libraries. I hope, however, to provide new opportunities to help public libraries expand by allowing them to charge for a wider range of additional and specialised services. I shall be issuing a consultative paper on how this might best be done. In addition, as I announced in a written answer on 76
  8 December, at column 952, I have set aside £250,000 a year for three years for the establishment of an incentive scheme to encourage new developments designed to extend or improve the public library service in England.

  Museums and Galleries (Funding)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how his policy of incentive funding applies to museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  Museums and galleries, like other organisations funded by the arts programme, will have an incentive to strengthen their financial position.

  The figures which I have announced for the next three years give the institutions a firm base on which to develop and pursue their plans. I have renewed for the next three years my undertaking to the national institutions that they may retain any additional receipts they earn in addition to those which were assumed at the time of their grant-in-aid allocations.

  Within my allocations for running costs to the national museums and galleries, I have earmarked a total of £0.57 million to help them through training and in other ways to improve their management and marketing. I have also made provision for the Museums and Galleries Commission to assist other museums and galleries in the same way.

  In announcing the increase of £6 million, or over 20 per cent. in the building and maintenance programme of the national museums and galleries in 1988–89 I made it clear that the allocation of the margin amounting to over £12 million in 1989–90, and nearly £15 million in 1990–91, would depend partly upon the extent to which the institutions can raise money from other sources towards the achievement of their plans. A number of institutions have shown great initiative already in attracting private funds for new developments.

  Ffotogallery (Cardiff)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to visit the Ffotogallery in Cardiff.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall be visiting Wales in March and may be able to take in the work of the gallery, time permitting.

  Public Libraries
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has for expansion of the public library service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I hope to provide new opportunities to help public libraries expand by allowing them to charge for a wider range of additional and specialised services. I shall be issuing a consultative paper on how this might best be done. In addition, as I announced in a written answer on 8 December, at column 95, I have set aside £250,000 a year for three years for the establishment of an incentive scheme to encourage new developments designed to extend or improve the public library service in England.

  British Council
  Mrs. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from British arts companies touring abroad concerning the effect on their activities of levels of funding for the British Council; and if he will make a statement.
  77
  Mr. Luce
  None. The funding of the British Council is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Local Arts Groups (Cornwall)
  Mrs. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning support currently given to local arts groups within Cornwall.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

  Tourism
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what contribution tourism makes to the arts in Britain.

  Mr. Luce
  Tourism makes a big contribution. I cannot put a monetary value on it, but in recent years around three-quarters of overseas visitors to this country have visited a museum and half have attended a theatre or concert, and I believe that this trend will continue.

  British Library Business Information Service
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will explain the objectives of the British Library business information service.

  Mr. Luce
  The objectives of the British Library's business information service are:(1) to contribute towards the building, monitoring and organising of an effective national reference collection of business literature; (2) to promote awareness of the information which resides within this collection, its potential value and effective methods for accessing it; (3) to provide specialist help to callers to the library who need to obtain business information; (4) to provide a free telephone inquiry for brief inquiries; (5) to offer, as a charged service, comprehensive and thoroughly researched answers to inquiries about markets, companies and products through access to the British Library's unique printed collections and utilising on-line databases

  Tate Gallery (Liverpool)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what special provisions he has made to help the new Tate gallery in Liverpool.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government have made a significant financial contribution to this important new development.

  The capital cost of the new Tate gallery, Liverpool, has been met by a combination of public funds (OAL £0·5 million and Merseyside Development Corporation £5·1 million) and privately raised funds (£1·7 million from various benefactors).

  The allocation of £6·3 million for the running costs of the Tate gallery, which I announced on 16 December, at columns 531–34, takes account of the needs of the new gallery in Liverpool. Comparing like with like, this represents an increase of 19 per cent. on the figure for the current year. No specific sum is earmarked within this total for the new Liverpool gallery as it is for the trustees and director of the Tate to decide on the disposition of the funds available to them.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service (Dispersal)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about Her Majesty's Government's policy of dispersal of the Civil Service to the regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Two letters from hon. Members on the subject of Civil Service dispersal have recently been referred to me and are currently being dealt with. With regard to a statement, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I provided to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 18 January 1988, at columns 475–76.

  Civil Service (Working Patterns)
  Mrs. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to implement the recommendations of the "Working Patterns of the Civil Service" contained in the study document issued by the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Brooke
  Departments are already considering the report, and have been asked to come forward with any proposals on alternative working patterns which meet their particular needs.

  Customs Clearance Station (Armagh)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for the provision of a new customs clearance station on the Armagh to Monaghan road; whether it will include facilities for the handling of importation of live cattle from the Republic of Ireland into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  It is proposed that a new customs clearance station will be provided on the Armagh to Monaghan road. A planning application is under consideration in respect of a site on the Monaghan road, Armagh, 180 m west of Umgola house. The proposals do not include facilities for dealing with regular importations of live cattle from the Republic of Ireland into the United Kingdom. It is intended, however, to make provision for the temporary holding of cattle which on occasion may have been detained for customs purposes.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had any representations concerning value added tax on donations of equipment to higher educational establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a number of representations concerning VAT on donations of equipment to higher educational establishments.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the yield in the current year 1987–88 of value added tax from confectionery, chocolate biscuits, nuts, snacks and ice creams.
  79
  Mr. Lilley
  The forecast yield of value added tax in 1987–88 from chocolate and sugar confectionary, chocolate biscuits, potato crisps, nuts and ice cream is around £590 million.

  Customs (Confiscations)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the clothes and personal effects confiscated from those arrested by Her Majesty's customs officials at airports and seaports are subsequently returned to the owners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Clothes and personal effects taken from arrested persons are in general returned to their owners. They may, however, be withheld if they are liable to forfeiture because of a prohibition or restriction on importation or exportation, because they are subject to duty which has not been paid, or because they have been used to facilitate the commission of an offence.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in(a) the nominal and (b) the real exchange rate of (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) West Germany, (iii) Japan and (iv) the United States of America against other G7 countries in the following periods: the last quarter of 1969 to the first quarter of 1971, the last quarter of 1976 to the first quarter of 1979, the second quarter of 1979 to the first quarter of 1981 and the third quarter of 1986 to date.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to International Financial Statistics published monthly by the International Monetary Fund and to the table on page 46 of Economic Trends published monthly by the Central Statistical Office. Copies of both publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the nominal interest rate and (b) the real interest rate on an annual basis for (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) West Germany, (iii) Japan and (iv) Austria in each year from 1977 to date.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are a number of ways of measuring real interest rates. Data on interest rates and various price indices for the OECD countries are contained in the

  Reductions (+)1 Increases ( - ) in income tax compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  (£ million)

  Range of total income in 1987–881

  Number of units paying tax in 1987–88

  £

  (million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Under 5,000

  3·20

  230

  100

  -290

  -250

  -20

  110

  230

  270

  340

  5,000 to 10,000

  7·70

  1,210

  740

  -270

  -160

  410

  790

  1,120

  1,410

  1,990

  10,000 to 15,000

  5·20

  1,410

  1,010

  190

  280

  740

  1,150

  1,450

  1,820

  2,540

  15,000 to 20,000

  2·50

  1,010

  770

  290

  350

  610

  890

  1,060

  1,330

  1,870

  20,000 to 30,000

  1·50

  1,140

  940

  370

  440

  780

  1,040

  1,160

  1,410

  1,900

  30,000 to 50,000

  0·50

  1,090

  950

  540

  590

  830

  1,040

  1,100

  1,210

  1,400

  50,000 to 70,000

  0·10

  550

  510

  370

  390

  460

  560

  570

  590

  610

  80
  monthly publication "OECD Main Economic Indicators." Longer series can be found in "OECD Historical Statistics."

  Treasure Trove
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his review of treasure trove; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect to receive the report of the review of ex gratia awards to finders of treasure trove very shortly.

  Finance Acts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the gain or loss to those with incomes(a) under £5,000, (b) £5,000 to £10,000, (c) £10,000 to £15,000, (d) £15,000 to £20,000, (e) £20,000 to £30,000, (f) £30,000 to £50,000, (g) £50,000 to £70,000, (h) £70,000 to £100,000 and (i) over £100,000 a year as a result of each Finance Act since 1979, both in aggregate and per person on average in each of these income groups, in each case indicating how much is due to indexation and how much is real gain.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 January 1988]: The information is in the tables. For each financial year shown, the tables compare the yield from the tax regime in that year with the 1978–79 tax regime. All estimates are based on a provisional 1987–88 income base projected from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and all tax regimes have been indexed to 1987–88 levels by reference to the statutory formula. The comparisons therefore allow for budgetary changes in income tax rates and allowances, but not for any changes since 1978–79 in the definition of the income tax base.

  The first table shows the total reduction (+) or increase ( - ) in tax yield from each income range; and the second table shows the average change for individual tax units. Because of the uncertainties of projecting for those with the highest incomes, taxpayers with incomes over £70,000 are shown in a single range.

  As child tax allowances were being phased out in 1978–79 they have been excluded from the comparison.

  It is not possible to provide useful estimates of the liabilities in 1987–88 for the 1978–79 regime without indexation since Inland Revenue records do not cover many of the people who would be brought into tax by such low levels of personal allowances. A partial analysis with incomplete coverage would be misleading.
  81

  Range of total income in 1987–881

  Number of units paying tax in 1987–88

  £

  (million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Over 70,000

  0·06

  970

  940

  850

  860

  910

  1,060

  1,070

  1,080

  1,090

  Total

  20·90

  7,610

  5,960

  2,060

  2,490

  4,710

  6,640

  7,780

  9,110

  11,730

  Average gain (+) Moss (-) per tax unit

  (£ per annum)

  Range of total income in 1987–881 £

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Under 5,0002

  60

  25

  -70

  -60

  -10

  30

  60

  70

  90

  5,000 to 10,0002

  150

  90

  -30

  -20

  50

  100

  140

  180

  250

  10,000 to 15,000

  270

  190

  40

  50

  140

  220

  280

  350

  490

  15,000 to 20,000

  400

  300

  120

  140

  240

  350

  420

  520

  740

  20,000 to 30,000

  750

  620

  250

  290

  510

  690

  770

  930

  1,250

  30,000 to 50,000

  2,000

  1,750

  1,000

  1,090

  1,520

  1,920

  2,030

  2,230

  2,570

  50,000 to 70,000

  5,590

  5,130

  3,790

  3,930

  4,700

  5,640

  5,790

  5,920

  6,150

  Over 70,000

  17,030

  16,450

  14,850

  15,020

  15,920

  18,630

  18,800

  18,900

  19,100

  Total

  350

  270

  90

  110

  220

  300

  360

  420

  540

  1 All information is in terms of tax units-that is married couples are counted as one and their incomes combined.

  2 Average gains and losses are calculated by reference to the estimated number who would be liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime; this number is some 900,000 greater than the numbers paying tax in 1987–88, some 750,000 in the income range below £5,000 and 150,000 in the range £5,000 to £10,000.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government expect the rate of growth in output per head in manufacturing to go on increasing faster than the rate of growth in the rest of the economy over the next year; and if he will publish in the Official Report an estimate of the loss in gross domestic product as a result of the decline in the manufacturing base of the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Manufacturing output in the three months to November 1987 was 2·7 per cent. above the level in 1979. Total output rose 17 per cent. over that same period. The Autumn Statement contained no forecast of the growth of output per head.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each of the decades ending 1967, 1977 and 1987 the annual rate of growth in manufacturing, in industrial products less the extraction of oil and gas and in gross domestic product less the extraction of oil and gas.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Data for the whole of 1987 are not yet available. The information, based on the lastest available data, is as follows:

  Annual growth rates

  1957 to 1967

  1967 to 1977

  1977 to 1987

  Manufacturing output

  +3·1

  +1·7

  30·0

  Industrial production less oil and gas1

  +2·9

  +1·7

  3+0·1

  Gross domestic product2 less oil and gas1

  +2·9

  +1·8

  4+l·7

  1 Class 13 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980 —extraction of mineral oil and natural gas.

  2 The output based measure of gross domestic product, the appropriate measure for comparison by industry.

  82

  3 To November 1987 inclusive.

  4 To third quarter 1987 inclusive.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Personal Incomes (Statistics)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has on whether increases in wage rates in manufacturing industry have led to inflation; and if he will include in the Official Report a table showing for the period since May 1979 the increase in (a) median earnings of blue collar workers, (b) median earnings of white collar workers, (c) the remuneration of directors of public companies and (d) the earnings of those employed in the financial sector.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Wage rates in manufacturing are more likely to be a determinant of manufacturing employment and I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the Treasury paper "The Relationship between Employment and Wages", published in January 1985.

  On the second part of the question, the hon. Member's attention has on numerous occasions been drawn to the publications in which such information as is available may be found. In this instance, the New Earnings Survey will provide all information requested except details of remuneration of directors of public companies which are not normally collected by Government.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purpose of Government borrowing since 31 October 1987 in excess of the borrowing requirement; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each issue the amount borrowed and the exact cost per annum.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The public sector's net borrowing is necessarily equal to its

  83
  borrowing requirement: it is an accounting identity. Figures for new issues and redemptions of gilt-edged stock

  Date and Stock

  Nominal Amount (£ million)

  For Cash (£ million)

  Cost Per Annum (£ million)

  10 November 1987

  8 per cent. Treasury 1992

  100

  99

  8·0

  10 per cent. Treasury Loan 1994

  150

  158

  15·0

  83/4 per cent. Treasury 1997

  200

  199

  17·5

  21/2per cent. Index Linked Treasury 2001

  100

  109

  12·5

  21/2 Index Linked Treasury 2020

  100

  94

  12·5

  2 December 1987

  21/2 per cent. Index Linked Treasury 2003

  50

  54

  11·25

  21/2 Index Linked Treasury 2009

  50

  51

  11·25

  21/2 per cent. Index Linked Treasury 2013

  50

  44

  11·25

  11 December 1987

  8 per cent. Treasury Convertible Stock 1990

  1,000

  980

  280·0

  21 December 1987

  10 per cent. Treasury 1993

  100

  103

  100

  101/2 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1997

  150

  1S9

  15·75

  91/2 per cent. Treasury Loan 2002

  100

  103

  9·75

  91/2 per cent. Conversion Stock 2004

  100

  100

  9·5

  2 per cent. Index Linked Treasury 2006

  100

  107

  12·0

  13 January 1988

  83/4 per cent. Treasury 1997 "C"

  1,000

  925

  87·5

  18 January

  8 per cent. Treasury 1992

  300

  286

  24·0

  91/2 per cent. Conversion Stock 2005

  150

  149

  14·25

  91/2 per cent. Conversion Stock 2004

  150

  147

  14·25

  1 Index Linked Stocks: There will be an additional cost at redemption due to capital uplift.

  2 Convertible stock: Annual cost may vary slightly due to the exercising of conversion options.

  Revenue Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increase in revenue and the decrease in expenditure as a result of the reduction in unemployment in 1987–88; how much of this would accrue to the national insurance fund via an increase in national insurance contributions and a reduction in social security payments; and if he will provide comparable figures for 1988–89 on the basis of the present level of employment and unemployment.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: It is not possible to estimate the extra revenue accruing to the Exchequer as a result of the fall in unemployment. Details of the estimated effect of a fall in unemployment on overall benefit expenditure are given in table 3.15.18 of the 1987 public expenditure White Paper, and table 6.15.20 of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (published 20 January). The estimated increase in contribution income

  £ million

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f) + (g)

  Cigarettes

  Tobacco

  Beer

  Wine

  Spirits1

  Petrol & Diesel1

  1979–80

  2,717·9

  243·4

  1,406·4

  523·3

  1,422·9

  3,047·4

  1980–81

  3,094·6

  276·8

  1,738·4

  606·9

  1,502·5

  3,928·0

  1981–82

  3,672·1

  368·5

  2,136·3

  765·4

  1,602·1

  5,155·3

  1982–83

  3,717·6

  396·3

  2,366·0

  7860

  1,355·3

  5,840·3

  84
  are given in table 3.6 of Financial Statistics, published by the Central Statistical Office. Those issued since 31 October are as listed.

  to the national insurance fund resulting from the increase in employment in 1987–88 is £300 million. The estimated reduction in unemployment benefit expenditure in 1987–88 resulting from the decrease in the numbers entitled to unemployment benefit is £250 million. The overall effect of a fall in unemployment and increase in employment on the national insurance fund in 1988–89 is described in the report of the Government Actuary on the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order (No.2) 1987, which will be published shortly.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total tax receipts from the sale of the following items:(a) cigarettes, (b) tobacco, (c) beer, (d) wine, (e) whisky, (f) petrol and (g) diesel for each year for which figures are available between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The figures, in financial years, show the information at the lowest level of detail for which total tax receipts (i.e. both VAT and excise duty) can be provided.
  85

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f) + (g)

  Cigarettes

  Tobacco

  Beer

  Wine

  Spirits1

  Petrol & Diesel1

  1983–84

  4,103·3

  401·5

  2,608·8

  982·8

  2,131·6

  6,293·8

  1984–85

  4,477·9

  414·7

  2,835·0

  997·7

  1,702·4

  6,820·5

  1985–86

  4,851·5

  412·4

  3,057·7

  1,066·4

  2,003·4

  7,272·8

  1986–87

  5,193·6

  424·7

  3,124·2

  1,098·5

  1,989·2

  8,262·2

  1 VAT statistics do not distinguish whisky from "spirits" or petrol from "motor fuels in general".

  Domestic Rates (VAT)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in the rate of value added tax required in 1987–88 to replace the revenue currently raised from domestic rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: It is estimated that the rate of value added tax would need to be increased by about six percentage points (i.e. from the current rate of 15 per cent. to 21 per cent.) to replace the revenue currently raised from domestic rates.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue plans to examine the affairs of large pension funds.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Large pension funds are treated in the same way as any other taxpayer. Each case is treated on its merits and inquiries made where, on the available facts, they are considered appropriate.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from how many pension funds the Inland Revenue (technical division) special office, Sheffield, has requested information.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Information has been requested from 12 pension funds.

  Inland Revenue (Sheffield)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people the Inland Revenue (technical division) special office, Sheffield, employs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: Fifteen staff are employed.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the budgeted expenditure for the year 1987–88 for the Inland Revenue (technical division) special office, Sheffield.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: £358,000.

  Retail Prices and Taxation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current average retail price and the corresponding tax duty payable on each of the following items:(a) 20 king size cigarettes, (b) half an ounce of tobacco, (c) a pint of beer, (d) a bottle of wine, (e) a bottle of whisky, (f) a gallon of four-star petrol and (g) a gallon of diesel.
  86
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Current price

  Duty

  VAT

  £

  £

  £

  (a) 20 King size cigarettes

  1·45

  0·92

  019

  (b) 25 gms1 Pipe tobacco

  1·36

  0·62

  0·18

  (c) Pint of beer (bitter)

  0·84

  0·18

  0·11

  (d) Bottle of table wine (litre)

  2·25

  0·98

  0·29

  (e) Bottle of whisky (75cl)

  7·47

  4·73

  0·97

  (f) Gallon of petrol (4-star)

  1·70

  0·88

  0·22

  (g) Gallon of diesel

  1·56

  0·75

  0·20

  1 A representative price for half an ounce of tobacco is not available.

  Rental Values
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the figures for the average increase in rental values determined for rating purposes of non-domestic properties for each year since 1973.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: At present, the rateable values of all properties are based on the level of annual rental values for similar properties at the time when the current valuation list came into force on 1 April 1973. The rateable values so determined are not adjusted to take account of any subsequent changes in the level of rental values which may occur during the currency of the list.

  Books, Newspapers and Periodicals (VAT)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has of the amount which would be raised in a full year by the levying of value added tax on books, newspapers and periodicals at(a) 5, (b) 10 and (c) 15 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: The estimated full year net revenue yield in 1988–89 of imposing value added tax on books, newspapers and periodicals is as follows:

  £ million

  (a) 5 per cent

  180

  (b) 10 per cent.

  350

  (c) 15 per cent.

  515

  Domestic Staff
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to make the wages paid to domestic staff in private households tax deductible; and if he will make a statement.
  87
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Illegitimate Babies (Deaths)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for each year from 1975 onwards, the numbers of stillbirths, early neonatal deaths and postneonatal deaths of jointly registered illegitimate

  Number of stillbirths, early neonatal deaths, late neonatal deaths and postneonatal deaths of jointly registered illegitimate babies by social class, England and Wales 1975 and 1985

  Social Class

  Stillbirths

  Early neonatal

  Late neonatal

  Postneonatal

  1975

  Total

  161

  296

  70

  190

  Social Class I

  5

  8

  2

  2

  Social Class II

  13

  23

  6

  12

  Social Class IIIN

  12

  28

  —

  10

  Social Class HIM

  64

  91

  26

  69

  Social Class IV

  33

  61

  11

  40

  Social Class V

  29

  42

  9

  28

  Armed Forces

  1

  3

  2

  1

  Students, Unoccupied and inadequately described

  4

  40

  14

  28

  1985

  Total

  394

  416

  96

  436

  Social Class I

  2

  7

  1

  6

  Social Class II

  31

  50

  9

  32

  Social Class IIIN

  22

  25

  3

  22

  Social Class HIM

  151

  162

  45

  166

  Social Class IV

  90

  78

  16

  70

  Social Class V

  72

  64

  14

  92

  Armed Forces

  3

  4

  —

  2

  Students, Unoccupied and inadequately described

  23

  26

  8

  46

  Early neonatal: deaths in the first week of life.

  Late neonatal: deaths from one week to under four weeks.

  Postneonatal: deaths from four weeks to under one year.

  Nursing and Administrative Staff
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage change in the numbers of nursing and midwifery staff, whole-time equivalents, in(a) the north-west region and (b) England as a whole, between 1978 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Newton
  Between 30 September 1978 and 30 September 1986 National Health Service nursing and midwifery staff (including agency staff) in North Western regional health authority and England, increased by 14·7 and 20·4 per cent. respectively. These percentages have not been adjusted to take account of the reduction in hours introduced during 1980–81.

  Doctors (Earnings)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage the earnings of(a) consultants, (b) house officers, and (c) general practitioners are estimated to have risen between 1974 and 1987 in real terms.

  Mr. Newton
  Based on the rates of pay effective on the dates specified, the real terms increases for house officers, consultants and general practitioners (intended net
  88
  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
  I regret that the full information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the table shows data for the first and last year available which can be produced without incurring disproportionate cost.

  remuneration) were 48 per cent., 13·6 per cent. and 17·4 per cent. respectively. In relation to house officers, I should explain that because of the introduction of 1975 of a basic salary related to the first 40 hours duty per week, the figure quoted is based on a comparison between the current rate of pay, including supplements, for an average weekly commitment of 80 hours and the basic rate paid in 1974 for a commitment of up to 80 hours per week.

  The changes in pay in real terms between February 1974 and March 1979 and between March 1979 and March 1987 were as follows:

  February 1974 to March 1979 Per cent.

  March 1979 to March 1987 Per cent.

  House Officer

  + 8·6

  + 29·8

  Consultant

  -25·6

  + 28·9

  General Practitioner

  -16·8

  + 25·9

  (intended net remuneration).

  Dialysis Patients
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients are currently receiving kidney dialysis; how many new patients have
  89
  been admitted to dialysis in the last 12 months; and what is his estimate of the number of patients in the United Kingdom who would benefit from dialysis.

  Mrs. Currie
  According to provisional figures provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, a total of 6,890 patients were under treatment on all forms of dialysis in the United Kingdom on 31 December 1986. The number of new patients accepted during 1986 for all forms of treatment for end stage renal failure was 2,647 which represents 47 new patients per million population. The target of 40 new patients per million population was set by Ministers in 1984.

  It is not possible to estimate the total number of patients who would benefit from dialysis. The assessment and treatment of individual patients is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctors concerned. A total of 1,479 patients received a cadaveric kidney transplant in the United Kingdom during 1987 and 6,804 at 31 December 1986 had a functioning kidney transplant: both figures are provisional.

  Obstetrics
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received a document "Anaesthetic Services For Obstetrics—A Plan For The Future" from the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland; whether, because of its implications for the future of small obstetric units, he will ensure that a full discussion takes place between the anaesthetists and his officials before final decisions are made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  A copy of the document has been received and is being considered. There are at present no plans for officials to meet representatives of the Association. Anaesthetists are represented by the Royal College of Surgeons and discussions will take place with that body as necessary.

  The Government's current policy, as set out in the reports of the maternity services advisory committee, is that women should be encouraged to have their babies in a hospital offering the range of obstetric paediatric and supporting services including anaesthetics necessary to cope with any emergency. Responsibility for determining the pattern of maternity services best suited to local needs and circumstances rests with individual health authorities.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to make those ethnic minority communities whose first language is not English aware of the major changes to the benefits system due to come into effect in April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  FB2 "Which benefit?" is produced in six ethnic minority languages under the leaflet code FB22. The languages used are Chinese, Urdu, Hindi, Gujerati, Bengali and Punjabi. FB2/FB22 is the main social security overview leaflet, which briefly describes all the major social security benefits. It is intended to produce updated editions of FB22 later in 1988. These will cover the new benefits introduced in April. New posters advertising the new editions will go on display in social security offices and at normal distribution points.
  90
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that his Department employs bilingual or multilingual staff in areas where there are substantial ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department of Health and Social Security follows the long-standing principle that recruitment to the Civil Service should be by fair and open competition, and selection should be on merit. The Department's aim is that its work force should reflect the ethnic composition of the community it serves, but it does not seek to recruit bilingual or multilingual staff as such. A recent experiment at Bradford (West) local office involved the appointment of an existing member of staff as a full-time interpreter/liaison officer to the Asian community. It has been successful and we are considering proposals to extend the experiment to similar offices in other parts of the country.

  Departmental Local Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the allocation between local offices of the extra 2,000 posts agreed for supplementary benefit work in 1986, distinguishing between posts funded on a short term and on a permament basis.

  Mr. Portillo
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to an increase in the staff-in-post target of about 2,000 for the end of the year 1985–86. This addition was made at a time when many local offices were in excess of the complement. Some were permitted to retain excess staff and others to increase staffing levels. I regret that since such decisions were made locally, I am unable to provide the hon. Member with the details of the allocation which he seeks.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women have taken cervical smear tests in the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool areas in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is not precisely in the form requested. Centrally, information is collected on the number of smear tests performed by the laboratories in the district health authority rather than the number of women, resident in the district, who were tested. Some districts will therefore record no smears examined where there are no laboratories in their area. The available information is given in the table. The hon. Member may wish to approach the respective District Health Authorities for further information.

  Cervical cytology—number of cases examined

  District health authorities

  1985

  1986

  Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool

  36,063

  34,340

  Note: A woman who was tested more than once was counted on each occasion, but where more than one smear was taken from the same patient at the same session, they were counted as one test.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures are being taken to encourage women living within the area of Durham, Sunderland and Hartlepool area health authorities to have cervical smear tests.
  91
  Mrs. Currie
  We are committed to reducing deaths from cervical cancer and have asked all health authorities in England to implement, by 31 March this year, computerised call and recall systems to invite women to have cervical smear tests. Most health authorities, including Durham and Sunderland, already have their systems in operation. I understand that Hartlepool health authority plans to extend its existing recall system to provide a call facility from 1 April. For details of further measures taken to encourage uptake in these districts the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairmen of the respective health authorities.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of meningitis have been reported in the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool areas in each year from 1985.

  Mrs. Currie
  Meningitis can be caused by several different organisms. The hon. Member is probably particularly interested in meningococcal meningitis: the table gives figures for this and for all forms of acute meningitis.

  Number of notifications of acute and meningococcal meningitis in Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool district health authorities, 1985–87

  Sunderland

  Durham

  Hartlepool

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  1985

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1986

  7

  1

  9

  3

  5

  S

  19871

  15

  6

  11

  6

  21

  9

  1 Provisional.

  (a) Acute or (all forms).

  (b) Meningococcal meningitis.

  Plastic Surgery
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the current number of private clinics for plastic surgery and the number in 1983 and 1978; and if he will make a statement on the method of assessment of the quality of service of such clinics.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the statistical information requested is not held centrally. Each private clinic performing plastic surgery must register with its local district health authority. Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, that authority must inspect it at least twice per year and must be satisfied that its premises and management arrangements meet the requirements of registration. The clinical service provided in such a clinic is a matter between each individual purchaser and the clinician involved.

  Health Districts (Spending Priorities)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what criteria he uses to assess the spending priorities between health districts within a given authority; and what criteria are used for the inner London authorities, such as Wandsworth and Roehampton, within the South West Thames region.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to determine district resource allocations which take account of agreed service plans and allow for a92
  manageable pace of change. My hon. Friend may like to approach the chairman of the South West Thames regional health authority for further details in respect of Wandsworth and Roehampton.

  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many units of health authority accommodation are available to National Health Service nursing staff in Greater London; and how this compares with(a) five and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department does not at present collect information about the number of units of residential accommodation, but proposes to do so from the next financial year.

  Crewe Health District
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the need for further resources in Crewe health district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  A number of representations have been received from hon. Members, the Community Health Council, the local authority, hospital staff, and members of the public. However, the allocation of resources to the Crewe health authority is primarily the responsibility of the Mersey regional health authority.

  Health Education Council (Advertising)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advertising agents were appointed by the former Health Education Council or by the Central Office of Information on its behalf to handle campaigns involving the communication of information for which it was responsible during(a) 1985–86; and (b) the succeeding period until the council's abolition; what was the subject of each campaign; how much was spent on each campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand from the authorities concerned that the information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Agency

  Campaign(s)

  Cost £

  1985–86

  Abbot Mead Vickers

  Smoking

  889,500

  1985–86

  Redheads Advertising

  Whooping Cough

  583,000

  1986–87

  Abbot Mead Vickers

  Smoking

  737,200

  In 1985–86 the Health Education Council also collaborated with the DHSS in a Departmentally funded pilot campaign to discourage teenage smoking, which employed the advertising agents FCO and cost £1 million.

  Dr. Kevin Browne
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what occasions his Department has been advised by Dr. Kevin Browne concerning the prescription of lung cancer in asbestos workers where there is no evidence of asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening; and what was the consequence of any such advice.

  Mr. Scott
  Following publication of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on "Asbestos-Related Diseases Without Asbestosis" (Cmnd. 8750) in November
  93
  1982, a number of eminent experts in occupational chest diseases, including Dr. Browne then employed full-time by Cape Industries, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) the then Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled. As a result of their representations the report was referred back to the council for further consideration. The council subsequently modified its recommendations in a supplement to its report, which was published in March 1984 (Cmnd. 9184).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether Dr. Kevin Browne has access to special medical board records relating to past or present employees of Cape Industries.

  Mr. Scott
  As a part-time adjudicating medical practitioner Dr. Browne has no access to medical boarding centre records other than those relating to the cases he boards. Special procedures have been introduced to ensure these do not include present or past employees of Cape Industries.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether Dr. Kevin Browne of the London medical boarding centre has been reprimanded or disciplined in relation to the curriculum vitae he submitted.

  Mr. Scott
  The senior medical officer at the London medical boarding centre (respiratory diseases) has discussed the matter with Dr. Browne. I am satisfied that Dr. Browne had no intention of deliberately misleading the Department.

  Boarding Doctors (Asbestos)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list any boarding doctors employed on respiratory disease claims who have in the past had links with the asbestos industry.

  Mr. Scott
  Dr. Kevin Browne is the only doctor employed on respiratory disease claims who has past or present links with the asbestos industry.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what statistical information he has about the extent and regularity of overtime working by junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is collected annually on the contracted hours of junior hospital doctors and dentists. The weekly average on 30 September 1986 was 85·7. These are hours of duty not hours of work. According to a survey commissioned by the Independent Doctors and Dentists Review Body in 1985, average hours of work were 57. An employing authority may, by agreement with a practitioner, contract separately with him for additional duty undertaken outside his regular commitment. Information on such additional duty is not available centrally.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in the last nine months on the subject of overtime by junior hospital doctors.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received letters from 45 hon. Members and 31 other individuals or organisations 94
  concerning the hours of work of junior hospital doctors. Officials and representatives of the medical profession are currently discussing the scope for achieving further reductions in hours.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many student training allowances were paid to speech therapy staff in the financial years 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87; how many such allowances are being paid at the present time; and what proportion of speech therapy staff were or are in receipt of such allowances at the dates stated;

  (2) what was the annual value of the speech therapists' student training allowance in 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and currently.

  Mr. Newton
  The information required about the number of speech therapy training allowances paid to speech therapy staff is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Rates of allowance and estimated total cost (Great Britain) for the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 are given in the following table. Cost figures are not available for 1983–84 or for the current financial year.

  Student training allowance

  £ per annum

  Grade

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1. Head or Designated Officer in approved Department

  750

  750

  864

  2. Senior II

  500

  500

  576

  3. Designated Officer

  250

  250

  288

  For those not entitled to full allowances

  (a) as detailed in 1. above

  375

  375

  432

  (b) as detailed in 2. above

  250

  250

  288

  (c) as detailed in 3. above

  125

  125

  144

  Estimated Great Britain cost

  412,400

  434,400

  500,100

  Nurses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many re-registrations of nurses occurred in each of the last five years;

  (2) what income he anticipates will arise from charges for the re-registration of nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Responsibility for maintaining the professional register rests with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Since 1 January 1987 nurses, midwives and health visitors have been required by the United Kingdom Central Council to re-register every three years. Prior to that date registration was for life.

  I understand from the United Kingdom Central Council that re-registrations during 1987 totalled 541,000. During the 1988–89 financial year it expects to raise £4,324,000 from periodic registration fees.

  Dual Laser Beam Flow Sorter
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department proposes to acquire or advise other agencies to acquire a dual laser beam flow sorter.
  95
  Mrs. Currie
  No, but a number of specialised laboratories in the United Kingdom have these devices in use.

  Boarding Doctors (Industrial Disablement)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any boarding doctors have past or present links with any industrial board claimants for industrial disablement benefit for any prescribed disease.

  Mr. Scott
  Many of the adjudicating medical practitioners who board claimants for prescribed diseases and industrial accidents have had, or currently have, appointments in industry as occupational physicians. Such industrial experience is of considerable value in this work. Departmental practice in this matter is governed by the provisions of Regulation 33 (1), (2) and (3), of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1986.

  Kidney Patients
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can give his Department's best estimate of the annual cost to the public purse in benefits (excluding all health care costs) of the average patient with end-stage renal failure, distinguishing between those who(a) have no treatment other than amelioration and care, (b) have renal dialysis treatment and (c) have had successful kidney transplant treatment.

  Mr. Scott
  The diversity of medical and financial circumstances within each of the three categories, and the resulting variations in benefit entitlement, are too great to permit any worthwhile attempt at an average annual benefit cost.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost of the proposed Open University course for social workers with deaf people.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that the total development cost is now estimated at about £500,000 over a period of six years.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to meet the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to discuss the training of social workers with deaf people.

  Mr. Scott
  Discussions have been held at official level and the Department will continue to keep in touch with the council about this issue.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to give the Open University a decision on funding the development costs of its proposed post-qualifying course for social workers with deaf people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what priority he has given to funding the development costs of the Open University's proposed post-qualifying course for social workers with deaf people; and if he expects to announce a decision by the end of January to enable the course to be on offer in 1990.
  96
  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 25 January at column 584.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which organisations have requested him to support the proposed Open University course for social workers with deaf people.

  Mr. Scott
  The application has been made by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on behalf of the panel of four main national organisations helping deaf people and the national training group on which other voluntary organisations are also represented. The Association of Directors of Social Services has endorsed the proposal which also has the approval in principle of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will outline the present provision for training social workers to work with profoundly deaf people.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no formal training course at present.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local authorities have in post a social worker designated as working with deaf people; and what proportion this is of the total.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not held centrally on the nature of the work carried out by particular social workers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any proposals to collect centrally statistics on the number of social workers qualified to work with deaf people.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so, although arrangements for collecting information centrally are kept under review to take account of changing needs.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to increase the provision of training for social workers specialising in work with deaf people.

  Mr. Scott
  We are well aware of the need and both the Department and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work are giving careful consideration to a proposal for a new course involving the Open University.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the adequacy of social work provision for deaf people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The adequacy of such provision is for local authorities to determine in the light of local needs.

  Deaf People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of profoundly deaf people in the United Kingdom; and how many of these are likely to require(a) environmental aids and (b) help with communication.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of deaf people with and without
  97
  speech on local authority registers in England at 31 March 1986 totalled 34,077. Figures for the rest of the United Kingdom are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  All deaf people will clearly require some help with communication, but it is not possible to estimate how many could benefit from the provision of particular kinds of assistance or of environmental aids.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures about closures of

  Family planning clinic service: England Community and hospital clinics1

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Premises regularly used for FP sessions

  1,739

  1,755

  1,768

  1,746

  1,756

  Sessions (all types)2

  197,472

  199,100

  197,127

  196,075

  195,700

  1 The table covers all clinic services including any provided by voluntary bodies or others on an agency basis.

  2 A session with two doctors has been included as two sessions. If more than one nurse was present at a "nurse only" session it has been included as one session unless each nurse was advising a separate group.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he plans to publish information about the social fund in minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department intends to publish general information about the social fund in minority languages later in 1988. This will be in the form of a new edition of leaflet FB22 which is presently translated into six ethnic minority languages.

  Health Services Information
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress being made in implementing the recommendations of the Korner steering group's reports on health services information.

  Mr. Newton
  The first phase in implementing the recommendations of the Korner steering group on health services information has proceeded satisfactorily. All district health authorities are collecting the required data. However, difficulties in interfacing computer systems meant that several districts were unable to provide some of the first quarter's returns to the Department: some of these difficulties are affecting the second quarter. A report on the first phase was published in the November issue of the British Journal of Healthcare Computing volume 4, pages 39 to 41 a copy of which is in the Library. The second phase relating to community and paramedical services is not due for implementation until 1 April 1988.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make a statement on progress being made with his Department's computer-based package to provide information as to the relative performance of(a) hospitals and (b) district health authorities;

  (2) what information his Department's computer-based performance indicator package discloses concerning (a)
  98
  family planning clinics within the last period for which figures are available; and what representations he has received about further proposed closures of these clinics.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is not centrally available in the form requested. National figures for the number of health authority family planning outlets and sessions provided in the last five years for which figures are available are set out in the table. There have been a number of representations about health authority proposals for reductions in clinic services, including correspondence from the Family Planning Association. There have been no referrals to Ministers, under the defined consultation procedures where consumer views are represented, of proposals for substantial changes where agreement cannot be reached locally.

  the number of out-patient attendances at acute hospitals per annum and (b) the average cost per attendance; and if he will publish those details in respect of each acute hospital dealing with more than 100,000 out-patient attendances per annum;

  (3) what information his Department's computer-based performance indicator package discloses concerning (a) the number of in-patient cases treated in acute hospitals per annum and (b) the average cost per in-patient case; and if he will publish those details in respect of each acute hospital dealing with more than 20,000 cases per annum;

  (4) if he intends to introduce information as to diagnosis-related groups into his Department's computer-based performance indicator package.

  Mr. Newton
  A new set of the performance indicators for the hospital and community health services based on data for 1986–87 will be issued in February 1988. As in previous years this will be sent to every authority in England and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  An improved, expanded set of indicators is currently being developed to make Use of the new data collected from 1 April 1987 following the implementation of the recommendations of the steering committee on health service information (the "Körner committee"). Publication of the new health service indicators, based on data for 1987–88, is planned for January 1989.

  The current indicators do not include information about attendances and costs of consultant out-patient clinics at acute hospitals. It is planned to include such information in the revised package of indicators. The current indicators do not provide information about the number of in-patients treated in acute hospitals; nor do they identify hospitals by the number of patients in them. Cost per case indicators are provided by district and major acute hospital but do not distinguish between hospitals by the number of cases treated.

  Work is in hand in the context of resource management in the NHS to establish the potential of diagnostic related

  99
  groups (DRG's). Until the value of DRGs is demonstrated there are no plans to make use of them in performance indicators.

  East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's(a) planning and (b) spending on health and social services of recent projections published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that East Anglia will have in the next 13 years the greatest proportionate population increase of both people moving in and of new births of any English region.

  Mr. Newton
  The resource allocation working party formula, which is used to calculate each region's target share of available resources, takes account of changes in the size of regional populations (and of the use made of health services by people of different ages and sexes). Annual allocations aim to bring regions towards their targets over time. East Anglia's growth in population is reflected in its 6·6 per cent. cash increase for 1988–89 compared with a national average of 5·7 per cent.

  Medical Treatment (Spain)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans his Department has to seek better reciprocal arrangements for medical treatment for United Kingdom nationals injured or taken ill in Spain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Under the terms of European Community regulations, United Kingdom nationals receive medical treatment in Spain from the Spanish state health care system on the same basis as Spanish nationals. Negotiations are currently taking place to ease access to the Spanish state system and to provide more information about it. United Kingdom nationals may also of course, if they wish, use Spanish private sector health care facilities paid for by themselves or by private insurance.

  Unemployment Costs (Sheffield)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total cost to public funds of unemployment within the Sheffield, Brightside constituency for the year ended December 1987, including benefits paid and tax and national insurance cost.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that it is not possible to estimate the total cost of unemployment, to include tax and national insurance contributions forgone, because of the number of factors that could affect this. The cost of paying benefit in 1987 to those unemployed in the Sheffield, Brightside, constituency could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Adjudication Officer's Guide
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the adjudication officer's guide will be published.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is anticipated that the adjudication officer's guide will be published shortly, in time for the new social security benefits which come into operation on Monday 11 April 1988. I will write to the hon. Member when the exact date is known.

  NHS (Accounting and Auditing)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to change accountancy methods used within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and the auditing arrangements for the overall accounts of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no plans to change accounting methods in use within the NHS in England.

  There may be some technical differences in the treatment of accounts generally in the other countries of the United Kingdom, and of course questions concerning the NHS in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In England, current methods and accounting standards are closely modelled and developed in line with the statements of standard accounting practice applying within the private sector. This includes accounting for expenditure on an accruals basis, as well as accounting on a cash basis for Parliamentary Vote control purposes. Capital expenditure and income is recorded in the accounts, but there is no record in a balance sheet of capital assets, nor is there any provision for depreciation of such assets in the revenue accounts. However currently work is in hand in the NHS to develop improved methods of capital asset management, including capital accounting.

  The monitoring and expenditure of health authorities that currently takes place on an informal basis will in future be reflected in the formal and regular monitoring of income, and expenditure levels and of output and activity as I announced on 16 December. This is planned to be undertaken in association with the in-year monitoring process which at present deals only with cash Vote control.

  There are also no plans to change the auditing arrangements for NHS accounts, which are as outlined in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 13 January at columns 330–1.

  Benefits
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of claimants in England, Scotland, Wales and the Fife, Central constituency who have been refused benefit through the decision of an independent adjudication officer; if he will break this figure down according to the reasons given for the withdrawal of benefit; and if he will provide the information requested for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: For unemployment benefit, which I assume is the benefit of interest to the hon. Member, a breakdown of disallowances in England, Scotland and Wales is shown in the tables. Adjudication work for Fife is centralised in the Edinburgh (East) adjudication office. The boundaries of the area dealt with by this office are not conterminous with those of the Fife central constituency and it is not possible, therefore, to provide separate figures for this constituency.
  101

  Total numbers of disallowances in England

  Reasons for disallowance

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1985

  1986

  All questions

  683,798

  795,168

  756,721

  800,961

  829,197

  842,754

  922,760

  Capability

  2,138

  2,349

  2,369

  3,080

  3,742

  5,043

  6,149

  Employment not terminated

  43

  20

  21

  143

  53

  207

  14

  Engaged in employment

  15,135

  24,188

  37,267

  56,983

  84,009

  62,374

  53,690

  Employed to full normal extent

  764

  1,336

  1,686

  2,476

  9,098

  22,798

  28,461

  Normal idle day

  385

  637

  1,042

  1,669

  1,435

  1,115

  949

  Payment in lieu of notice or wages, etc.

  80,830

  155,063

  213,348

  200,318

  197,728

  165,652

  184,519

  Recognised or customary holiday

  1,802

  1,969

  2,582

  3,368

  4,811

  6,114

  6,777

  Whether unemployed

  12,080

  21,212

  26,053

  33,277

  39,128

  46,256

  51,626

  Share fishermen—

  work as

  100

  46

  338

  133

  193

  144

  86

  no work available

  71

  78

  645

  234

  195

  105

  38

  Dependants benefit—

  child

  4,417

  7,298

  6,804

  5,847

  4,542

  380

  170

  adult

  2,818

  3,822

  3,913

  3,915

  3,680

  4,319

  3,422

  Delayed claim

  52,805

  69,246

  67,375

  79,320

  87,572

  106,491

  132,121

  Failure to attend for interview

  360

  374

  141

  136

  281

  213

  381

  Failure to keep to signing time

  87

  88

  28

  40

  26

  65

  44

  Occupational pensioners

  —

  —

  —

  224

  147

  79

  136

  Availability

  22,960

  33,437

  33,693

  44,810

  43,308

  40,515

  52,720

  Restricted availability

  6,991

  9,742

  8,444

  8,004

  6,291

  5,037

  6,687

  Share fishermen-neglect to avail

  25

  42

  168

  56

  59

  20

  16

  Trade dispute

  7,648

  3,874

  1,473

  485

  811

  2,030

  778

  Seasonal working

  2,271

  2,678

  2,557

  3,038

  3,972

  4,681

  3,773

  Leaving voluntarily

  343,232

  289,447

  204,583

  214,704

  221,233

  252,573

  269,935

  Misconduct

  100,673

  113,312

  86,864

  82,072

  31,373

  84,611

  86,213

  Employment—

  neglect to avail

  561

  608

  480

  333

  331

  641

  1,132

  refusal of

  5,943

  6,742

  3,367

  1,879

  1,278

  1,295

  1,669

  Refusal or premature termination of training

  308

  364

  314

  231

  1,013

  6,024

  5,709

  Refusal to carry out written recommendations

  147

  237

  114

  62

  76

  110

  25

  Earnings related supplement

  333

  894

  1,103

  19

  —

  —

  —

  Restart

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  408

  Other questions

  18,871

  46,065

  49,949

  54,105

  32,812

  23,862

  25,112

  Notes:

  1. The headings used in the Annual Analysis changed from 1982.

  2. Figures for 1984 are not available.

  Total Numbers of Disallowances in Scotland

  Reasons for disallowance

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1985

  1986

  All questions

  102,412

  111,154

  97,784

  103,120

  108,464

  113,633

  116,109

  Capability

  688

  960

  823

  1,189

  1,323

  1,410

  1,474

  Employment not terminated

  1

  1

  5

  2

  2

  4

  2

  Engaged in employment

  2,026

  2,853

  4,749

  6,859

  9,851

  7,239

  4,675

  Employed to full normal extent

  172

  134

  206

  317

  1,224

  3,331

  4,889

  Normal idle day

  53

  98

  101

  203

  416

  553

  806

  Payment in lieu of notice or wages, etc

  11,148

  19,657

  21,770

  24,231

  27,556

  23,793

  25,085

  Recognised or customary holiday

  291

  281

  412

  451

  435

  547

  366

  Whether unemployed

  1,992

  2,812

  3,819

  5,116

  6,501

  8,087

  9,607

  Share fishermen—work as

  42

  124

  69

  98

  112

  85

  224

  no work available

  156

  1,081

  2,499

  237

  306

  200

  164

  Dependants benefit—child

  369

  491

  487

  410

  344

  26

  17

  adult

  330

  353

  388

  299

  363

  539

  462

  Delayed claim

  7,228

  9,519

  9,340

  10,250

  10,939

  13,055

  13,588

  Failure to attend for interview

  28

  39

  10

  12

  22

  34

  230

  Failure to keep to signing time

  12

  16

  6

  2

  3

  11

  1

  Occupational pensioners

  —

  —

  —

  24

  22

  18

  5

  Availability

  4,155

  5,604

  4,469

  5,880

  5,097

  5,770

  6,626

  Restricted availability

  791

  1,086

  947

  964

  526

  448

  362

  Share fishermen—neglect to avail

  62

  122

  994

  127

  111

  95

  187

  Trade dispute

  488

  207

  221

  93

  92

  358

  104

  Seasonal working

  250

  312

  304

  425

  474

  670

  2,067

  Leaving voluntarily

  53,077

  44,404

  29,359

  29,296

  28,469

  32,312

  30,806

  Misconduct

  15,755

  15,566

  11,748

  10,419

  9,548

  10,254

  9,513

  Employment—neglect to avail

  63

  84

  80

  78

  71

  68

  75

  refusal of

  455

  756

  455

  243

  96

  145

  189

  Refusal or premature termination of training

  42

  31

  23

  23

  130

  838

  446

  Refusal to carry out written recommendations

  88

  6

  2

  5

  15

  3

  1

  Earnings related supplement

  25

  25

  35

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Restart

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  91

  Other questions

  2,625

  4,532

  4,463

  5,864

  4,416

  3,740

  4,047

  102 103

  Reasons for Disallowance

  Total Numbers of Disallowances in Wales

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1985

  1986

  All questions

  38,578

  43,155

  37,693

  39,472

  40,317

  43,054

  42,525

  Capability

  191

  236

  216

  387

  453

  587

  675

  Employment not terminated

  —

  —

  1

  2

  39

  1

  5

  Engaged in employment

  376

  710

  1,018

  1,508

  2,900

  2,063

  996

  Employed to full normal extent

  97

  136

  246

  401

  1,314

  2,344

  2,647

  Normal idle day

  16

  46

  40

  42

  61

  105

  107

  Payment in lieu of notice or wages etc.

  3,820

  6,858

  7,857

  7,887

  7,071

  6,949

  6,227

  Recognised or customary holiday

  169

  181

  224

  271

  479

  593

  533

  Whether unemployed

  819

  1,253

  1,333

  1,590

  1,967

  2,529

  2,486

  Share fishermen—work as

  12

  4

  1

  2

  4

  1

  —

  no work available

  —

  —

  2

  6

  1

  —

  —

  Dependants benefit—child

  380

  613

  598

  431

  276

  34

  —

  adult

  185

  303

  298

  255

  206

  272

  255

  Delayed claim

  3,290

  5,016

  4,574

  5,184

  5,967

  5,695

  6,503

  Failure to attend for interview

  2

  11

  5

  4

  22

  7

  6

  Failure to keep to signing time

  4

  4

  2

  1

  3

  2

  —

  Occupational pensioners

  —

  —

  —

  14

  22

  3

  2

  Availability

  999

  1,794

  1,480

  2,035

  1,838

  1,735

  2,056

  Restricted availability

  621

  763

  413

  322

  177

  175

  322

  Share fishermen—neglect to avail

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  2

  —

  Trade dispute

  135

  210

  81

  8

  73

  69

  10

  Seasonal working

  379

  420

  413

  532

  569

  834

  818

  Leaving voluntarily

  20,009

  16,452

  11,837

  11,822

  11,582

  13,321

  13,488

  Misconduct

  5,504

  5,992

  4,560

  3,827

  3,775

  3,873

  3,776

  Employment—neglect to avail

  38

  44

  25

  23

  31

  53

  35

  —refusal of

  714

  729

  372

  126

  76

  94

  87

  Refusal or premature termination of training

  30

  52

  29

  20

  106

  146

  167

  Refusal to carry out written recommendations

  13

  21

  6

  1

  3

  3

  6

  Earnings related supplement

  7

  21

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Restart

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Other questions

  768

  1,286

  2,058

  2,771

  1,296

  1,564

  1,312

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those hospitals for which closure proposals have currently been referred to him, and the date of the reference in each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Referred by (RHA) and proposal

  Date of referral

  Northern

  Change of use of Hermitage Rehabilitation Centre

  25 November 1986

  Yorkshire

  Closure of Whartedale Hospital GP maternity unit

  26 January 1987

  North-West Thames

  Change of use of Kershaw ward, Gordon Hospital

  10 August 1987

  Transfer of plastic surgery from West Middlesex Hospital to Charing Cross Hospital

  7 January 1988

  North-East Thames

  Closure of maternity unit King George's Hospital

  27 July 1987

  Closure of Southend Hospital and North Middlesex Hospital radiotherapy units

  23 December 1987

  South-East Thames

  104

  Referred by ( RHA) and proposal

  Date of referral

  Night closure of A and E department, Orpington Hospital

  1 October 1986

  Closure of neurosciences unit at Brook Hospital

  1 June 1987

  Transfer of orthopaedic beds for Preston Hall Hospital to Maidstone Hospital

  1 December 1986

  Closure of continuing care beds at Linton Hospital

  1 December 1986

  West Midlands

  Closure of Whitley Hospital, Coventry

  15 October 1987

  North Western

  Transfer of urology services from West Lancashire Health Authority to Wigan Health Authority

  26 July 1987

  Rationalisation of hospital services in Glossop

  16 December 1987

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the numbers of mentally ill patients registered in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for each year 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]: The numbers of people in National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority on 31 December are given in the table. The people concerned are not registered and may not have been resident in the area of the health authority before their admission as patients. The figures relate to inpatients only and these cannot be analysed by district of residence (for home address) as this information is not centrally collected. The numbers of residents in a

  105
  particular district health authority are limited by the availability of local facilities and Central Nottinghamshire DHA has no large mental illness hospitals within its boundaries. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Numbers of people in mental illness hospitals and units in Central Nottinghamshire health authority at 31 December

  Year

  Number

  1979

  78

  1980

  75

  1981

  80

  1982

  77

  1983

  77

  1984

  98

  1985

  88

  1986

  100

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the decline in the number of beds in National Health Service hospitals since 1958.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: The information requested is given in the table, together with in-patients treated over the period.

  NHS hospitals in England

  Year

  Average daily number of available beds

  Discharges and deaths

  1Throughput

  1958

  450,597

  3,694,940

  8·2

  1959

  448,795

  3,782,731

  8·4

  1960

  448,343

  3,931,938

  8·8

  1961

  442,343

  4,035,374

  9·1

  1962

  440,316

  4,149,641

  9·4

  1963

  439,176

  4,317,981

  9·8

  1964

  438,404

  4,455,092

  10·2

  1965

  437,408

  4,540,162

  10·4

  1966

  434,846

  4,616,726

  10·6

  1967

  434,378

  4,722,399

  10·9

  1968

  432,140

  4,848,229

  11·2

  1969

  428,737

  4,968,391

  11·6

  1970

  423,621

  5,011,713

  11·8

  1971

  419,612

  5,170,791

  12·3

  1972

  412,664

  5,222,978

  12·7

  1973

  403,526

  5,132,302

  12·7

  1974

  396,235

  5,171,706

  13·1

  1975

  387,632

  4,975,750

  12·8

  1976

  383,132

  5,254,551

  13·7

  1977

  375,926

  5,344,967

  14 2

  1978

  369,235

  5,370,319

  14·5

  1979

  361,670

  5,400,120

  14·9

  1980

  355,978

  5,670,001

  15·9

  1981

  351,669

  5,759,877

  16·4

  1982

  348,104

  5,719,634

  16·4

  1983

  343,091

  6,016,585

  17·5

  1984

  334,513

  6,177,545

  18·5

  1985

  325,487

  6,353,812

  19·5

  1986

  315,714

  6,413,789

  20·3

  1 Number of cases per available bed·

WALES

  Water Rates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the percentages rise in average water rates for Wales has been between 1979 and the latest date available in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms.
  106
  Mr. Grist
  The percentage rise in average water rates for the Welsh water authority between 1979–80 and 1987–88 in cash and real terms was 149·8 per cent. and 43·6 per cent. respectively.

  These figures are based on the rates payable for the average domestic heriditament the rateable value of which was £120 from 1979 to 1982 and £124 thereafter.

  EC Structural Fund (Review)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he expects the review of EEC structural funds to affect(a) European regional development fund assistance and (b) European social fund assistance to (i) Wales and (ii) Mid-Glamorgan.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Discussions are still in progress, on the basis of the proposals made by the Commission, on the future objectives for the structural funds. Agreement on the objective criteria for defining those areas which may, in the longer term, be eligible for assistance has not yet been reached. The need to consider those areas traditionally affected by industrial decline is, however, specifically reflected both in the EC treaty and in the Commission's present proposals.

  Library Authority (Newport)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce a decision on Newport borough council's application of 1984 to be designated a library authority under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on Friday 22 January 1988, at column 881.

  Circular 44/87
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which councils received copies of his Department's circular 44/87; and why it was sent to them.

  Mr. Grist
  It is known that two local authorities (Swansea city council and Gwynedd county council) have received copies of a document which appeared to be an updated version of circular 30/86, "Housing for Senior Management". The Department has since written to all local authorities in Wales explaining that circular 30/86 continues in force.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) his predicted expenditure on regional aid in Wales in 1988–89, excluding the Welsh Development Agency and (b) expenditure on regional selective assistance and regional development grant in 1986–87, at constant prices.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The 1988 public expenditure White Paper contained planned provision of £111 million (net of non-EC receipts) for regional aid in Wales in 1988–89. The outturn figure will be very much affected by the number of Welsh firms that take advantage of the opportunity of applying for regional development grant prior to 31 March 1988, because any valid application prior to that date will have two years from approval to take advantage of the grant.
  107
  The figure for 1986–87 for regional selective assistance and regional development grant at comparable prices was £128·7 million, but £70·9 million of this was residual payments for the RDG I scheme, which was ended as a result of the review in 1984.

  The substantial increase in WDA expenditure plus the increased use of regional selective assistance mean that in total expenditure on regional policy will be enhanced in coming years.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the results of the 1986 Welsh house condition survey.

  Mr. Grist
  Publication of the 1986 "Welsh House Condition Survey" will take place in spring of this year.

  Civil Service (Redundancies)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Civil Service redundancies, in which Civil Service ranks, will be caused by the decision to end regional development grants in Wales; and how many new posts and at what level will be created to administer the newly announced selective grants.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No redundancies will arise. It is too early to say precisely how many staff will eventually be required to administer the regional investment and regional innovation grant schemes, but staff are being redeployed to that work and further staff will be provided as required.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a commentary on the Welsh public expenditure programme, similar to that published annually by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department's resources, achievements and priorities are set out in the Wales

  Planned provision within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales

  (£ million)

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Agriculture, fisheries and food

  66

  78

  93

  81

  77

  82

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  86

  79

  78

  148

  157

  138

  Other services:

  Tourism

  5

  6

  6

  7

  8

  8

  Roads and transport

  290

  299

  287

  286

  300

  319

  Housing

  169

  143

  118

  126

  140

  166

  Other environmental services

  275

  294

  284

  272

  293

  323

  Education

  645

  682

  665

  694

  730

  846

  Arts and libraries

  28

  30

  31

  38

  Health and personal social services

  850

  915

  968

  1,035

  1,115

  1,220

  Other public services

  36

  31

  32

  32

  37

  38

  Total other services

  2,271

  2,370

  2,388

  2,482

  2,655

  2,958

  Nationalised industries' EFL

  National Bus Company

  26

  27

  —

  —

  Welsh Water Authority

  16

  13

  Total nationalised industries external financing

  26

  27

  16

  13

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  2,423

  2,528

  2,585

  2,737

  2,904

  3,192

  108
  chapter of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91", Cm. 288. The narrative comprises almost 100 paragraphs and is further supplemented by 34 tables and charts, together with an extensive bibliography.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an analysis of expenditure shown in table 17.1 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" Cm. 288, on a similar basis to those published in his reply of 28 January 1987,Official Report, column 686.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The following tables provide an analysis of the expenditure shown in table 17.1 of The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" Cm. 288, on a similar basis to the tables which appeared in the Official Report for 22 January 1987, at columns 686–96.

  In all the tables the totals have been derived from unrounded figures and the components may not therefore always add to the totals shown.

  It is misleading to make comparisons between the planned level of expenditure for one year and the outturn (or estimated outturn) for other years. I am therefore including a table which sets out the planned provision within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales for each of the years 1982–83 to 1987–88 as published in successive volumes of the Government's expenditure plans.

  Due to changes in the definition and classification of public expenditure and to increases in the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales over the period, the figures shown in the tables are not strictly comparable in every case. Also, the public expenditure provision for the Secretary of State for Wales for the years 1982–83 to 1984–85 did not include regional development grants.
  109

  Programme 16.9 Health and Personal Social Services

  £ million

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Health Services

  Hospital and Community Health Services

  Current Expenditure

  Gross

  521

  548

  589

  629

  672

  753

  795

  —

  —

  Charges

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Net

  520

  547

  588

  627

  669

  751

  793

  —

  —

  Capital Expenditure

  Gross

  47

  50

  53

  55

  61

  55

  62

  —

  —

  Charges

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  3

  5

  —

  —

  Net

  46

  49

  52

  53

  58

  52

  57

  —

  —

  Family Practitioner Services

  Current Expenditure

  Gross

  188

  202

  221

  233

  252

  281

  305

  —

  —

  Charges

  15

  17

  18

  17

  19

  20

  22

  —

  —

  Net

  173

  185

  203

  216

  233

  261

  282

  —

  —

  Capital Expenditure (net)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Central Health and Miscellaneous Services

  Current Expenditure

  13

  16

  19

  23

  28

  35

  40

  —

  —

  Capital Expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total National Health Services

  Current expenditure

  Gross

  722

  766

  829

  886

  952

  1,069

  1,141

  —

  —

  Net

  706

  748

  810

  866

  931

  1,047

  1,116

  —

  —

  Capital Expenditure

  Gross

  47

  50

  54

  56

  62

  56

  62

  —

  —

  Net

  46

  49

  52

  55

  59

  53

  57

  —

  —

  Personal Social Services

  Central Government Services

  Current Expenditure

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Local Authority Services

  Current Expenditure

  Gross

  125

  137

  140

  150

  160

  172

  179

  —

  —

  Charges

  22

  24

  23

  24

  26

  28

  29

  —

  —

  Net

  103

  113

  118

  126

  134

  145

  150

  —

  —

  Capital Expenditure

  Gross

  6

  6

  7

  5

  8

  8

  7

  —

  —

  Charges

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Net

  5

  5

  6

  5

  7

  7

  6

  —

  —

  Total Personal Social Services

  Current Expenditure

  Gross

  125

  138

  141

  151

  161

  173

  180

  —

  —

  Net

  103

  114

  118

  126

  134

  145

  151

  —

  —

  Capital Expenditure

  Gross

  6

  6

  7

  5

  8

  8

  7

  —

  —

  Net

  5

  5

  6

  5

  7

  7

  6

  —

  —

  Total Health and Personal Social Services

  Current Expenditure

  Gross

  848

  904

  970

  1,036

  1,112

  1,242

  1,321

  —

  —

  Charges

  39

  42

  42

  44

  47

  49

  55

  —

  —

  Net

  809

  862

  928

  992

  1,065

  1,193

  1,266

  —

  —

  Capital Expenditure

  Gross

  53

  56

  61

  62

  69

  64

  68

  —

  —

  Charges

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  5

  4

  —

  —

  Net

  51

  54

  58

  60

  66

  59

  64

  —

  —

  Total Health and Personal Social Services Current and Capital Net

  859

  916

  987

  1,052

  1,131

  1,252

  1,330

  1,390

  1,440

  Programme 16.8 Arts and Libraries

  £ million

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Central government

  National Library of Wales

  110 111

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Current

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Capital

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  National Museum of Wales

  Current

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  8

  Capital

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  4

  Total central government

  9

  9

  10

  11

  11

  17

  15

  Local authorities

  Relevant current spending

  Libraries

  15

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  Museums and Galleries

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Total relevant current spending

  16

  17

  17

  18

  20

  21

  22

  Local authority capital

  Libraries

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Museums and Galleries

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total Local Authority Capital

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  1

  Total local authorities

  17

  19

  19

  21

  22

  24

  23

  Total libraries, museums and arts

  26

  28

  29

  32

  33

  41

  38

  40

  40

  Programme 16.7 Education

  £ million

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Central government

  Schools

  Primary, secondary and other

  Capital

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Current

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Higher and further education

  Voluntary

  Current

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Capital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Adult education (including awards)

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Miscelleneous education services and research

  Youth services

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Other educational services

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Support for the Welsh

  Language

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Total central government

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  12

  13

  Local authorities

  Relevant current spending

  Schools

  Under 5's

  27

  29

  29

  31

  33

  37

  39

  Primary

  158

  164

  166

  177

  196

  217

  229

  Secondary

  218

  232

  239

  239

  272

  301

  308

  Special schools

  18

  20

  22

  23

  25

  28

  30

  Other (including supporting services)

  Child Guidance

  6

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Pupil Support

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Transport

  21

  23

  23

  23

  24

  25

  29

  Meals and milk

  27

  28

  29

  28

  30

  31

  32

  Further education

  AFE

  80

  29

  31

  33

  37

  40

  41

  NAFE

  55

  56

  57

  64

  71

  75

  Adult education

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Awards to students

  7

  8

  9

  9

  8

  9

  11

  Miscellaneous education services

  Youth services

  5

  6

  6

  6

  7

  8

  8

  Other education services

  5

  5

  4

  4

  4

  5

  6

  112 113

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Administration

  29

  31

  32

  33

  32

  36

  42

  Total Revelant Current Spending

  601

  636

  655

  672

  742

  817

  862

  Local Authority Capital

  34

  35

  34

  29

  35

  45

  46

  Total Local Authorities

  635

  672

  689

  701

  776

  862

  908

  Total education

  641

  679

  697

  710

  786

  874

  922

  950

  980

  Programme 16.6: Other environmental services

  £ million

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Urban group

  Urban Development Corporation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  16

  Urban Programme (including Urban Development Grant and Urban Regeneration Grant)

  18

  16

  21

  25

  25

  25

  36

  Derelict land reclamation

  10

  11

  7

  5

  6

  12

  12

  New Towns

  Gross expenditure

  2

  2

  2

  3

  4

  2

  —

  Receipts

  —

  —

  -1

  -14

  -3

  -16

  —

  Net expenditure

  2

  2

  1

  -11

  1

  -14

  —

  Recreation and Environmental Protection

  Recreation and environmental bodies (including research)

  3

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  Heritage—cadw

  Historic buildings and ancient monuments

  2

  2

  3

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Local Environmental Services

  Capital

  Gross expenditure

  55

  70

  66

  73

  92

  85

  63

  Receipts

  9

  14

  18

  10

  18

  19

  24

  Net expenditure

  46

  56

  48

  63

  74

  66

  39

  Current expenditure

  165

  168

  175

  180

  189

  199

  207

  Other Local Authority Current

  Local authority rate collection

  8

  7

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  Records and registration of births, deaths and marriages

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Water

  Welsh Water Authority EFL

  23

  19

  24

  21

  17

  13

  11

  Civil defence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Other water services

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Total other environmental services (including Welsh Water Authority EFL)

  281

  287

  291

  300

  331

  334

  344

  350

  350

  Programme 16.5 Housing

  £ million

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Gross capital expenditure

  Central Government Housing Corporation Support to private sector Provision for rent by Housing Associations (including low cost home ownership)

  46

  49

  43

  44

  51

  63

  60

  —

  —

  114 115

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Local authorities

  Public sector provision

  Renovation

  48

  48

  44

  52

  78

  71

  68

  —

  —

  Provision for rent

  41

  47

  36

  27

  26

  37

  23

  —

  —

  Support for private sector

  Renovation and clearance

  44

  112

  86

  59

  75

  85

  101

  —

  —

  Home ownership

  8

  9

  5

  3

  6

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Public corporations

  New towns

  Public sector provision

  Renovation

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Provision for rent

  5

  3

  4

  3

  1

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total public sector provision

  94

  99

  84

  82

  105

  107

  91

  —

  —

  Total support to private sector

  98

  169

  135

  106

  133

  151

  164

  —

  —

  Total renovation

  92

  161

  130

  111

  153

  156

  169

  —

  —

  Total provision for rent (including support for home ownership)

  100

  108

  88

  76

  84

  102

  86

  —

  —

  Total Housing Corporation

  46

  49

  43

  44

  51

  63

  60

  —

  —

  Total local authorities

  140

  216

  171

  141

  185

  195

  195

  —

  —

  Total New Towns

  5

  4

  4

  3

  1

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total gross capital expenditure

  192

  269

  219

  187

  237

  258

  255

  —

  —

  Capital receipts

  Housing Corporation

  -2

  -8

  -4

  -4

  -5

  -6

  -5

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  -86

  -79

  -91

  -71

  -82

  -91

  -107

  —

  —

  New Towns

  -10

  -5

  -7

  -5

  -2

  -4

  0

  —

  —

  Total capital receipts

  -98

  -92

  -102

  -79

  -89

  -101

  -112

  —

  —

  Net capital expenditure

  Housing Corporation

  45

  41

  39

  40

  46

  57

  55

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  54

  137

  80

  70

  103

  104

  88

  —

  —

  New Towns

  -5

  -2

  -3

  -2

  -1

  -4

  0

  —

  —

  Total net capital expenditure

  94

  176

  117

  108

  148

  157

  142

  —

  —

  Current Expenditure

  Central government

  Subsides to:

  Housing Associations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  12

  2

  6

  7

  12

  10

  11

  —

  —

  Housing Corporation and central government: current

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Local authorities

  Subsidies to revenue deficits on local authority housing for rent

  11

  8

  5

  2

  3

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Other current

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  —

  —

  Public corporations

  Subsidies to New Towns

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Total current expenditure

  31

  19

  20

  20

  24

  23

  24

  —

  —

  Total housing

  125

  196

  137

  128

  172

  180

  166

  170

  170

  Programme 16.4 Roads and Transport

  £ million

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Central Government

  National roads system

  Current (1)

  8

  12

  12

  14

  15

  14

  14

  —

  —

  Capital (2)

  110

  136

  93

  85

  97

  111

  118

  —

  —

  Assess road grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rural bus grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Freight facilities grants

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  116 117

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Other (including research and development, Road safety, etc.)

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total central government

  119

  149

  105

  100

  112

  125

  133

  —

  —

  Local Authorities

  Relevant current spending

  Roads

  69

  74

  74

  75

  83

  90

  90

  —

  —

  Car parks (net of receipts)

  —

  -1

  -1

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -2

  —

  —

  Revenue support for public transport

  3

  4

  4

  4

  10

  8

  10

  —

  —

  Concessionary Fares

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  8

  —

  —

  Professional and technical services including Road Safety

  10

  15

  16

  15

  16

  18

  21

  —

  —

  Total relevant current spending

  89

  97

  98

  99

  114

  121

  126

  —

  —

  Local authority capital

  Roads

  66

  58

  55

  65

  63

  70

  58

  —

  —

  Public transport

  5

  6

  4

  4

  1

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Total Local Authority Capital

  71

  64

  59

  69

  65

  75

  63

  —

  —

  Public Corporations

  National Bus Company EFL

  6

  7

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other Public Corporations

  2

  1

  3

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Total Public Corporations

  8

  8

  10

  8

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Total roads and transport

  286

  318

  273

  276

  293

  324

  322

  340

  350

  Programmes 16.2 and 16.3 Industry and Employment

  £ million

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Industry

  Regional and general industrial

  support

  127

  85

  93

  107

  120

  94

  111

  —

  —

  Other Public Corporations (WDA and DBRW)

  (i) Voted Estimates

  62

  46

  44

  39

  42

  65

  72

  —

  —

  (ii) Other

  3

  8

  6

  5

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  (iii) Total Other Public Corporations

  65

  53

  51

  44

  45

  69

  77

  —

  —

  Total industry

  192

  138

  144

  151

  165

  163

  188

  —

  —

  Employment

  Tourism

  5

  5

  6

  8

  8

  9

  9

  —

  —

  Careers Service—local authorities

  (i) Relevant current expenditure

  2

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  (ii) Non-relevant current expenditure

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (iii) Total careers service

  3

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Total employment

  8

  9

  10

  12

  13

  14

  14

  —

  —

  Total industry and employment

  201

  147

  154

  164

  178

  177

  203

  190

  190

  Programme 16.1 Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  £ million

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Intervention board for Agricultural produce and other EC expenditure

  Market Support1

  9

  20

  25

  27

  41

  38

  35

  —

  —

  118 119

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Total IBAP and other EC expenditure

  9

  20

  25

  27

  41

  38

  35

  —

  —

  Domestic Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Structural Measures for Agriculture

  52

  58

  52

  58

  51

  49

  47

  —

  —

  Animal Health

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other Agricultural and Food Services2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Support for the Fishing Industry2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total Domestic Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  53

  59

  54

  60

  54

  51

  50

  —

  —

  Total Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  62

  79

  79

  87

  96

  89

  85

  90

  90

  1 Includes national supplement to EC market support.

  2 Includes projects assisted by EC.

  Capital Expenditure
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish proposals for the reform of capital expenditure control.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I hope to publish proposals shortly for the future control of local authority capital.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish the capital allocation to each local authority, within each expenditure block and in total, in 1987–88 and 1988–89, showing the percentage change for each authority between the two years in their total allocation;

  Capital allocations by authority

  (£ 000)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Change in total allocation per cent.

  Housing

  All other services

  Total

  Housing

  All other services

  Total

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,925

  2,013

  3,938

  1,797

  657

  2,454

  —

  Colwyn

  1,798

  923

  2,721

  1,662

  585

  2,247

  —

  Delyn

  1,424

  1,656

  3,080

  1,326

  644

  1,970

  —

  Glyndwr

  1,237

  666

  1,903

  1,159

  400

  1,559

  —

  Rhuddlan

  1,479

  2,732

  4,211

  874

  1,756

  2,630

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  5,526

  2,191

  7,717

  3,825

  1,571

  5,396

  —

  Carmarthen

  3,545

  887

  4,432

  2,361

  526

  2,887

  —

  Ceredigion

  2,383

  1,111

  3,494

  1,991

  767

  2,758

  —

  Dinefwr

  1,260

  607

  1,867

  1,047

  348

  1,395

  —

  Llanelli

  2,428

  1,491

  3,919

  2,179

  687

  2,866

  —

  Preseli Pembs

  1,842

  1,464

  3,306

  1,616

  737

  2,353

  —

  South Pembroke

  3,417

  1,650

  5,067

  1,542

  547

  2,089

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  11,023

  1,847

  12,870

  6,956

  1,270

  8,226

  —

  Islwyn

  6,876

  1,332

  8,208

  3,320

  600

  3,920

  —

  Monmouth

  3,081

  1,076

  4,157

  1,973

  730

  2,703

  —

  Newport

  5,978

  2,884

  8,862

  4,988

  1,287

  6,275

  —

  Torfaen

  5,112

  1,888

  7,000

  3,568

  840

  4,408

  —

  Aberconwy

  1,538

  1,027

  2,565

  1,301

  671

  1,972

  —

  Arfon

  2,165

  1,246

  3,411

  2,021

  602

  2,623

  —

  Dwyfor

  1,100

  1,439

  2,539

  814

  686

  1,500

  —

  Meirionnydd

  920

  808

  1,728

  881

  458

  1,339

  —

  Ynys Mon

  3,528

  1,319

  4,847

  1,835

  790

  2,625

  —

  Cynon Valley

  4,829

  1,964

  6,793

  3,405

  614

  4,019

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3,821

  2,258

  6,079

  3,182

  852

  4,034

  —

  120
  (2) if he will publish the capital allocation in total to the local authorities within each region, by expenditure block, in 1987–88 and 1988–89, showing the percentage change for each region.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  With the exception of housing, capital allocations are not separately identified. The "All Other Services" block includes projects of regional and national importance, special projects, TSG-related transport schemes and urban programme, together with a formula based allocation.

  No meaningful year-on-year comparison can be made at an individual local authority level as £69 million (20·4 per cent. of the total) remains to be allocated for 1988–89. Wales is not split into regions other than local authority areas.
  121

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Change in total allocation per cent.

  Housing

  All other services

  Total

  Housing

  All other services

  Total

  Ogwr

  5,633

  2,860

  8,493

  3,742

  1,294

  5,036

  —

  Rhondda

  10,814

  1,924

  12,738

  5,634

  724

  6,358

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  8,564

  2,084

  10,648

  4,507

  974

  5,481

  —

  Taff Ely

  6,182

  1,514

  7,696

  3,943

  8-i4

  4,817

  —

  Brecknock

  1,876

  1,394

  3,270

  1,414

  1,105

  2,519

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  1,425

  694

  2,119

  1,440

  494

  1,934

  —

  Radnor

  921

  505

  1,426

  777

  410

  1,187

  —

  Cardiff

  16,300

  4,760

  21,060

  11,474

  2,735

  14,209

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,509

  2,471

  5,980

  2,693

  1,102

  3,795

  —

  Port Talbot

  3,069

  1,299

  4,368

  2,415

  479

  2,894

  —

  Lliw Valley

  2,963

  1,106

  4,069

  2,562

  534

  3,096

  —

  Neath

  3,217

  1,200

  4,417

  2,341

  598

  2,939

  —

  Swansea

  8,426

  4,137

  12,563

  7,173

  2,366

  9,539

  —

  Clwyd

  0

  16,612

  16,612

  0

  16,311

  16,311

  —

  Dyfed

  0

  16,645

  16,645

  0

  15,208

  15,208

  —

  Gwent

  0

  21,466

  21,466

  0

  18,169

  18,169

  —

  Gwynedd

  0

  9,197

  9,197

  0

  7,685

  7,685

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  24,077

  24,077

  0

  20,553

  20,553

  —

  Powys

  0

  7,111

  7,111

  0

  6,053

  6,053

  —

  South Glamorgan

  0

  32,858

  32,858

  0

  28,498

  28,498

  —

  West Glamorgan

  0

  20,124

  20,124

  0

  18,144

  18,144

  —

  Yet to be allocated

  440

  3,498

  3,938

  39,418

  29,500

  68,918

  —

  Total Wales

  151,574

  214,015

  365,589

  145,156

  192,435

  337,591

  -7·7

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish the estimated outturn net and gross capital expenditure, in total, by region, for each year from 1981–82 to 1986–87, with the comparable planned figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89;

  (2) if he will publish the planned, budgeted and outturn net and gross capital expenditure, in total, for each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Planned and outturn local authority capital expenditure is provided in the following table. This excludes law and order services falling within the responsibility of the Home Office. No information is available for budgeted expenditure and no regional breakdown is available.

  Planned (£ million)

  Outturn (£ million)

  Year

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  1981–82

  220

  259

  182

  248

  1982–83

  275

  344

  238

  346

  1983–84

  305

  396

  315

  415

  1984–85

  237

  346

  258

  365

  1985–86

  249

  349

  264

  347

  1986–87

  268

  368

  323

  416

  1987–88

  298

  410

  350

  450

  1988–89

  288

  416

  n/a

  n/a

  Expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales in real terms (1986–87 base year)1

  £ million

  1982–83 plans

  1983–84 plans

  1984–85 plans

  1985–86 plans

  1986–87 plans

  1987–88 plans

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Agriculture, fisheries and food

  79

  89

  102

  83

  77

  79

  78

  80

  80

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  103

  90

  85

  152

  157

  132

  178

  160

  150

  Other services:

  Tourism

  6

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  8

  10

  10

  Roads and transport

  346

  341

  314

  295

  300

  306

  296

  300

  300

  Housing

  202

  163

  129

  130

  140

  159

  153

  150

  150

  122
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table similar to table 17.1 in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" showing the outturn expenditure in 1986–87, and estimated expenditure for each year in that table, at constant prices for each such year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is misleading to make comparisons between the planned level of provision for one year and the outturn (or estimated outturn) for other years.

  Table 1 showns in real terms the planned provision within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales for each of the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 as published in successive volumes of the Government's expenditure plans.

  Table 2 sets out the comparable outturn figures for the years 1982–83 to 1987–88 in real terms.

  Due to changes in the definition and classification of public expenditure and to increases in the repsonsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales over the period, the figures shown in both tables are not strictly comparable in every case. Also, the public expenditure provision for the Secretary of State for Wales for the years 1982–83 to 1984–85 did not include regional development grants.
  123

  1982–83 plans

  1983–84 plans

  1984–85 plans

  1985–86 plans

  1986–87 plans

  1987–88 plans

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Other environmental services

  328

  335

  310

  280

  293

  310

  305

  300

  300

  Education

  769

  778

  726

  715

  730

  812

  846

  840

  840

  Arts and libraries

  31

  31

  31

  36

  35

  40

  40

  Health and personal social services

  1,014

  1,044

  1,057

  1,066

  1,115

  1,170

  1,221

  1,230

  1,240

  Other public services

  43

  35

  35

  33

  37

  36

  39

  40

  40

  Total other services

  2,709

  2,703

  2,609

  2,557

  2,655

  2,837

  2,902

  2,900

  2,910

  National industries' EFL

  National Bus Company

  28

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Water Authority

  16

  12

  10

  10

  10

  Total Nationalised industries external financing

  28

  28

  16

  12

  10

  10

  10

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  2,890

  2,883

  2,824

  2,819

  2,904

  3,062

  3,168

  3,150

  3,150

  1 Cash figures adjusted for general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Expenditure within the responsibilly of the Secretary of State for Wales in real terms (1986–87 base year)1

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  Agriculture, fisheries and food

  74

  90

  86

  89

  96

  85

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  233

  162

  162

  160

  170

  162

  Other services:

  Tourism

  6

  6

  7

  8

  8

  8

  Roads and transport

  334

  354

  290

  277

  293

  311

  Housing

  149

  223

  149

  132

  172

  173

  Other environmental services

  308

  305

  292

  288

  314

  308

  Education

  765

  774

  762

  731

  786

  838

  Arts and libraries

  31

  32

  32

  33

  33

  39

  Health and personal social services

  1,025

  1,045

  1,078

  1,084

  1,131

  1,200

  Other public services

  29

  35

  34

  35

  37

  37

  Total other services

  2,647

  2,774

  2,643

  2,587

  2,774

  2,914

  Nationalised industries' EFL

  National Bus Company

  8

  8

  7

  7

  —

  —

  Welsh Water Authority

  27

  21

  27

  22

  17

  13

  Total nationalised industries external financing

  35

  29

  34

  29

  17

  13

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  2,989

  3,055

  2,925

  2,865

  3,058

  3,174

  1 Cash figures adjusted for general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Cardiology
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of general hospitals in Wales that do not have a physician with a specialist interest and training in cardiology.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: There is no general hospital in Wales which is without a consultant physician who will have had higher training in all aspects of general medicine including cardiology. Cardiology training has developed over time with changing technologies and therapies and general physicians with a practising interest can be expected to have a range of training backgrounds and experience consistent with their professional clinical practice. There are an increasing number of consultants with a special interest and with specialist training in cardiology in posts throughout Wales and the Department is encouraging this progress.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to how many social workers are employed in each of the eight counties of Wales; and what is the average number of social workers per 100,000 head of population for the latest date and for each of the last four years.

  Mr. Grist
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 January 1988, c. 424]: The hon. Member will wish to note that two figures were shown incorrectly, due to typing errors. The number of whole-time equivalents for Gwent for 1982 should have read 210·6 (instead of 210·5) and the rate per 100,000 population for Wales for 1984 should have read 50·4 (instead of 0·4). The amended table is as follows:
  125

  Social workers employed at 30 September

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Local Authority

  Number of W.T.E

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number of W.T.E

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number of W.T.E

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number of W.T.E

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number of W.T.E

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Clwyd

  141·8

  36·0

  159·3

  40·3

  169·0

  42·6

  161·0

  40·5

  165·0

  41·3

  Dyfed

  134·1

  40·2

  144 0

  42·9

  149·0

  44·5

  148·0

  44·1

  159·1

  46·9

  Gwent

  210·6

  47·8

  209·6

  47·6

  213·6

  48·6

  205·6

  46·7

  225·6

  51·1

  Gwynedd

  97·9

  42·2

  97·9

  42·2

  101·5

  43·6

  107·7

  46·1

  110·4

  47·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  278·0

  51·6

  294·5

  54·9

  311·8

  58·4

  324·3

  60·7

  331·0

  61·9

  Powys

  44·5

  40·2

  44·0

  39·8

  43·7

  39·5

  43·8

  39·3

  41·1

  36·6

  South Glamorgan

  217·5

  55·8

  230·9

  58·9

  243·3

  61·7

  236·1

  59·8

  250·1

  63·2

  West Glamorgan

  171·5

  46·6

  179·0

  48·8

  184·0

  50·5

  197·0

  54·1

  194·5

  53·5

  WALES

  1,295·9

  46·2

  1,359·2

  48·4

  1,415·9

  50·4

  1,423·5

  50·6

  1,476·8

  52·4

  Free Milk
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children under five years of age and cared for by registered childminders are currently in receipt of free milk; and how many childminders are involved.
  126
  Mr. Grist
  There were 5,571 places with 2,361 registered childminders in Wales at 31 March 1987. Information is not available centrally on the number or age of children using these places or on the number of children in receipt of free milk.

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

Prison Governors' Association: Discussions
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to recognise the Prison Governors' Association.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): We are considering the new association's request for recognition and will take a decision as soon as possible.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that over 60 per cent. of the grades concerned are now members of the Prison Governors' Association? In the context of that situation, can I ask him to ensure that the decision is made as speedily as possible?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware of the number of people who have said that they wish to join this association, but the noble Lord will be aware that when there is a request for recognition one first has to go through certain channels of communication. That is the process we are now going through. We will make a decision as soon as possible.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is one of the matters which will appeal to the noble Earl as worthy of consideration the views of other unions to which exactly the same grades now belong?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are of interest and concern. Of course, he is correct that those matters are being considered.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in considering this application, will my noble friend and his right honourable friend have in mind that this organisation consists of highly responsible people whose views could be of great assistance to Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is perfectly true. It is one of the considerations which will be taken into account. However, my noble friend will realise that the Government have to satisfy themselves on such matters as financial viability, independence and other industrial relations issues.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the general character of his remarks. However, is he aware that although it is obviously right to consult the other unions concerned it would be quite wrong to allow them a right of veto given the fact—and I repeat this—that over 60 per cent. of the grades concerned are now members of the Prison Governors' Association?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is no question of a right of veto; but it is necessary to consult them. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the Prison Officers' Association's comments were received only on 21st January and those of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants on the Home Office trade union side have not yet been received.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, while respecting the right of these people to have their own organisation, and the job that they do, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, may I ask a simple question? Are those people members of any organisation now and, if so, why are they leaving it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they decided to leave the organisation of which they were members, which used to be the governors' branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants. That was then transformed into another organisation which they left because they felt their views were not being properly represented.

World TV News: BBC Proposal
2.40 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: 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 are prepared to allocate funds to help the BBC's external English speaking services to provide an adequate and appropriate television service for the developing Commonwealth.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have received a proposal from the BBC external services to establish a world television news service which could be broadcast worldwide including to Commonwealth countries. Examination of the complex issues raised in the BBC's proposal is not yet complete, but it is being given considerable attention and priority.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, the idea of a BBC extension worldwide into television was put to Ministers in November 1986. Why has it taken so long for the Government to decide whether or not they want this development?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the whole matter raises some very complex issues which need careful consideration; namely, issues of cost and of policy. That is why we are undertaking this examination.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any idea as to when a decision will be made?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot go further than I have said which is that we are giving it considerable attention and priority.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that everybody is very glad that the matter is being given attention. But, in the light of what my noble friend has just said, it is certainly not being given priority attention. The noble Lord mentioned the question of cost. Does he not agree that the cost involved is relatively very small; that is to say, £1 million for three years? Given some of the matters on which the Government have spent a great deal of money—for example, £23 million to advertise BP shares—would not £3 million to enhance the good name of Great Britain be a good investment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe it is important in all these considerations to compare like with like. The fact is that a revised proposal was brought forward from the BBC in August 1987. That followed the November 1986 proposal. As I said, the projects are complex. Satellite television broadcasting is neither simple nor inexpensive. It is not simply a question of extending radio broadcasting. The satellite technology involved is still evolving. We need to make sure that any investment is a sound way to spend taxpayers' money.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposition is well worth examining? Is he not aware that the BBC's world service is listened to by very many countries in and outside the Commonwealth and that it does great service? A television network of this calibre would enhance the spirit of freedom everywhere.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the BBC's external services are widely acclaimed. The BBC estimates that it has about 120 million regular listeners abroad and that is excluding China. As I have said, this is a difficult issue and one which is being looked at at the moment, but the considerations are complex.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether this service is going to be ancillary to or instead of the ordinary sound service that one hears at one o'clock in the morning and other times?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this proposal is in addition to the existing sound broadcasting.

F1–11 and F.15 Fighters in Europe
2.44 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 discussions they have had with the US Administration about the stationing of more F1–11s and F.15s in this country.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the number of United States Air Force F1–11 aircraft assigned to NATO and based in Europe is published each year in the Statement on the Defence Estimates. All these are in fact based in the UK. There are no F.15 aircraft based in the UK nor has the United States Government made any formal request to base any here.
Discussions take place all the time between the British and US Governments about the composition and deployment of United States forces in the United Kingdom; details of these discussions are confidential.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Has he heard of the most recent idea from the Pentagon called "the competitive strategy", which it intends to submit to the United States Congress without having discussed it with NATO and which would involve a vast increase of expenditure on Smart and Brilliant weapons designed for actually fighting wars in Europe? Indeed it looks as though they are celebrating the signing of the INF treaty as ushering in the age when fighting wars will become possible once again.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether that question exactly arises from the one on the Order Paper, but I can confirm that I have heard of the strategy to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm a report that NATO is planning to deploy 2,300 new nuclear warheads in Europe designed to hit the same targets as the cruise and Pershing missiles which are to be scrapped under the terms of the INF treaty? If this is correct, would not the Minister agree that such so-called compensatory adjustments would be contrary to the spirit of the INF treaty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There has been a long-standing policy agreed by the NATO defence ministers which relates to a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads in Europe over a period of years. The recent INF agreement will not change that policy.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord take pity on the House by telling us what we are talking about? What is an F1–11? Is it a tank, a battleship or what is it? If it is a nuclear warhead, is it strategic or battle or of intermediate range?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the F1–11 is in fact an aircraft and it is what is known as a dual-capable aircraft.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's first reply that the question of stationing F.15s in this country has been informally discussed with the Americans?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not what I said.

Cancer Patients: West Midlands
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: 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 are satisfied that the provision for the treatment of cancer patients in the West Midland region, and at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, in particular, is adequate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the provision of services for the treatment of cancer patients is a matter for regional and district health authorities. I understand that, in recognition of the increasing demand on services, the West Midlands Regional Health Authority is carrying out a major review of the region's cancer services, to ensure that the facilities for the treatment of cancer patients are being used as effectively as possible.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a great deal of anxiety in the West Midlands among consultants and patients about the cutbacks in provision'? The Queen Elizabeth Hospital this year has suffered a cutback in beds from 68 to 41 despite the fact that is has improved productivity by 14 per cent.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I checked with the district health authority this morning and my figures are somewhat different from those of the noble Countess. I understand that 20 radiotherapy and oncology beds out of a total of 68 available beds at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital were temporarily closed in September. The bed closures were urgent temporary closures and health authorities are not obliged to consult over closures of this kind. However, I confirm that central Birmingham will be receiving £578,000 from the extra £65 million which was announced for distribution to the English health authorities in December. It will be for that district health authority to allocate the money where it feels it will be best used.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the decision to slash urgently needed beds at another regional cancer speciality hospital—namely, St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London— where a 20-bedded ward is due to close this very day because of a shortage of funds? Is it really good enough to say that it is a matter for the health authority when in fact the health authority is deprived of the resources? The Government know they already have those resources and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State refuse to make them available for cases of urgent need like the treatment of cancer.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the hospital which the noble Lord mentioned was in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority area, I would
410
comment. However, since it is not, if he would like to table a Question on the subject, I shall be only too pleased to answer it in due course.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he would consider answering the actual Question on the Order Paper, which is whether Her Majesty's Government believe that the provision for treatment of these cases in this area is adequate.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, looking at my original Answer, I said that what was important was that the West Midlands Regional Health Authority should have an overall provision for cancer patients. This is what it has got. I accept that it is overloaded in one particular place, namely the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is why it is intended to transfer some patients to other hospitals offering this specialty in the region.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord now answer the Question? Is the provision for cancer patients in this area adequate or not adequate in the view of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as the question that the noble Lord specifically asked me to address is concerned, I have no reason to suppose that it is inadequate.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it really adequate for the Minister to say that it is entirely a matter for judgment by the health authority? From the very beginning is not the responsibility placed on the Secretary of State by the National Health Service to provide services for the welfare of the people, and that includes all people and people with all types of disease'? Is that not a specific responsibility upon the Secretary of State'? Why cannot the noble Lord answer the Question?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, it is a specific responsibility, as the noble Lord knows well. This responsibility, even in his time, was devolved through regions to districts, and that is exactly what is going on now.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, is it not true that the Secretary of State does not really have the power or the right under the Act to order regional health authorities to expend money in this way or that, unless he makes a special allocation, but only to provide a total grant?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend, not for the first time, is absolutely right.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the circular issued in 1978, which laid down that per million population there should be 50 beds, two megavoltage units, four consultants and supporting staff is still effective? If it is, why are they failing so dismally in the West Midlands?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief the circular is still effective.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Stalker-Sampson investigations, directions by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland).
Duchy of Lancaster Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 3rd February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Kilmarnock and the Lord Ezra set down for 3rd February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order No. 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1–2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3–16,

Clause 31,

Schedule 5,

Clause 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18–29,

Schedule 3,

Clause 30,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 32–37,

Schedule 6.—(Lord Hesketh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
2.53 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a short one but none the less important and covers a wide range of subjects. Most
412
importantly it provides the necessary social security legislation to fulfil our wider commitment to training for young people under 18 who have left school and have not found work. It strengthens the contributory principle for short-term national insurance benefits to provide a stronger link with employment and the payment of contributions and takes further steps to ensure that unemployment benefit goes only to those for whom it was originally intended, those who through no fault of their own move from employment to unemployment.
It also provides for a scheme of payments from next winter onwards towards the cost of heating in periods of exceptionally cold weather. Following recent judicial decisions it also restores the original intentions of the law on attendance allowance and on the treatment of a dependant's occupational pension as earnings. Finally the Bill makes a number of necessary amendments to tidy up the law, primarily in readiness for the introduction of the reformed schemes of social security benefits, most of which come into force in April of this year.
I should like to begin with training. The Government's commitment to training and the success of YTS is unquestionable. The figures speak for themselves. Over 1·6 million young people have been helped, and three-quarters of them have gone straight into jobs or into further education or training. The great majority of them have appreciated the quality of the training they have been given and have considered it worth while. We are currently spending over £1 billion a year on youth training.
I believe I have the agreement of the whole House when I say that the expectations of young people leaving school should never include unemployment. Not only is it demoralising but it usually leads inexorably into the so-called benefit culture. This is a one-way street leading to a dead end and we believe that the entrance to it should be sealed off. We owe it to our youngsters to channel them in the right direction and to steer them away from getting drawn into a benefit culture from which it can be difficult to escape.
That is why we said in our manifesto that we would guarantee a place on YTS to every school-leaver under 18 not going directly into a job and that we would take steps to withdraw entitlement to benefit from those who deliberately chose to remain unemployed. This guarantee, the benefit changes in this Bill and the arrangements for payment of a bridging allowance in the Employment Bill currently in another place provide a complete set of arrangements which will ensure that no young person under the age of 18 who is able to take up a YTS place need be unemployed or have the option of living on social security benefits. From the time this clause becomes operative in September unemployment will no longer be an option for most young people. What then will be open to them? To go into a job, to stay on at school, to go into some other educational establishment or to join a youth training scheme.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I now briefly explain how the arrangements, which are in Clause 4 of this Bill, will work. When a young

413
person under 18 leaves school but does not go immediately into a job his parents will be able to continue to claim child benefit for him provided he registers with a jobcentre or local authority careers office for employment or a YTS course. This child benefit extension period will run for four months—up to Christmas—for summer leavers and for three months for those leaving at Christmas or Easter. If the family are on benefit themselves they will also be able to get a dependency addition for the young person during this period. During this period the youngster will be able to decide whether or not to continue with his education, to take a job if a suitable one comes up or to go on a YTS course.
Child benefit will of course stop if the youngster takes a job or a YTS place before the end of the extension period. Of course there will be some young people who have special reasons for not living in the family home, for example those who run the risk of physical or sexual abuse. Regulations will therefore be made to enable them to be entitled to income support but only during the extension period. By the end of the extension period we guarantee that a YTS place will be arranged for any young person who wants one.
When the child benefit extension period comes to an end there will be no general entitlement to income support for the under-18s. Those who go on YTS will receive the training allowance of £28.50 a week in the first year and £35 in the second year, which is considerably more than the £19.40 they would get under income support. I said there would be no general entitlement to income support, but there will of course be some young people for whom YTS would not be appropriate; for example the severely disabled, the long-term sick and one-parent families. Regulations to be made under the Bill will ensure that they will continue to be able to get income support.
But we also realise that hard cases may arise from time to time where the regulations do not help. Clause 4 therefore contains an additional safety net which gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to direct in exceptional cases that a young person is to be treated as in one of the special groups for whom income support may be paid. This power will be used where it is judged that severe hardship would result if income support were not paid to the young person.
I should also mention for completeness, though it is not part of this Bill, that where a young person leaves a job or a YTS place and he is still under 18 he will be guaranteed another YTS place. During the time that it takes to arrange another YTS place the youngster will be paid a YTS bridging allowance. Provision for this is in the Employment Bill, which is currently in another place. I should like to make it absolutely clear to the House that these proposals should not be seen as savings measures. It is true that there will be net savings to the DHSS expenditure of £84 million in a full year, but this will be more than offset by the additional costs to be borne on the YTS programme.
I should now like briefly to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the other provisions in the Bill. One of the objectives is the sensible targeting of
414
scarce resources. This is achieved in a number of ways. Under Clause 5 we are strengthening the contributory principle for unemployment and sickness benefits so that they will be based on a more realistic period of payment of contributions. It is currently possible for a man on average earnings to qualify for sickness and unemployment benefits from as little as nine weeks' work in the preceding tax year. Under Clause 5 it will be necessary to have a record of contributions or credits in the two tax years preceding the claim. The man on average earnings will then be able to qualify on the basis of nine weeks' work in each of those two years, so the conditions will still be relatively easy to satisfy.
Clause 5 also reinforces the original purpose of unemployment benefit, which was to provide a measure of income replacement during short periods of unemployment for people normally accustomed to earnings while they sought work. In order to provide for a closer link with recent employment the Bill therefore requires that the person must have actually paid contributions in one of the two tax years preceding the claim instead of in any year since he entered national insurance.
Clause 6 is also concerned with reinforcing the original purpose of unemployment benefit. It extends to the over-55s the arrangements for abating the unemployment benefit of those who have an occupational pension over £35 a week. These arrangements already apply to those over 60, and in view of the growing trend in the payment of occupational pensions to people in the 55 to 60 age group, we believe this is an appropriate time to extend the arrangements to that age group. It is not at all in line with the original intentions of unemployment benefit to pay that benefit in full to people receiving significant amounts of occupational pension in recognition of the fact that they have reached the end of their pensionable career.
Also on the subject of targeting, the Bill amends the law on attendance allowance and on dependency increases to ensure that they go to those for whom they were originally intended before recent judgments cast doubt on the relevant provisions. Clause 1 makes clear that, for one of the night time conditions for attendance allowance to be satisfied, active supervision of the disabled person is necessary—that is that the carer is required,
"to be awake for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals for the purposes of watching over him".
The Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mrs. Moran seemed to be suggesting that it was only necessary for the carer simply to be on hand. Clause 1 is intended to put beyond doubt what had always been intended and accepted.
Similarly Clause 9 is intended to make clear that for the purposes of entitlement to an increase of benefit for a dependant, any occupational pension received by the dependant is to be treated as if it were earnings, whether or not the dependant also has earnings from employment. This had always been intended, but a decision of the social security commissioners brought to light unintended inconsistencies in the relevant provisions.
I should now like to turn to the subject of cold weather. Schedule 3 to the Bill provides, among other

415
things, for payments towards the cost of heating in exceptionally cold weather to be made on a regulated basis from the social fund from next winter. The precise form this help will take will be considered in the light of this winter's experience of the current scheme, but I should like to make it absolutely clear to the House that these payments will be a regulated entitlement in the same way as social fund maternity and funeral payments. They will neither be based on discretion nor be constrained by the budget for grants and loans.
Finally, the Bill is concerned with the necessary tidying up of a number of aspects of legislation and makes a number of amendments to complete the package of reforms to the industrial injuries scheme. The industrial injuries changes in Clause 2 and Schedule I provide for industrial widows to get the same pension as national insurance widows from 11th April and for existing industrial widows to be able to continue to receive their retirement pension on top of their widow's benefit. Provision is also made for a new benefit called retirement allowance to replace reduced earnings allowance for those retiring in the future. The Bill also provides new statutory bases for the welfare foods scheme and the arrangements for the remission of National Health Service charges and the payment of travelling expenses to hospital to coincide with the April 1988 social security changes. It puts beyond doubt that local authorities may make payments on account of social security benefits on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security in any emergency. There are also technical amendments to the legislation for family credit and the social fund to ensure the smooth running of those schemes.
Tidying up includes the correction of errors, and I should also draw the House's attention to Clause 11 which was introduced on Report in another place. Following the discovery of an error in the calculation of the Retail Prices Index, my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled announced in another place on 18th December last that the Government proposed to make extra payments to social security claimants. The special payments will be made to retirement pensioners, supplementary pensioners, those receiving widows benefits, industrial injuries benefits, war pensions, invalid care allowance, invalidity benefit, mobility allowance, attendance allowance and severe disablement allowance. This will be followed by action to correct benefit rates for all recipients at the April 1989 up-rating. We also propose to make a second-stage payment to those losers who enter the special payment groups after the special payments are made.
I have gone into some detail as it is the first time the House has officially heard any of this as we rose for the Christmas recess the day before another place and it was on their last day that this announcement was made by way of a Statement. However, these facts are gloss on the gingerbread of the clause which merely validates the Social Security Benefits (Up-rating) (No. 2) Order 1987 and the Occupational Pensions (Revaluation) Order 1987. Suffice it to say for now, that the quickest and easiest way of correcting the
416
error was by the steps I have outlined, namely validating the two orders and making ex-gratia payments.
To sum up, this Bill contains a miscellany of prominent measures. Overall I think it can best be described as ensuring that our social security system keeps pace with the times and is relevant to the late 1980s and 1990s. In particular it fulfils the Government's manifesto commitment to take steps to prevent young people from going straight from school down the dead end street of unemployment and reliance on benefit. The guarantee of a YTS place for all under-18s is an investment in the youth of this country and demonstrates the Government's commitment to encouraging young people to make the most of their talents and acquire the necessary skills and experience for which today's employers are looking. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence if anything I have to say today is rather inadequate. In spite of several requests I have not received the courtesy of being sent the Notes on Clauses on the Bill which in previous times have been sent to the Opposition spokesman. I shall have to do my best without the Notes on Clauses from the department. If that leads to any misunderstanding of what the department is trying to do, I suggest that it is not my fault.
In the Bill there are 17 clauses and five schedules, with scarcely a line of which we on this side can agree. The very existence of the Bill constitutes a criticism of the Government's handling of the whole question of social security. In fact the Bill would be better entitled the Social Insecurity Bill, because it will create great anxiety and considerable deprivation among the most vulnerable people in this country. If I may refer noble Lords to the Financial Memorandum, they will see how much money is being saved by this Bill. And when the Government say that they are saving money, that means they are taking money away from those who have previously had it, and who needed to have it.
Before going into detailed criticisms, I must put to the House our concern about the Government's failure to develop even their own flawed philosophy efficiently. There is no convincing strategy about the way the Government deal with social security. Here we are in 1988 faced with more legislation. Parliament and the country were told that the Green Paper and the White Paper, and all the discussions that went on around those two publications, were going to represent a fundamental comprehensive review of the whole field of post-Beveridge welfare and what have we got?
Since 1986, we have had an unending stream of regulations and statutory instruments which indicate a piecemeal and inefficient approach. They usually have indicated a mean attitude to the problems of society, and they have certainly not carried out the Government's promise that there was to be a new total look at welfare provision that once and for all would put things right for the present century.

417
Another problem which many people in this House feel is the way that the Government are trying to rule by regulations rather than by legislation. This criticism does not apply to the present Bill. It is the Government's own version of a sort of militant tendency. They take powers from Parliament, and transfer too much to the drafters of the regulations which, in their turn, are often incomprehensible.
I shall give your Lordships just one example. In passing this Bill (if this Bill is unfortunately passed) we are empowering the Minister to make this sort of regulation. Schedule 3, paragraph 2, states about the social fund:
"Payments may also be made out of that fund, in accordance with this Part of this Act, of a prescribed amount or a number of prescribed amounts to prescribed descriptions of persons, in prescribed circumstances to meet expenses for heating which appear to the Secretary of State to have been or to he likely to be incurred in cold weather".
That is government by prescription. Who is to have the power to call one of us a prescribed person, or to put us into a pigeon-hole of prescription? I shall say something later about the cold weather problems.
There are many points which will be taken up by my noble friends now and later at Committee stage, but I must refer briefly to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 which amends the Social Security Acts of 1975 and 1976 in relation to industrial injuries. My noble friend Lady Turner will be dealing with that later. The changes will reduce expenditure to the National Insurance Fund by £2 million in 1989–90, rising to £10 million in 1991–92. It seems to us that the Government are more interested in taking money away from men and women injured at work, than in helping them over their difficulties.
We strongly oppose Clause 4. That takes away the right of people under 18 to benefit,
"except in circumstances … to he prescribed in regulations".
There is more prescription—by whom, to whom and what for? It might seem—and I appreciate what the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, said—a rational argument to suggest that all school-leavers should have a job, training or further education, but that is totally an option. Since 1948, the qualifying age for social security payments has been 16.
I appreciate that the noble Lord referred to the Conservative manifesto and the promise that they gave then. However, I have to put it to him that that promise is different from what we have before us today. I have taken the trouble—though it pains me—to read the Conservative manifesto, and what that manifesto said was that those who deliberately choose to be unemployed shall lose benefit. But Clause 4 does not limit the deprivation to young people who deliberately choose to be unemployed.
I must remind the noble Lord that the Department of Employment had a research paper—in case he is too busy to find it, it is No. 61—called Youth Unemployment: Social and Psychological Perspectives. It found that only 0·2 per cent. of unemployed young people prefer the dole. It stated:
"It would not be correct to say that the young unemployed find unemployment attractive. It would seem that there are very few indeed who would rather not have a job".
That is not coming from a Labour Party leaflet. That is coming from the Department of Employment. I
418
hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how many young people are waiting to go on a course. Will they be denied benefit if there are no vacancies in their area?
Where there is abuse—and none of us wants to see abuse in these matters—why do the Government not use their power in Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975? In that Act there is provision that claimants must be available for work and be willing to take up any reasonable offer of work or approved training. What are the Government doing about that Act and why are they not using it if there is a conviction that there are a lot of people lying around who ought to be at work?
Then I have to ask: what happens to young people who are intermittently unemployed? Among young people there is a lot of temporary and seasonal work. Will they be denied unemployment benefit in between jobs? I am worried about a school-leaver who has found a job, perhaps acquired some skill, and who after a year or so, through no fault of his own—perhaps the firm has gone broke—is made redundant or for some other reason loses his job. He will have paid national insurance contributions during the time he was at work.
He may be in an area of high unemployment. Is he to be denied benefit unless he goes on to a two-year course in something else, which might be different from the job in which he already has some experience? So it is not easy to say that all these young people have to go onto a training course if they do not have a job because they might well be in between jobs.
I appreciate that the Minister had a lot of ground to cover; and I might take even longer than he did because there is so much ground to cover. However, a very important question is: what will happen about young people in part-time education? At present, young people are allowed up to 21 hours a week without loss of unemployment benefit. This is to enable them to go on after they have left school to some part-time courses which might lead them—and I know in some cases have led them—to getting through their A-levels and to university entrance, so that they are making a really good start in life. Are the 21 hours to stay with us? This is a very important point.
I cannot understand why this Government seem to hate young people. They hound homeless young people around the country under the board and lodging policies, which do not allow them to stay longer than certain periods in various places. They pay people under 25 less benefit than than those over 25. They have removed the protection of the wages councils from young people under 21. I must point out that the YTS allowance does not automatically include any help with board and lodging. Therefore, a young person who has to leave home to attend a course, perhaps because he lives in the middle of a Scottish moor or on a Welsh mountain, is not sure (and neither am I) whether he will receive a payment that is more than that received by the young person who can continue living at home while he is taking his course. It is impossible for those who have to face market rents in city centres to manage on the allowance provided.

419
If the Government were sincerely concerned with the welfare of the family and children, as they keep on saying that they are, they would have uprated child benefit. I shall come back to that point.
Clause 5 requires national insurance contributions to have been paid for two years, instead of one year, as at present. The result is all in the Government's favour. According to the Financial Memorandum, they will save £60 million in 1988–89, rising to £380 million in 1990–91. The newspapers are full of how flush the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with money and yet we are confronted by a Bill which proposes to take £60 million to begin with, and then £380 million, out of the National Insurance Fund; that means out of the pockets of those who are in need.
Clause 6, which my noble friend Lady Turner will deal with in more detail, provides that people who are retired at 55 instead of at 60 (an increasing trend) will be at risk of losing unemployment benefit, as the noble Lord explained. They will lose one pound for each pound of pension they receive over £35. That figure was fixed in 1981. I understand that by now it should be £48, if only to keep pace with inflation. I should have thought that those are the kind of people the Government would cherish. They are hard working people who have saved up for their pensions and done their best to provide for their old age. It was acceptable that those people would not be on the unemployment market when they reached 60. But it is a different matter to tell all those worthy people at 55 that they are to be disadvantaged because they have saved for an occupational pension of up to £35 a week, which does not go a long way these days. The Government could at least have raised that sum in line with the indexed linked pensions which civil servants and many other people enjoy; that would have increased the amount to £48.
The Minister referred to severe weather. It appears from the regulations that payments may be made, as I said earlier, to "prescribed persons"—I wish I was a prescribed person—if they endure a seven-day period at a "prescribed temperature". I have a copy of the regulations and I see that the "prescribed temperature" is zero degrees Celsius; but that zero degrees Celsius must start on a Monday! Last week according to what I heard on the radio the severe weather started on Friday in some parts of the country. It may be a bit milder now but had the cold weather continued from Friday, claims would not have been acceptable, according to the regulations, until a week from next Monday, which is a long time. It seems therefore that one must only catch hypothermia on a Monday. That is something I cannot understand and I hope that when the Minister replies he can give a government warning which will explain to people how they can start hypothermia on a Monday but never on a Tuesday.
Furthermore, where is this temperature taken? It is not taken in the cold draughty houses of some of the people most likely to he at risk. Is it taken at the top of a hill or at the nearest airport? Is any account taken of wind chill, which most experts recognise to be a serious component of hypothermia?
I come to the social fund, about which the Minister did not say a great deal. We discussed it at great
420
length when the Social Security Bill was going through the House in 1986. Many Members will remember that the Government were defeated on the issue of an appeal. Noble Lords in all parts of the House, especially some of our most distinguished lawyers, felt that it was wrong for a citizen to have no right to appeal against a department's decision. Having been defeated on that issue, the Government came back with a so-called appeal machinery under someone called the social fund commissioner. A social fund commissioner has been appointed to work two days a week. The other day I asked how many social fund officers had been appointed and the parliamentary reply was, none yet. I understand that the scheme is supposed to start in April. It is a job for which people will need a great deal of training, expertise and understanding; but they have not yet been appointed.
I must go into a little detail on that subject because I think it is in principle most important. We were given to understand that appeal machinery would be set up so that people who felt that they had been wrongly denied grants or loans from the social fund would have an avenue of appeal. I have the social fund manual. It is heavy, long and costs over £9. I must again emphasise my complaint that the reality of the situation is contained in the regulations—in those pieces of paper which one can obtain from the Library but which are not easily available to the people who most need to appeal.
From a close reading of the regulations I understand that a dissatisfied applicant can have an interview with a social fund officer. It will be in the same office as that of the chap who originally did the person down. Whether or not it is an objective decision, it must leave some thought in the applicant's mind as to its impartiality. There is to be no oral hearing beyond that interview. That is outrageous. If the applicant is still dissatisfied, all that happens is that his file is sent to the inspector for him to read. There is no hearing by the inspectors. There is no face-to-face encounter. If the noble Lord should tell me that I have misread this £9.10-worth of literature I would be only too happy; but I cannot think of another situation where this would arise. A drunken soldier is allowed to go before a court martial in person and speak up for himself or get someone else to speak for him.
Will the applicant see the file which goes up to the next stage? That is very important. Many years ago I sat on tribunals of this kind. From time to time, when a man or woman came to the tribunal, we found that although we had all the papers from the office, we could work out through sympathetic discussion whether that person had done himself justice, whether he had a chip on his shoulder or whether the official had rubbed him up the wrong way. Occasionally we were able to put things right for the applicant, but not always. We had no predisposition to find in favour of one or the other.
However, it seems to me totally unfair and against any concept of British justice that a man or woman should not even be able to confront those who have decided that he cannot have access to the social fund. I should like to know whether MPs will be able to

421
raise cases of their constituents in the House or whether they will be told that that is not possible.
I speak very shyly because I am not a lawyer, but I have tried to work out a few points. There is a standard textbook which I have found—thanks to noble and learned Lords—by a gentleman called Wade on administrative law. It says that some statutory tribunals have power to dispense with oral hearings, but if they do so they must be careful to give a party a fair opportunity to comment on any adverse statement submitted. Will that happen to people who are appealing in these circumstances? If so, I feel it would be a dereliction of some of the best traditions of our law if that appeal were not allowed.
The social fund was foreshadowed in the 1986 Act. I understand that the budget for next year is £203 million. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord how this compares with the single payments paid out last year. The cash is limited. The Social Security Advisory Committee said that in its view, £350 million—not £203 million—would be needed to cover the payments made last year. Now we face the fact that many of these people will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. And they are going to face higher electricity charges and other costs. To me, the amount of discretion given to the Minister is absolutely ominous.
Where loans are granted, who is responsible for repayment? Can family members be deemed liable? I have a piece of paper from the department which sets out how the loan can be repaid by deduction from future benefits. If these people are so poor that they are on benefit already and they then fall further into a poverty disaster where they have to borrow, how on earth are they to be expected to live on a benefit from which deductions are made? Anyone would think that a benefit had fat on it which could be sliced off without doing harm to any of these people.
Then, what if the person gets a job? Is his employer to be traced? Is he to be taken to court for repayment? None of this is clear. I do not want the noble Lord to tell me that it is on page 1001 of these regulations. That does not mean that the facts are before Parliament. It is Parliament which should have a say in all these things.
I think there will be a great disaster here. For one thing, the instructions to the local officers state that they must keep within their budget. What happens if there is a sudden disaster in a certain area where, for instance, a big factory employing a large proportion of the local population closes down, or has some other difficulty? Oh no, the social fund officers' instructions are, you keep to your budget. So, if the disaster comes at the end of the financial year, it is bad luck. The officers are instructed that they are not to keep a waiting list. They are instructed that the same person cannot apply again within six months. So you have to put up with your poverty and disaster for six months before you can go back again. I quote the instructions:
"Social fund officers should under no circumstances make an award which cannot be paid from the local office budget".
Can the Minister confirm that the chairman of the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee wrote to him on 15th October in relation to loans, and said:
422
"I place on record that this decision is without our support".
When the Social Security Advisory Committee appointed by the Government puts something on paper as clearly as that, I cannot think how any Minister can come before this House and propose to carry on this absurd situation.
Two other points worry me very much about these instructions. One is that social fund officers should tell the applicant to shop around; that there may be charities and other help available. Does that mean that the poor old lady must walk around looking for the family welfare association? She may not have a telephone in order to ring people up. Or will the official ring up all his local charities of which he has a list saying, "Can you help Mrs. So-and-so?" She might be old, infirm or arthritic. She might be inarticulate, not speaking very good English. But she is to be told to make sure whether she can get help from somebody else. If the Minister has not had his weekend ruined, as I have, by reading the social fund manual, he will find the exact words in paragraph 4058:
"Possible sources of help might he charities and benevolent funds which are known to be likely to provide the required assistance".
That is not only a difficulty for the applicant; I have not heard from one single charity which approves this statement. Some fear that the result will be a drop in contributions. I am sure that all of us give gladly so that voluntary organisations can help to supplement statutory benefits. But we are not going to be so willing if we think we are subsidising the DHSS and that these people, many of whom will have paid insurance contributions all their lives, are now to be shovelled off and that the public is expected to provide the assistance which is theirs by a statutory right. At least, it was one until this Government got busy.
There is another important question. It seems from some of the instructions that there is a possibility that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet the debt. To what degree of' consanguinity does that go? Does it mean that an estranged husband can be held responsible for money which it is believed the wife owes to the department? Can it be that a young adult who may have a job in a household where no one else does can be expected to take on that responsibility?
None of those points is clearly answered. They are of immense importance. But the main reason I have gone into some detail—I shall not apologise for taking so long because this is a long Bill—is that if the Government will bring us such a gallimaufry of a mix-up of a Bill they must expect us, in our duty of revision, to deal with it more seriously than some noble Lords opposite appear to be doing.
This is a Bill where the underlying philosophy is totally wrong. It suggests, like other social security legislation we have had, that this Government do not believe in the idea that we are members one of another, that the family idea of helpfulness should be spread to the wider community and that those who are well should help those who are in need. They believe that every man is an island, and good luck to him. They believe that a person should stand on his own two feet and that if he has only one leg that is too bad.

423
Today we have another example of the Government's basically uncaring attitude. This great, marvellous rationalization—simplification, as the Government called it at one time—of the social security system is totally wrong. It does absolutely no good at all. If the Government think that they have simplified social security since the time of Beveridge, let them read the social fund manual tonight. Beveridge never produced anything as sinful as this. The Government may think that they have done some good in the field of welfare; but I hope that they will begin to realise their total failure.

Northern Ireland: Stalker/Sampson Investigations
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General on Directions given by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) following the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson. The Statement is as follows:
"In November and December 1982, in three separate incidents in County Armagh, six persons were killed and one person was seriously wounded by shooting by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
"The circumstances of each shooting were investigated by the CID of the RUC and three files reporting the results of these investigations were submitted by the Chief Constable of the RUC to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland for his consideration and decisions.
"In relation to the incident which occurred on 11th November 1982 at Tullygally East Road, Craigavon, in which three persons, Eugene Toman, James Gervaise McKerr and John Frederick Burns, were killed, the director directed that three members of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Eugene Toman. These three members were subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.
"In relation to the incident which occurred on 12th December 1982 at Mullacreevie Park, Armagh, in which two persons, Peter James Martin Grew and Roderick Carroll, were killed, the director directed that one member of the RUC be prosecuted for the murder of Peter James Martin Grew. This member was subsequently tried for murder and acquitted.
"In respect of the other incident, which occurred on 24th November 1982 at Ballynerry Road North, Lurgan, in which Michael Tighe was killed and Martin McCauley was seriously wounded, the director concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal proceedings and directed no prosecution.
"Upon consideration of the evidence and information in the files initially submitted to him,
424
the director required further investigations to be undertaken and the results of these reported to him. When the results of such further investigations were reported to the director it appeared to him that in certain of the statements of evidence furnished for his consideration material and important facts had been omitted, and that matters which were untrue and misleading in material and important respects had been included.
"In consequence of this on 11th April 1984 the director formally exercised his statutory power to request the chief constable to ascertain and furnish to him full information with regard to the circumstances in which false or misleading evidence was provided by any member or members of the RUC. He also requested him to investigate whether there was evidence to suggest that any person was guilty of an offence of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice, or of any other offence in connection with the investigation of the three shooting incidents.
"On 24th May 1984 the Chief Constable of the RUC appointed Mr. John Stalker, Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, to conduct an investigation. Mr. Stalker was furnished with a full copy of the director's request dated 11th April 1984.
"On 18th September 1985 Mr. Stalker delivered to the Chief Constable of the RUC an interim report on the investigations which he had conducted up until that date. On 13th February 1986 the Chief Constable of the RUC furnished to the director Mr. Stalker's interim report together with the chief constable's observations upon it.
"On 4th March 1986 the director directed that further investigations be undertaken. On 29th May 1986 Mr. Stalker ceased to have responsibility for the investigation which he had undertaken. Mr. Colin Sampson, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, then undertook responsibility for the continuing investigation, assisted by the same team of detectives and by an assistant chief constable from West Yorkshire Police.
"On 22nd October 1986, 23rd March 1987 and 10th April 1987, reports were delivered by Mr. Sampson to the Chief Constable of the RUC and on the same dates to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
"The interim report by Mr. Stalker and the reports subsequently delivered by Mr. Sampson together provided the chief constable and the director with full results of detailed and thorough investigations undertaken by the investigation team of Greater Manchester Police, initially under the leadership of Mr. Stalker and subsequently under the leadership of Mr. Sampson.
"In regard to the shooting incidents to which I have referred, the director has considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson and he has re-examined the original RUC investigation files. He has concluded that the evidence does not warrant any further prosecution in respect of those shootings which occurred on 11th November 1982 and 12th December 1982, which have already been

425
the subject of prosecutions. He has further concluded that the evidence does not warrant any prosecution in respect of either the fatal shooting or the wounding which occurred on 24th November 1982. I have considered the director's conclusions and I agree with them. He has given directions accordingly.
"The director has however concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest; and he has consulted me accordingly.
"I have therefore taken steps to acquaint myself with all relevant circumstances, including matters concerning the public interest and in particular considerations of national security which might properly affect the decision whether or not to institute proceedings.
"I have informed the director fully with regard to my consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice the director has concluded, with my full agreement, that it would not be proper to initiate any criminal proceedings. He has given directions accordingly.
"The director has arranged to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information reported to the director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved.
"In respect of other matters arising from these investigations, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already informed the House that he would wish at the earliest opportunity to make a statement on those issues that affect his responsibilities. Now that the decisions on prosecution have been taken, I understand that he hopes to report shortly to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the grave Statement which was made in another place by the Attorney-General. The Statement which has been read out to the House discloses a most unhappy—that is putting it mildly—matter of public concern. This is a case involving grave allegations arising out of three separate incidents in which six persons were killed and one person was seriously wounded by shooting by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
There followed first of all an inquiry by Mr. Stalker, the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, into the circumstances of those tragic events. As I understand it, before the Deputy Chief Constable had concluded his investigation he was suspended from duty. Why? I think the House will be interested to know. However, it is only fair to say that later Mr. Stalker was reinstated. We do not know what happened to his initial report and what the nature of that report was.
426
Mr. Sampson, the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, took Mr. Stalker's place and conducted the inquiry. There followed a remarkable course of events. They were remarkable because, at the very least, they were unusual. It is unusual that the Director of Public Prosecutions, having considered a matter in which allegations were made (presumably against members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary) of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice, should respond by saying that he thought there should be proceedings. That is as I understand it.
The matter then went quite properly to the Attorney-General. We see on page 5 of the Statement that:
"The Director has, however, concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice … and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest".
The Statement then says that the Attorney-General has been consulted in those circumstances. Apparently, the Director of Public Prosecutions was at that stage of the view that there should be proceedings. However, the matter having been discussed and following further consultations, the Attorney-General concluded that there should be no proceedings in respect of those matters.
In my experience of the great office of Attorney-General, it is not without precedent for the Attorney-General and the Department of Public Prosecutions to disagree with one another. However, the matter has arisen against a most grievously worrying background of allegations which must inevitably put the standing and reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in some danger of being adversely viewed by the public. It has been running through my mind, against that background—which is unprecedented; I cannot think of any other episode in our criminal law which is quite as complex and unhappy—that the Government or the Attorney-General should review the circumstances again and take what is perhaps the safest course in the circumstances, and the one most likely to maintain the reputation of the RUC in particular, by ordering a wholly independent judicial inquiry into the whole matter.
I put that suggestion forward with hesitation. However, the situation is without precedent; and I fear that unless there is something more substantial than what we are left with at the moment—which is disagreement all round—the uncertainty and the remaining question marks will not have been satisfied. I put that suggestion forward cautiously because I appreciate that what I am suggesting may appear to be casting doubt upon the independence of the Attorney-General. I should not wish to imply that. However, in the exceptional circumstances which have arisen in this case of conflict between two senior police officers initially in this tragic and grim story, perhaps an inquiry by an independent member of the judiciary of the highest standing may be the better course.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that many of us in all parts of the House will be as

427
concerned as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about the character of the Statement? Is he aware that all of us recognise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary do a most difficult job in most dangerous circumstances and that it is imperative that we do everything we can to assist them in carrying out their duties? Is he also aware that there is a clear need for them to demonstrate that they conduct themselves at all times properly and within the criminal law?
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us will be reasonably satisfied with one part of the Statement. That part concerns the changeover between Mr. Stalker and Mr. Colin Sampson in the earlier stages of the investigation. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the general circumstances which are set out in the Statement make it fairly clear that the conspiracy theory which was prevalent a few months ago (that Mr. Stalker had been removed because he was getting embarrassingly close to the truth) has been demonstrated to be a fiction? It is quite obvious that Mr. Sampson continued to conduct the inquiry with great vigour. All of us who know him know perfectly well that he would never have been party to any cover up of the kind that was suggested in some parts of the media.
Having said that, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us will be deeply concerned about the statement made by the Attorney-General that the Director of Public Prosecutions has concluded that there was evidence of the commission of offences of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the exercise of his duties? I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware that on conviction anyone charged with an offence of that kind would be rightly sentenced to a very long term of imprisonment. Is he aware that it appears to be clear that the only grounds on which the Attorney-General has decided not to pursue the prosecutions are public interest grounds? I recognise that those grounds may be compelling. However, is the noble and learned Lord aware that it would be quite remarkable if no further action was taken, given the view of the matter taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions?
I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord specifically whether it is intended to take action against the officers concerned under the police disciplinary regulations. I very much hope that he will reassure us on that point. Otherwise, I am afraid that the reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be seriously affected.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that the statement made in the penultimate paragraph of the Attorney-General's Statement—namely, that:
"The Director has arranged to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information reported to the Director are in all respects full and accurate"—
is in itself a fairly remarkable statement? Is he aware that many of us would expect that in all cases such reports by the police would be both full and accurate? On this point as well, is it intended that those who did not make full and accurate reports should be
428
proceeded against under the police disciplinary regulations?
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is important at the outset in seeking to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I should emphasise that I am repeating this Statement, which was made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in his capacity as an independent Law Officer with responsibility for prosecutions. The Statement deals with that as fully as it was in his judgment proper for him to do so.
I ought to make clear that the Statement is not exactly in accordance with the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, put the matter. I should like to read the precise terms of that part of the Statement for the sake of accuracy. I know that the noble and learned Lord received it only very recently indeed and I have some advantage over him in that respect, having had it for longer. However, the matter is important and therefore I want to be sure that all your Lordships understand clearly that the Statement says:
"The director has however concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest; and he has consulted me accordingly.".
The Statement does not suggest that the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) had himself concluded that there ought to be prosecutions. The Statement is careful about precisely what the situation was.
The Attorney-General goes on to say that he had taken steps to acquaint himself with all the relevant circumstances, and continues:
"I have informed the director fully with regard to my consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice the director has concluded, with my full agreement, that it would not be proper to initiate any criminal proceedings. He has given directions accordingly".
Therefore the Statement makes it clear that after all the relevant consultations had been carried out the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General were of one mind on the matter.
The noble and learned Lord asked me about the circumstances in relation to Mr. Stalker. As your Lordships will appreciate, that is not a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Attorney-General as the independent Law Officer responsible for prosecutions. So far as concerns the other matters that have been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as your Lordships will remember, the Statement concludes:
"the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already informed the House that he would wish at the earliest opportunity to make a Statement on those issues that affect his responsibilities".
It says that now that the decisions on prosecutions have been taken the Attorney-General understands that he, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, hopes to report shortly to the House.

429
The matters that have been raised, apart from those with which I have expressly dealt, are within the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that we may expect those matters to be dealt with in the Statement which he will make to the House in due course.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is clear from the Statement which he has repeated that evidence has been found that some officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have committed criminal offences in the way of attempting to pervert the course of justice or matters of that nature? In that case does he agree that it would not be practicable to leave the matter there? Those individuals may well find themselves in future giving evidence as witnesses for the Crown in serious cases in Northern Ireland. Is it fair to them to leave them in a position in which the substance of the allegations has not been tested independently? Indeed is it fair to the reputation of the courts in Northern Ireland? Is there not much to be said for the proposal of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that in some way or another an attempt must be made to resolve these allegations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the correct course for me to take is to undertake to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the observations made by your Lordships about the matters falling within his responsibility including the matter to which the noble Lord has just referred.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following what has been said by way of questioning the Statement, I think there is one aspect that ought to be taken into account if any message is to go from this House to the Government. Unless we accept the general guidance that the report gives, it appears that we are deliberately doubting the considered judgment of both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. Their words were very clear. They leave no room for doubt.
They said that they had examined and re-examined all aspects of this case. All of it may not have been brought out in earlier stages but they now have the benefit of everybody's views, both those of Mr. Stalker during the time that he was responsible and of Mr. Sampson when he carried on afterwards; they also have the results of conversations with the Chief Constable and all the other investigations. What amazes me is the immediate reaction from the Opposition Front Bench, from someone who is very learned in these matters and with past experience. The comment that ought to have been made to begin with is that the Statement shows that there has been no attempt to cover up anything from the point of view of the Attorney-General. The matter has been examined and re-examined and things that may have been disclosed by the turning over of stones have been taken into account.
The Lord Chancellor has said that he intends to report what has been said here. I think that in addition to what he may have had in mind to say, we
430
ought to find some way of letting it be known that we have confidence, and that we have no reason to have anything other than full confidence, in the way that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General have investigated every detail in this case as far as they can.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was very heartened that in his response to the Statement the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made it clear that he was in no way questioning the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions in their ultimate decision. I shall certainly indicate that as being the situation in any report of mine. What I was proposing to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are the suggestions as to how the matters which lie within his responsibility should be taken further. I do not think that there is a suggestion from any noble Lord who has spoken so far that anything in the responsibilities of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) is open to further question.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I very much welcome the fact that he will discuss this matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? But is he also aware, as I am sure he is, that the Northern Ireland Secretary cannot himself prefer any charges or cause any charges to be preferred against any member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary because he is the ultimate appellate authority in any such disciplinary proceedings? As I understand it, the only decision that could be made would be made by the Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I repeat that we welcome the fact that these matters will be discussed between the noble and learned Lord and the Secretary of State but at the same time we recognise that the Secretary of State is not responsible for making a decision in such matters.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it has been made abundantly clear by my noble and learned friend, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has paid tribute to it, that no one in this House, as far as I know, would ever want to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is not in issue.
What is in issue on the Statement is whether it has been made abundantly clear to those who ascribe all the praise that should be ascribed to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in their difficult duties will be satisfied with the results of these inquiries, which would appear from the Statement to show that the Director of Public Prosecutions first of all felt that there was evidence upon which a prosecution could be based. He then consulted the Attorney-General, who obviously as part of his duties is interested in matters of security and the public good, and came to a conclusion, in agreement with the Attorney-General, that no prosecution should be brought. The gap in the sequence is whether the evidence was found to be deficient in some respect or whether the evidence was there but matters of public importance and public

431
security dictated that no prosecution should be brought, even though evidence existed. That is the lacuna in the Statement.
The noble and learned Lord said that he was repeating a Statement made by the Attorney-General for which the Attorney-General is responsible. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can fill in that lacuna. There is one way of doing so, which was suggested wisely by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. If a member of the judiciary, independent as he always is, was asked to conduct an inquiry into the matter, I think that many people who want to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary (but only the good members of it, not the bad ones) would be satisfied. I believe some public interest would be served if that course were taken.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I perceive no lacuna in the Statement of the Attorney-General which I have read. The other matters fall outside the responsibility of my right honourable and learned friend and I undertake to report the suggestions that have been made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, with the exception of public figures important enough to be provided with bodyguards, and with the possible exception of police officers in the Basque region of Spain, RUC officers are unique in the Western world in being murder targets 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks in the year? Is it not right that this fact should be taken into account in judging their actions and reactions?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of this House appreciate the circumstances in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary are called upon to act. I am sure that we all very much appreciate the personal dangers to which so many of them are for such a high proportion of the time exposed.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord has made it fairly clear that he considers this matter incomplete and that the Statement came to us as a matter of courtesy rather than as a matter of right, I hope that your Lordships, and in particular the Leader of the House, will appreciate that we shall not be able to deal with a further Statement made on behalf of the Secretary of State in another place unless that Statement is repeated here without question.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord's observations inevitably follow, but consideration of whether a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be repeated in this House is a matter that we can leave until the problem arises.

Social Security Bill
4.15 p.m.
Second Reading Debate resumed.
Lord Banks: My Lords, perhaps we may now return to the Social Security Bill. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his clear explanation of the contents of the Bill. It seems that after every major Social Security Act, we require further legislation in order to make the necesary corrections. This Bill, in addition to correcting the mistakes made in the Social Security Act 1986, introduces a number of measures, most of which seem designed to claw back money from claimants. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to welcome the appearance of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
I should like to look at one or two of the restrictive measures—restrictive, that is, of expenditure—which the Bill contains. I deal first with attendance allowance. The higher rate of attendance allowance is paid, as we have heard, when continual supervision is required through the night. The Court of Appeal ruled that continual supervision did not necessarily involve the supervisor being continually awake. This ruling was widely welcomed by the groups which represent the disabled, because all those needing standby supervision could now claim the higher rate. I should like to ask whether there was any other reason than the desire to cut cost which actuated the Government in deciding not to accept the law as interpreted by the courts? Is there any reason other than economy for arguing that those who require standby supervision should not receive the higher rate?
I discuss now benefit for 16 and 17 year-olds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, reminded us, 16 has been the minimum age at which benefit could be claimed since 1948. This was reaffirmed by the Social Security Act 1986, which states that a person in Great Britain is entitled to income support if he is over the age of 16. The Bill raises the minimum age to 18 while allowing payments to 16 and 17 year-olds, as was described earlier, in prescribed circumstances or in individual cases of severe hardship.
Why is there no list of prescribed circumstances in the Bill? Why does that have to be left to regulations? The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out the degree to which government by regulation is increasing these days. Here it seems is another example of it. Surely the determination of severe hardship will place much extra power in the hands of the Secretary of State and there will have to be much invidious choice.
The Government's aim, as set out in the Conservative Party's 1987 manifesto, again to which the noble Baroness referred, was to remove eligibility for benefit from those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed, in particular those who do not enter a youth training scheme. There is no evidence that this is a sizeable group. In addition, regulations already exist to reduce the benefit of young people who unreasonably refuse the offer of a place in a YTS or who leave early for no good reason.

433
Between December 1983 and May 1987—that is, a period of three and a half years—25,697 persons suffered such a benefit deduction for voluntary unemployment: 23,453 of them were early leavers, and 2,244 only had refused the offer of a place on a YTS.
During that period more than one million people have entered the YTS. We should bear that figure in mind to keep everything in perspective. There are 1·4 million in the age group involved, so surely here the Government are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The provision makes YTS a compulsory service, yet the voluntary nature of the YTS has been one of its basic principles. This principle was restated at a meeting of the Youth Training Board as recently as 9th July 1987. There is a fear that if the provisions in the Bill are passed much of the success of YTS will be undermined.
The Bill deals with contribution conditions for unemployment and sickness benefit. As we heard earlier, the Bill makes the contribution requirements more stringent so that fewer people will be able to claim. As I understand it, 350,000 people are expected to lose entitlement to unemployment benefit. Of these, 300,000 may qualify for income support. So it would seem that what the Government are doing here is transferring people from benefits as of right to means-tested benefits. There are already about 16 million persons dependent upon means-tested benefits in this country. I believe that we should be seeking to discover how we can reduce that number rather than how we can increase it.
On these Benches we challenge the principle of basing entitlement on contributions paid. We would prefer to combine income tax and national insurance contributions in one rate on all earnings, coupled with a percentage social security tax on employers, and then to say that all who are accepted as unemployed or sick should receive the benefit for the prescribed period regardless of contributions paid but subject to residential qualification.
I come next to unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners. The Bill reduces from 60 to 55 the age at which unemployment benefit is abated to take account of an occupational pension of more than £35 per week. The introduction of the rule to apply to those over 60 formed part of previous economy measures by the present Government. The argument was that since many of those affected were not seriously looking for work it was a reasonable provision—and retired bank managers were much cited in that connection. However, the lower one reduces the age limit the weaker that argument becomes. For example, we have to consider the case of a person who is made redundant at 55, who takes an early retirement pension which would be lower than his normal retirement pension if he had remained with his employers to normal retirement age but who has by no means given up the idea that he can secure some other work. He is not regarding himself as permanently unemployed.
We would bear in mind that unemployment benefit in any case is paid for 12 months only. It is not continuously paid from then until the age of 65. Whatever may be thought of the principle, there can be no justification, as the noble Baroness argued, for
434
keeping the limit at £35 on the occupational pension, which is allowed without abatement. As she pointed out, to maintain the real value of the £35 as it was originally it would need to be at least £48 a week now. In my view the limit should be increased to that amount and be indexed.
With regard to exceptionally severe weather payments, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to operate a scheme of single payments to meet expenses for heating. It will permit the operation of a scheme similar to that which was in operation last winter and again this winter. All I would say about that is that it is essential to secure a more satisfactory method of triggering payment. Here again I agree with the noble Baroness. The fact that the temperature has to average freezing point or below for a week beginning on Monday and ending on Sunday is totally unsatisfactory.
The severe weather payments will come from the social fund and on these Benches our objection to that fund remains. We regret that the fund will be cash limited, although we understand that the cash limit will not apply to severe weather payments. We regret that most help will be given through loans rather than grants. We regret that the fund will operate on a discretionary basis; and we regret that there will be no right of appeal to an independent tribunal. We note that the Social Security Advisory Committee has said that the arrangements for the social fund are unfair and unenforceable and that it goes ahead without its support.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply when the Government intend to honour the commitment given by the Secretary of State to do something about the very seriously disabled people who need to pay for help to enable them to live in the community.
I have said enough to indicate why we do not welcome the Bill before the House this afternoon, although of course in accordance with convention we shall not vote against its Second Reading.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, as chairman of the Company Pensions Information Centre, a small organisation which I think will be well known to some of the Minister's officials and which provides information on the endless legislative complexities of every sort of pension not only to industry but to trade unions and others as well, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention briefly to some implications of Clause 6 about which I am concerned.
In the first place, I should like to enlarge on what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, have said about the £35 a week limit above which unemployment benefit is abated. In 1980 that figure was described by the Government as substantial and therefore was a reasonable level at which to start abating unemployment benefit. Whether a pension income of £35 a week could really have been described as substantial even in 1980 seems doubtful to me. I am more doubtful still about so describing it today when the cost of living has risen by approximately 50 per cent. As the two previous

435
speakers have said, why should it not be index linked, as are so many other forms of benefit and tax allowance?
Incidentally, with the help of a pocket calculator and a page of Whitaker's Almanac, my calculations suggest that the sum should be more than £48 a week. I remind your Lordships of something the noble Lord the Minister said concerning this Bill about the Government wishing to keep up with the times. Where better to make a start than on £35 a week?
My next point relates to the date at which Clause 6 will come into force, assuming that it is passed. Since it takes time for people to become aware of the niceties of new legislation and since many people might very well opt to postpone their retirement when they discover that their unemployment benefit is to be reduced, it would be unkind to fix too early a date. Therefore, I am glad to see that the Minister in another place has indicated that the clause will probably not come into force until January 1989. I hope that the Government will not have second thoughts on that.
Lastly, Clause 6 relates specifically to occupational pensions, defined in the 1980 Act as pensions derived in whole or in part from moneys paid by the employer. That definition clearly excluded Section 226, pensions available to the self-employed and those in employment but for whom the employer makes no provisions for pensions. Now, following the Social Security Act 1986, there are about to be personal pensions, which will be available not only to the self-employed and those for whom the employer makes no pension provision but also as an alternative to occupational pensions for people in paid employment for whom the employer makes pension provision.
While Clause 6 refers to occupational pensions, it makes no mention at all of personal pensions, many of which will involve employer contributions, just like occupational pensions. When I first saw Clause 6 I was minded to ask the Minister whether I was right in seeing this as a curious discrimination directed specifically against the many people who will have only modest occupational pensions of £35 a week and upwards. However, I was glad to learn that the Minister in another place had mentioned the Government's intention to introduce legislation at some unspecified time in the future bringing personal pensions into line with occupational pensions in this and other respects. That surely is only equitable.
However, I point out to the Minister that someone could, as things stand, take a transfer value from part of his occupational pension, put it into a personal pension and straightaway draw his personal pension with no abatement of unemployment benefit. It seems to me that the discrepancy will occur quite soon. Therefore, I am led to wonder why the Government do not introduce a simple amendment into Clause 6 without more ado.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I first follow up what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who, as your Lordships know, speaks on
436
these matters with very great authority and practical experience. As I listened to him, I too could not understand why a distinction was sought to be made for the purposes of the clause between the occupational and personal pensions which are now, as the noble Lord said, being so very widely earned and organised. I should be very interested to hear from my noble friend, when he comes to reply, whether it is intended to introduce an amendment to the Bill putting personal pensions in the same category as occupational ones, or whether there is some subtle—and certainly to my mind incomprehensible—distinction in the Government's mind between the treatment of these two forms of pension.
As to the general merits of the matter, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Swann, I take, on the whole, the Government's view. I believe that where someone has retired at 55 on an occupational pension it is difficult to treat that person as being completely in the employment market. If they are living on an occupational pension or mainly supported by an occupational pension, their position is different from that of the rest of us who expect to earn our living at least until we reach retirement pension age.
I come now to one remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in the course of a speech which she will not mind me saying was of some length. I do not put it more strongly, although I think from what I heard behind me one or two noble Lords may have been disposed to do so. I always try to treat the noble Baroness with the same courtesy as she treats me. But she said something to which I am bound to say I take great exception. She said that noble Lords on this side of the House did not take the proposals in the Bill seriously. Of course, she is completely wrong. Noble Lords on this side, as on the other side of the House, take a very serious and real interest in our highly complicated system of social security.
For my own part, I spent six-and-a-half years in the department covering pensions and national insurance which I believe is still a record period of service. I very much resent, as I would on behalf of my noble friends, any suggestion that, though our views may be and are very different from those of the noble Baroness and her noble friends, we have at least as keen an interest and concern for the system as she has.
Indeed, the speech of the noble Baroness had for me a certain nostalgic effect. It was so much the type of speech which others—perhaps including the noble Baroness—used to make in another place. The actual number of the clauses are different, but the general, somewhat querulous approach to the proposed changes was very familiar indeed. Whatever inconsistency the Labour Party can be accused of—and heaven knows, in the present situation, there are a great many—inconsistency in its attitude on social security legislation is not a charge which will lie. It seems always to have an extraordinary resistance to any changes which result in reduced expenditure in one direction, even though part and parcel of that reduction is an improvement in the provision in others. The noble Baroness showed this afternoon that her party has an automatic reaction against any reduction.

437
Those of your Lordships who have been concerned in the administration of social security, as I confess I have, know perfectly well that this is a living system which has to adopt, and adapt to, the different needs of the time. Part of the art or technique of social security administration is the technique of shifting resources from directions in which at one time they were probably quite appropriately expended into others where there is need to meet changing social conditions. It is really obscurantist—if the noble Baroness does not mind me saying so—to take the view that any reduction taken by itself must be wrong. If a living system is to operate, there must be a continual movement within it with an increase and improvement in some directions and a reduction in others.
The noble Baroness did not really touch upon what is the essence of our social security system and has been so since Beveridge—that social security falls into two different areas. There are the contributory benefits—unemployment, retirement pensions and sickness—obtainable as a right in return for contributions and fulfilment of the contribution conditions. Then, there is the other half, the area of provision for the relief of hardship. On the contributory basis, I believe there is little dispute between the sides of the House. Naturally, we argue as to what should be the exact rate. Of course, when we are in opposition we say it should be higher; that is an ordinary reflex of politicians. However, the main structure of the system has a considerable measure of all-party support. But when one comes to the relief of hardship measures, there is a real difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House.
Lord Ennals: Hear, hear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad for once that I carry the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with me. The shock to my system is almost overwhelming and conjures up the idea in my mind that I may well be wrong.
There is a difference in philosophy, and I am trying to put this seriously to your Lordships. For many years it has been the policy of Conservative governments in this area of the relief of hardship to concentrate as much as possible of resources on the areas of greatest need and to accept that the areas of greatest need themselves change with changing conditions in our society.
As an example of what is being done now in this Bill, perhaps I may quote to your Lordships what was said on 27th October last year by the present Secretary of State, Mr. Moore:
"Thus, more will be spent on families overall, hut the greatest emphasis will be on those with the greatest needs". [Official Report, Commons, 27/10/87; col. 181.]
That is the key approach to the philosophy. It is borne out, as your Lordships will be aware, by the fact that an extra £220 million is being spent on the new family credit. It will cost more than double the existing family income supplement and its associated benefits. Above all, there will be 470,000 low income families who will benefit from it, which is more than double the number being helped now. That is a very
438
good example of the operation of the philosophy to which I was referring—the philosophy of concentrating on where the need is greatest.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me? Before the noble Lord leaves the point of the area of greatest need and the area of hardship, can he say what fairness there is in seeking to cash limit hardship? Surely hardship is a need which has to he met and it is not a matter which can simply be decided by the money that is available on a cash limited account. Is it not grossly unfair and not in any way linked with acts of hardship?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Lord has really got the point when he talks about cash limiting hardship. I know he is talking about the social fund. But there is no reason whatever to believe that the operation of that fund, with the alleviations and the concessions which have already been mentioned, is going to cash limit hardship. It may well be sensible to have in mind, in dealing with these matters, some idea of what the figure is going to be. It is foolish to go in for an acceptance of unlimited liabilities without any understanding of how the funds are to be obtained. With respect to the noble Lord I do not believe that his intervention really takes the matter, or his case, any further.
On the other side—the reduction of benefit entitlements—I very strongly applaud the provisions in Clause 4. These appeared in my party's election manifesto and therefore it would appear that the people of this country approved them. I believe that few things can be worse for young people than going on social security, income support, unemployment benefit, or whatever it may be, straight from school in order to be paid to do nothing. That must be thoroughly demoralising, not to say dangerous, for young people.
The Youth Training Scheme is successful and expanding. We have allowances paid under it which are higher than the amounts of income support that the young person outside the scheme would have obtained. So there can be no suggestion of hardship where fit young people are concerned. It is good to give them financial encouragement to take advantage of opportunities to acquire training which will fit them for a job when they leave the scheme. Nothing could be worse than to give them encouragement to remain without training, living on public benefit—a pointless existence without any of the ambitions or the incentives which they will obtain under the Youth Training Scheme.
I anticipate any intervention from the noble Lord opposite by saying that it has been realised that there will be some people—very few—who cannot go into the Youth Training Scheme because of' physical disability. It has been made clear that they will continue to receive benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said "Why do this because only a few young people do not join the Youth Training Scheme?" If the noble Lord is right—and I very much hope he is—what harm is done by enacting this provision? If it he that it will only operate on a very limited number of people,

439
surely that is a matter for rejoicing and for congratulation. On the other hand, if even a few are to be tempted to the demoralising life of a young unemployed person—and in this House and in another place I have heard a number of speeches about the terrible demoralisation of unemployment and its effect on the young—and a limited number of them can be freed from that by this sensible and intelligent scheme, then it is a further argument for it.
The other points on the Bill are important but separate. The Second Reading stage is more an opportunity for your Lordships to discuss the philosophy of a Bill and the general approach, given that at Committee stage individual clauses, their merits or demerits, can be carefully looked at, as no doubt they will be. I stress again to the noble Baroness that they will be looked at very carefully from this side as well as from her own side of the Chamber.
The Bill is only one in a long series. It will be followed by many others. Social security is not only one of the biggest areas of public expenditure in this country; it is one of the major activities of the British Government. A British Government worth their salt are continually keeping an eye on it, seeking to improve it and to adapt it to the changing circumstances of a changing age. This Bill is one of that series.
No doubt we shall differ on many of the details but the approach and the philosophy seem to me to be right. I am very glad indeed that despite a very heavy legislative programme and a particularly heavy burden on the Department of Health and Social Security, the Government have come forward with this Bill to strengthen our social security system which means so much to a very large number of the least fortunate of our fellow citizens.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I wish to speak at no great length on one single issue; that is, the potential effect of the Social Security Bill on those suffering from industrial injuries. The effect of the changes proposed, with those already introduced, will weaken the support offered to those suffering industrial injuries; it will increase the amount of litigation in connection with industrial accidents; and it will undermine the purposes which lay behind the all-party support for the principles of the 1946 Industrial Injuries Act.
The debate in the other place in 1944 on the White Paper outlining the proposed industrial injuries scheme expressed a unanimous desire to introduce the new scheme to replace workmen's compensation. There was a desire for justice for injured workpeople and there was support for a new scheme which would remove the friction of litigation between employers and employees. They said that the scheme itself would promote the smooth working of industry and allow for the work of caring for dependants and rehabilitating the injured in cases of industrial injury. Less and less with the changes introduced are those objectives being achieved. The changes proposed in
440
the Social Security Bill will further distance us from that achievement.
The changes proposed are these: ending the entitlement to reduced earnings allowance when recipients retire from regular employment; replacing it with a lower payment; freezing its payment at current cash levels for those already retired, and abolishing the industrial death benefit. There were in 1985 147,000 people in receipt of the reduced earnings allowance, and 69,000 of those received their allowance with pensions.
The reduced earnings allowance has continued to be paid into retirement because it has been accepted that a reduction in earnings levels leads to a reduced pension entitlement. It is now proposed to pay a retirement allowance at the rate of 25 per cent.—one-quarter—of the retired earnings allowance, and to freeze the payments of current allowances. As my noble friend Lady Jeger said, these measures will cut expenditure on industrial injury benefits by £2 million in 1989–90, rising to £10 million in 1991–92. More important, they will cut the protection to those needing it.
Industrial death benefit is paid to the widow of a person who dies from an industrial disease or accident. Now it is proposed that the widows of men killed by work accidents or diseases will receive the same benefits as other widows. What needs to be recognised is that the compensation in fatal industrial accident and disease cases has always been inadequate. It has failed to provide for the widows of young men left to bring up children on benefits when they expected to be supported by a partner in work. In this area in particular improvements, not cuts, are needed.
However, the significance of these proposed changes is magnified when added to the changes already made. Since 1st October 1986 industrial disablement benefit has only been payable for new claims where disablement resulting from an industrial accident or disease is assessed at 14 per cent. or more. The result is that more and more people resort to litigation, which the Industrial Injuries Act was designed to avoid.
Other allowances have gone as well. In 1987, the hospital treatment allowance was abolished and the unemployent supplement was abolished. The need for a system to compensate people for injury or death at work remains strong. There has been a marked increase in the number of reported major industrial injuries for manufacturing and construction between 1981 and 1985. The industrial death rate from accidents at work was constantly high over that period, at somewhat more than 400 deaths a year. There were over 132,000 non-fatal accidents in 1985. The figures for 1986 further reflect this growth in non-fatal major accidents.
Our most precious asset is our workforce. Its protection and support from the ravages of its work must be one of our major concerns. That concern is not shown in the Social Security Bill.
4.55 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, it is not difficult to understand the reasons Her Majesty's

441
Government have brought this Bill before us. The demands made upon the National Insurance Fund have increased enormously, particularly during this Government's term in office. The elderly are living longer, and there are many more unemployed. It is the Government's policy to reduce public expenditure and thus the burden on the taxpayer. I cannot be critical of that objective. However. I find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning behind some of the measures put before us in this Bill. They seem to apply with unreasonble harshness to particular groups, especially the young.
It is clear that the Treasury does not approve of universal benefits. The debate about child benefit is a long-standing one, and I have no doubt that we shall hear more during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. There have been emotive debates in another place about the payment of attendance allowance. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the difficulties of chronic and severe ill-health, and I find this depressing.
Clause 4 of this Bill is one of the least acceptable, as we have heard from other noble Lords. Unless a 16 or 17 year-old has the fortune to obtain work, is in full-time education or has an indulgent parent, he or she must attend a Youth Training Scheme. There are many objections to making the YTS compulsory, not least the fact that its success has depended on its being voluntary. Youngsters who attend colleges for further study on a part-time basis are not provided for in this Bill, and are thus deprived of an opportunity to improve their chances of obtaining satisfactory employment. It is the children of low income families who will suffer most from this omission.
The measures in this clause are complex, and as a result will deter deserving young people from claiming income support. One group which immediately comes to mind is those who suffer from a degree of mental or physical handicap which is not disabling to the extent of being sickness. They struggle to overcome the stigma of being handicapped, and may not perceive themselves as falling into that category. They may be unable to read, write or do simple sums; their ability to concentrate for any length of time may be impaired, or they may not be able to stand up to the physical demands of a full day at work.
They are not workshy. Many are deeply upset that no one seems to want them as employees, and they try incredibly hard to succeed. Their entitlement to income support is governed by regulations, and the list published during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place is exceedingly complicated. The need to prove severe hardship to civil servants in Whitehall will be an added deterrent, as they will he unable to present their case personally and there is no certainty that all the facts will be made known.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out, the use of regulatory powers by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security is increasing, and needs to be questioned. I wonder why, in Clause 12, England warrants 13 "prescribes" while Scotland warrants only 11. Again, there is no reason why the list of groups of young people entitled
442
to income support should not appear in this Bill. It will then receive full discussion and will be capable of amendment. There is also a need for the Secretary of State to publish guidelines for his definition of "severe hardship", and for an independent appeal procedure to be retained.
Clause 7 has also caused some concern and needs clarifying. I should like to ask the Minister what is meant by "any other body" in subsection (1)(b). If it is to be voluntary bodies such as the Salvation Army or Help the Aged, can the Secretary of State be certain that they will have the facilities to make emergency payments and that they will be willing to do so?
I understand that after the recent hurricane disaster the manager of a DHSS office in Ipswich instructed claimants to go to the Suffolk County Council social services department for payment of benefits. This created some difficulties, as there had been no prior consultation between the departments, and they were already in dispute with one another over previous payments.
If the arrangement is to work there must be prior consultation between departments and other agencies. There must also he clear rules about reimbursement. I understand that the DHSS calculated costs at £1.50 per transaction, while Suffolk County Council says that its costs were nearer £5. What will "reasonable administrative expenses" include? Some local authorities are extremely short of staff in their social services departments. Cleveland is one example. Will they be able to engage temporary staff, or draft in staff from other departments; for instance, from the county council treasurer's department? Does the Minister consider it reasonable that a local authority should advertise the arrangements in its local press? As it is only in emergencies that this clause will he required. its terms should be clear.
The Minister will be aware of the anxiety expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee. the Social Security Consortium and other bodies about the social fund. Noble Lords have also mentioned their anxiety. The Social Security Advisory Committee described it as,
"both unworkable and unfair In applicants".
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also made that point. Claimants who have recourse to the fund are already on very low weekly incomes, and it is feared that deducting weekly loan repayments from their benefits will reduce their income below subsistence level. There have been a number of cases where elderly, chronically sick people or claimants with young children have been deprived of such essentials as beds and cookers since the single payment scheme came into force in August 1986. Charities have been unable to cope with the demands made upon their resources, and there has been an increase in serious debt. Will the Minister say what proposals there are for monitoring the effects of the social fund, and for avoiding hardship and poverty?
I wonder whether the Minister will give credence to a report in New Society of 22nd January 1988. The report is headed "Social funding", and says:

443
"Robin Birch, the affable DHSS undersecretary in charge of the social fund, happily declared at a recent seminar that no less than 18 per cent. of the money set aside for the fund would be spent on administration. No scrimping here, he assured his audience; there would he plenty of social fund officers to ensure fair play. But hang on a minute. Wasn't the whole point of the social security reviews to cut the cost of paying out benefits? In two short years the shame of the old system has become the pride of the new".
Can the Minister say whether that 18 per cent. will be deducted from money already allocated to local offices, or whether it will be in addition to that money?
I believe that the National Insurance Fund was originally created to alleviate poverty and anxiety for those unable, for reasons of age, unemployment or sickness, to provide for themselves. The foundations of a scheme which has provided security for our citizens for 40 years are steadily being eroded and the principle that those who are able should support those who are not has been replaced by "Let the strongest man win". Is this really what we want?
5.3 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I always find it
somewhat difficult when speaking on the subject of social security to refrain from lecturing the Government on my own pet hobbyhorse of the reorganisation of social finance, which would make it simpler, better and so on. This is not perhaps an appropriate occasion on which to do so but I could point out that simplification of the system has one overwhelming virtue. We would not have every 18 months, sometimes 12 months, or at even shorter intervals, yet another Social Security Bill to go through both Houses.
Simplification has one other massive virtue which is that people can actually understand it. I very much suspect that one of the problems in social security— not only in its uptake but in its uses and values—is that people frequently do not understand it and are certainly unable to comprehend their exact entitlements. This leads to the creation of yet another industry. In-house, as we have heard from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, there are large increases in personnel in the social security department to explain how people should fill in forms, what their entitlements are and so on, while outside there are other agencies fulfilling similar functions.
Those Members of your Lordships' House who sat in another place will remember that one of their major functions week after week was trying to understand and unravel the legislation before writing letters to the appropriate Minister. I should have thought that letters to the Department of Health and Social Security were by far the most common that one sent. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is nodding. He was on the receiving end of quite a large number of such letters; no doubt, he found the same slight irritation with the to-and-fro of that correspondence.
I was going to say a few words about the Youth Training Scheme and the loss of benefit to people under the age of 18. However, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said nearly all that I intended to say, which has had two benefits. First, he has
444
expressed it better; and secondly, it has shortened my own speech. I would ask only one question. When the Minister comes to reply, will he explain the likely consequences of this provision to those in further education, allowing for the 21-hour rule and so forth? I am not absolutely clear what is the Government's position—even after the Committee stage in another place.
Bearing in mind the endless reports we have had over the years about the difficulty of the transition from school to work, and, if I may say so, the fact that the anti-work ethic has so often been promulgated in certain areas of our education establishments, I think it is true that the YTS scheme has a significant advantage and has been a great success. That is probably universally agreed. It is a useful undertaking. It provides people not only with work skills and training but with work experience which is so important for them in the many years, one hopes, after they become 18.
One would have greater anxieties but for the fact that numerous guarantees have been built in. Not least is the guarantee that each young person will have a place on YTS and that the disabled, one-parent families and various others who are likely to suffer from hardship will be taken care of. However, I shall not remain on this point; my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has already expressed much of what I was going to say. I shall therefore turn to the other matter I was going to address. I refer to the question of the attendance allowance.
I have dealt with more attendance allowance matters, questions and forms than probably any other noble Lord sitting in the House. On the whole I have not found the Attendance Allowance Board altogether ungenerous in the way that it approaches the granting of attendance allowance, whether at the lower rate—that is, day or night—or at the higher rate—day and night. It has always been understood by those dealing with the matter that those who attended at night but who did not actually carry out a specific medical or nursing function were not entitled to attendance allowance. That was the interpretation before Mrs. Moran took the DHSS to court and won; and all credit to her. However, it raises the point—and this has nothing to do with the question of hardship referred to by the noble Baroness and by the noble Countess—that it is almost impossible to define what is a higher rate attendance allowance on a standby basis when one considers the number of people who could then claim to require attendance allowance on a standby basis.
I would imagine that very large numbers of elderly people with dependants who were previously carrying on reasonably normally in the community in an expected, if not an ideal, circumstance, might then have a question of a claim. I do not say that this claim would necessarily be granted because clearly the next thing that would happen, following the Moran case, would be the introduction of various prescribed regulations to control any abuse of the system. But that, again, would make the system more complicated.
I hope that the attendance board, after the passing of this Bill, and with this change, will nonetheless

445
interpret the question of the full allowance with very considerable compassion. I hope that it will do so with the greatest possible allowance in favour of the applicant rather than in favour of the regulations. On the whole, in most cases that one comes across, this has fortunately in the past happened.
I am very sorry to see that the noble Lord who introduced the attendance allowance in 1971, who was sitting on my right just now, has left the Chamber. I recall very well how much I and some others welcomed the situation at that time. It has always been one of the more important and helpful aspects of social security. And, if I remember correctly, it had very considerable bipartisan support.
I do not believe that this particular change, had it been left unaltered, would have been beneficial to the system as a whole. This is one of those situations where— supporting again what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said—there may be a difference of opinion. I trust that that is not so with regard to the question of compassion or the relief of hardship.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, this is not the first time
that I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, in your Lordships' House and it does not embarrass me one bit to be able to say that I agreed with the sense of most of what he said, as I did on the previous occasion when I followed him. I should like to be able to say the same about the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but I cannot agree that the main reason for introducing the Bill is the changing scene.
I accept that there is a changing scene and that there will be changes in legislation; there will be Bills to follow Bills. That is accepted. What I cannot understand or accept is that that is a sound reason for the rapidity with which Bills are being brought before us under the present administration—not only rapidity, but sometimes they arrive on our Order Paper overlapping legislation that has not yet been implemented, as on this occasion. I suggest that that cannot be just because of the changing scene, I think that there are other reasons, and I shall mention two possible reasons for getting another Bill so soon after the introduction of the long, controversial 1986 edition.
That was an enormous Bill. As your Lordships will remember, it had 90 clauses and 11 schedules. It followed too the much vaunted review of the social security services carried out during Secretary of State Fowler's period of office. It made substantial changes to pensions, income-related benefits, maternity benefit, industrial injury benefit, funeral benefit, housing benefit and much more besides. The Bill was opposed in the other place and it was opposed in your Lordships' House, as it was by all informed and involved people outside Parliament who are concerned with the interests of the social security system.
I and many others on this side of the Chamber said then that it was ill thought out, it had been rushed and cobbled together, it was far too long and it should have been two Bills; perhaps even four. That Bill was guillotined in the other place; important new
446
clauses were introduced and barely discussed during the Committee stage there. In fact some were introduced after the guillotine had been imposed and that further prevented discussion of very important issues. Now it is necessary to correct errors in that Act, and that is no fault of the draughtsman, who must be working under intolerable pressure to produce these marathon Bills.
So the first reason for this Bill is to correct errors and the consequences of those errors in the 1986 Act. Almost half the clauses—Clauses 2, 3, 8, 10, 11 and 12—are in the Bill mainly to correct errors in the 1986 Act. Other clauses, as has been pointed out, introduce further changes.
The second reason, in my view, for the Bill applies to all other social security legislation since 1979. We can say this and repeat it as often as we possibly can, because it is true. The reason is to effect savings in public expenditure. The 1982 think tank report set the scene, and it is worth reminding ourselves of the relevant parts of the report as stated in the Economist of 12th September 1982. I kept my copy of that cutting. I shall not repeat all it said, but after reporting the origin of the think tank report the article went on:
"If the Thatcher government is serious about cutting public expenditure, argues the paper, then it must consider some radical alternatives in the four areas that account for the lion's share of public expenditure: education, social security, health and defence. The think tank deals with each one in turn.".
I shall not mention education and defence because they are not relevant to this debate but the other two are. The think tank paper said on social security:
"Big savings can be made, says the paper, if all social security payments—from pensions to supplementary benefits- no longer rise in line with inflation".
On health:
"The paper suggests replacing the national health service with private health insurance: this could save £3 billion £4 billion a year from a 1982 83 health budget of £10 billion. The problem is that the less well-oft might underinsure, so the paper suggests that there might have to he a compulsory minimum of private insurance for everyone. In the meantime savings could he made by charging for visits to the doctor and more for drugs".
Those two are relevant and justify my reason for saying that the Bill is to effect public expenditure savings.
It was against the background of that document that the then Secretary of State announced his wide-ranging review of the social security system. The position was pretty evident to all and the Social Security Consortium summed it up adequately for me when it said:
"The review was doomed from the outset by the Treasury's stipulation that it must not increase spending on social security, regardless of what unmet needs were identified, and regardless of the resources devoted to the 'other welfare state' of tax reliefs and allowances. The Treasury regarded the review as a way of finding money through benefit cuts, in order to fund further reductions in taxation".
I think again that that adequately sums up that part of it.
But the result of that review was the 1986 Act, which was rushed through against all opposition. Only in the past few months have we been able to study and debate some of the regulations and benefit rates arising from that Act, and there are more to

447
come. These regulations and rates have not even yet been implemented let alone monitored, and we have this other Bill, the 1987 version. You cannot justify that by saying that the scene is changing rapidly. That cannot be possible.
I wish that I had time to go through the whole Bill but I shall content myself with comments on one or two of the proposed changes. Other speakers have mentioned them, so I shall be able to cut down my speech quite a bit. To me Clause 1 clearly shows the extent to which this Government are prepared to go to find money through benefit cuts. This clause reverses the ruling of the Court of Appeal on 13th March 1987 in the case of Mrs. Moran, an epileptic, who was claiming the higher rate of benefit because her condition was such that she came under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1975. The Court of Appeal agreed that she satisfied the night condition as well as the day condition and was therefore eligible for the higher rate of benefit. That ruling obviously affects other cases.
I am not saying that that is the reason—or is it a possible reason?—for the Government deciding so quickly to rush through another piece of legislation in order to reverse the court ruling. Or is it normal procedure for this Government to ignore court rulings? If the courts get in the way, then they will change the rules: "If they do not satisfy us and will cost us public expenditure, we must change the rules and when we change them we will worsen them at the same time, if we can possibly get some more revenue from the deal".
I thought that that was fairly shabby. I think that most people who read that judgment and who were involved, as we were, in the details and in the run-up to Mrs. Moran's case, felt at the end that it was a good judgment which benefited many disabled people. It was possibly the greatest advance for some of them for many years. Any Government who dare to reverse that decision deserve all they get.
As has been said, Clause 4 raises the minimum age at which income support benefit can be claimed independently. It is raised from 16 to 18 years. The position outlined in the National Assistance Act 1948 has been mentioned. I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who always seems to get my hackles up. There was a period of comparative full employment in 1948. There was not much unemployment in 1948. The National Assistance Act provides:
"No application for assistance shall be made by a person who has not attained the age of 16 years".
and yet the noble Lord says that he can justify the change in conditions.
In other words, the change is that there is now mass unemployment; more young people are unemployed and in more difficulty than ever before. He says that we can change the conditions because there is the possibility of a place on a training scheme. As yet there is no assured place and no assured job at the end of training. He says we can now change the conditions because of the changing scene.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it has been stated that YTS will cover all those who desire to take part in it; therefore the only fit people who would be left drawing benefit would be voluntarily unemployed young persons?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not accept that what the noble Lord says is entirely true. However, I hope we shall go into that in Committee. By that time rather than skirt over this, perhaps we shall be able to see the size of the problem and the exact nature of the proposals that are before us.
It has long been the Government's intention to change the age from 16 to 18. It is not a question of it happening because of a changing scene. Let me give a few examples. When YTS was first announced in a 1981 White Paper on new training initiatives, the intention was to remove the right to supplementary benefit from 16 year-olds. Those proposals met with considerable opposition. The Manpower Services Commission was afraid that YTS would be undermined by reluctant recruits. That is nothing to do with us; that was the MSC. The CBI and the TUC argued that YTS would only work if it was voluntary, and the Government accepted that.
The current situation, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is that there are penalties and restraints upon youngsters who refuse a YTS place. There is now a 40 per cent. reduction in benefit entitlement for 13 weeks. There is also a complete ban under the 1975 Act for a youngster who refuses to go on a course without just cause. Clause 26 of the Employment Bill now before Parliament reinforces that disqualification. We understand from all our research that those restraints are being implemented and they work. Therefore, as we have said, there is only the minimum left.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who said that this was a steamroller to crack a nut. Or are the Government hedging their options against future youth mass unemployment; or are they merely removing at least 110,000 or 120,000 people from the unemployment register? Are we preparing for another massive reduction in unemployment by the massage method? It could be any one of those, but it is not as some noble Lords opposite have said.
The 1984 reviews of the social security system did not mention the change, or said little about it. The Green Paper and the White Paper that emerged from those proposals said nothing about the position of 16 to 17 year-olds. The 1985–86 Bill was debated. There was a long discussion on an amendment to remove this benefit from 16 to 17 year-olds in Committee in the other place. The amendment was opposed by everyone, including the Minister of State, and at the end of the debate—that is as recently as 1985–86—the amendment was defeated by 25 votes to one.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others, mentioned the manifesto. I read the manifesto and the Queen's speech. The Queen's speech stated:
"My Government will consult the Manpower Services Commission with a view to providing a comprehensive employment service for unemployed people. There will be guaranteed places on the Youth Training Scheme for school leavers under 18 who do not go into employment. Legislation will he introduced to enable benefit to be withheld from those who refuse a place".

449
That is different from saying that legislation will be introduced to enable benefit to be cut from everyone over the age of 16. That is what is said in the legislation. It is not saying what the manifesto said. I hope that we shall argue that issue in Committee because it is important.
The Government estimate that in removing the general entitlement to income support from the 16 to 17 year-olds, as the Minister said (our figures vary) they will save about £95 million, with some minor offsets (and they can be argued) on the income support and child benefit side. If the provision is passed, the raising of the age to 18 will take effect from September 1988; that is this year. That would be in time to affect this year's 75,000 summer school-leavers. I suppose they will disappear from the unemployment register. Perhaps there will be another speech.
There are grave doubts in my mind as there must he in the minds of others given the rapidity and the complexity of the changes. They are not easy to administer. Therefore there must be grave doubts as to whether they can he in position and functioning before September this year. I doubt it, because I am still aware of the housing benefit changes. They were cobbled together and rushed through in similar circumstances. They misfired and caused tremendous hardships, and they still do, to thousands of people who are in need. There were delays and difficulties in implementation because of the bureaucracy that was arranged around them.
Clause 5 also concerns me. It tightens up the contribution conditions for unemployment and sickness benefit. My noble friend Lord Barnett also mentioned this. The clause makes it harder for people to satisfy the contribution conditions. Again I hope we shall discuss the details in Committee. But, if the provision is passed, the restrictions will affect married women returning to work. What is laudable about that? As has already been said, it will again affect young people because they will not have had time to build up a record of several years' continuous work and thereby qualify through their contributions. No one can understand such an attack on youngsters and married women.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that 350,000 people could be affected and would lose entitlement to unemployment benefit. If they lost entitlement to unemployment benefit, they would automatically drop off the register and again those numbers would disappear from the unemployment register—if those figures are correct. It is true that if they satisfy some other conditions they might qualify for income support instead. However, income support for them would be at a lower level than their previous benefit; and the provision also contains a capital rule which does not obtain for the other benefits. There is a capital rule for income support, as I understand it. We know that at least 10,000 people will lose all benefit and will drop off the unemployment figures.
The clause will result in public expenditure savings, after allowing for income support payments, of £10 million in 1988–89, rising to £70 million in 1990–91. Should the Minister think I have the figures wrong, they are in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill.
450
Therefore, I assume that they are at least only half right.
If I had the time to go on further, I should like to speak about the changes which worsen the conditions of occupational pensioners and others, but that subject has already been mentioned. We shall have further opportunities to discuss it.
I conclude with a few words about the most controversial part of the Bill, Clause 10 and Schedule 3, the social fund. From what I have read so far I share the concern expressed in Committee in another place and by all the voluntary organisations involved with social security issues, including the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee. After thorough consideration of the effects of the draft manual of the fund, it had this to say:
"A wholly regulated scheme and one which is purely discretionary both have their drawbacks. The Draft Manual attempts to mitigate the problem of local variation in the use of discretion by imposing binding directions on SFOs and by the use of very detailed guidance. We believe that the result is fettered discretion"—
lovely phrase—
"importing some of the rigidity of the regulated system but without the advantage of certainty of entitlement and accompanying appeal rights and without ensuring that similar cases will he treated in a similar way".
The Government's Social Security Advisory Committee has now made it clear that the social fund proceeds without its support. It should have been enough for the Government to say, "Well, let's have another look". But no, they are battering on ahead. I certainly share the concern.
I have tried to justify my contention about the two main reasons for the Bill's appearance in the House. Government spokesmen have said that these measures are intended to simplify the system. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, was on the same point: they certainly will not. On the contrary, the further involvement of local authority and social services departments will make the situation even more complicated because we envisage a completely new role for social workers. I do not know whether they have discussed this, but they will be in a very difficult situation with some of the cases which will naturally go to them as a result of this legislation. So it will certainly not simplify the system, and it may well complicate it.
The Government say that the legislation will make the system fairer. I do not see that any case has been made out for that whatsoever. They say they are intent on targeting the needs. I cannot believe that they are in tune with the needs of claimants when I read some of the clauses in this Bill. The new Secretary of State in another place, Mr. Moore, said in a recent speech that his ambition was to encourage individual independence. The Minister described the new social fund as a way of reducing dependency. Of course the social fund, as I read it, may well reduce dependency on the state because it reduces access to state benefits. But it is likely to result, as has already been said, in other forms of dependency; on charities, on moneylenders and on loan sharks, with all the problems that that will entail. I hope that we shall make considerable and constructive changes during the Committee stage.
5.30 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, of the many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon most are very concerned about one aspect or another of this Bill. Clause 1 worries organisations of and for disabled people. They have argued since the passing of the Social Security Act 1986 that it did not do enough for disabled people. Some severely disabled people claiming for the first time in April 1988 will receive considerably less financial assistance from the benefits system than they would have done under the present system. In some cases, their needs are so great that, if no help is given, their lives could be in danger. The Secretary of State for Social Services recognised that there were some people who would not benefit under the new system. In the Official Report in another place on 27th October 1987, he is reported as saying:
"Clearly, those who register after 1st April 1988 will come under the scope of the new system, but we must find a way of targeting more effectively those few people whom we have not been able to recognise in the system".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/87; col. 191.]
The Government initially argued that any financial gaps could be plugged by voluntary and social services and by help from the social fund. But organisations for disabled people believe that there is no way in which local social service departments who are already making staff cuts can be expected to fill the gaps in care which it would seem the new income support scheme would create.
It would also seem unreasonable to suggest that overstretched and under-resourced voluntary organisations would be able to take on extra duties. This brings me to Clause 10, the social fund. What happens if a disabled person applies for a grant after a particular office has exhausted its budget for that financial year? It would seem that under the proposed social fund regulations if a loan is turned down then the applicant must wait six months before reapplying. Furthermore, all loans and grants made by the social fund are discretionary. Disability organisations therefore do not believe that the social fund is an acceptable way of distributing benefit.
The Social Security Bill offers the Government the ideal opportunity to show compassion and understanding by looking at the situation again, especially for the severely disabled. One way in which such people could be helped would be by a supplement to the attendance allowance. Would the Government consider this? It would give severely disabled people the help they need.
The National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind are two charities which are concerned with the social fund as defined in Clause 10. There are two areas of concern to them: those who are deaf-blind and living at home who require both parents full-time at home simply to maintain a family situation. Likewise, the multi-handicapped blind living at home in the family need all the help and benefits they can get. Then there is the problem of single parent families. Not only have they to contend with the disabled child but with loneliness as well.
The social fund regulations which come into force in April 1988 embody a principle which is a
452
significant departure from the practice since 1948. This means that the claimant will be advised by social fund officers to seek help from relatives first—that is, supposing they have any. I wonder how members of the Government as individuals would feel if they had to do so. Then, after their relatives, claimants are to apply to charities before a loan is made from the social fund. The regulations of many charities required them to try to ensure that before making a grant available to an applicant all statutory benefits have first been claimed. The Social Security Act coming into force in 1988 seems to reverse this. Moreover, many people would quite naturally feel chary of approaching their relatives for assistance.
The trouble with the loan from the social fund is that those who it is felt will be unable to repay it will be refused a loan, thus causing poor families to become even poorer and to be caught in the poverty trap. There is a possibility of their being able to get a grant, but only in certain category cases. Would the Minister please agree to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look again at this situation? Many charities are afraid that as they will very often have to say that they are unable to help, not only will this mean social workers having to write letters on behalf of their clients to many charities which they feel might be able to help, but for the charities themselves there will be a knock-on effect. People will say, "Oh, that charity did not help me, why should we help it'?" Hence a fundraising effort could be a disaster for the charity.
I have grave misgivings about the principle of loans in place of grants. Of the £200 million in the social fund, £140 million—nearly three-quarters—is earmarked for loans. If one approaches a bank manager for a loan he will immediately ask about collateral. In this case loans would be made to people who are not likely to have any collateral. In their desperate state they may well accept loans without the slightest possibility of repayment unless they are to encounter severe hardship—for instance, having deductions made for the payment of fuel bills. It is known that many families are forced to economise on food and are frequently at a dangerous low nutritional level. This can put the health of both children and parents at risk. It would seem to me that the social fund loan system would enhance that risk.
The most disastrous aspect of the social fund appears to me to be that many of the poorest members of the community will get no help at all from the social fund. Where the social fund officer judges that an individual is too poor to repay a loan, that individual will be turned away empty-handed unless a no-repay loan is made. This mocks the Government's alleged principle that assistance is to be targeted on those most in need.
The Social Security Advisory Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said, is intensely concerned about Clause 10 and the social fund. Perhaps I may hope that the Government will listen to the Committee and also that the Government will subscribe to the principles of the Good Samaritan.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have two confessions to make today. First, I have never spoken in a social security debate before; and, secondly, I am not sure that I know a great deal about social security itself. However, I have chosen to talk today because this is a very important sector of government policies and it is a major cost to the taxpayer. It is relevant to all of us, and not least to those people who receive benefit today. My contribution will be small because I am here to listen to what is said, and I have very much enjoyed doing so.
I particularly wish to talk about Clause 4 and the role of young people. I was a youth not so long ago, so perhaps it is appropriate for me to talk about that. I very much welcome the proposals under Clause 4, for several reasons. First, I have always felt that it is extremely sad for us as a modern, civilised nation to allow young people over 16 to simply leave school and opt for the dole. That is a negative option and, so far as I can see, creates a lower level of young who exist entirely from benefits. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said earlier about young people not wanting to be unemployed, but when they become unemployed they sometimes get used to it and find it very difficult to get out of it. I think that these proposals avoid that trap.
Secondly, these young people often leave school with the most rudimentary of skills, sometimes not even the essential scholastic skills, and have neither the incentive nor the ability to find a worthwhile job which could suit them.
Thirdly, in the longer term it creates a group who have no experience of disciplined, regular work and who will come to terms with that discipline only with great difficulty. I do not know the figures but I suspect that there must be a fair proportion of young people who have not held a job for some years, are now used to living on unemployment benefit and would find excuses to refuse a job if it was offered to them.
I believe this situation is untenable, and the Government would not be acting responsibly if it were allowed to continue. Many people condemn the YTS as purely being cheap labour for jobs no one else wants to do, but it is a scheme which has helped over 1 million young people, which costs the taxpayer over £1 billion and in which over 100,000 employers participate. It is perhaps not surprising that some people have not succeeded in seeing the benefits of the scheme and therefore condemn it as being a glorified form of cheap labour.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that jobs under the scheme lack any sort of quality; but I believe that with the virtual abolition of unemployment for 16 to 17 year-olds companies participating in the scheme will see their trainees as being their future lifeblood and produce the quality of jobs and training that we all so much desire. I am also pleased to see that the Government are giving those on the YTS a training allowance which has been set above the basic supplementary rates. Young people will therefore have an additional financial incentive to find work on the scheme. That can only be beneficial to their future development.
454
I also commend the Government for allowing a safety net for those young people who for a variety of reasons, such as disability or single parenthood, will still be eligible for benefit. These proposals show this Government's continued concern for young people. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said earlier that the Government did not care for young people. I do not believe that is so, because they have a desire to see young people back in worthwhile work. I know that there will be many comments to make on this Bill in Committee, and I look forward to that. In the meantime, I support this Bill's Second Reading.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this Bill, although short, is a very important one. It follows hard upon the heels of the comprehensive and far-reaching Act of 1986 and is based on very similar principles. I believe that it is a thoroughly bad Bill with very few, if any, redeeming features.
It seeks to make savings at the expense of the young, the disadvantaged, the disabled and, in the main, underprivileged people. Basically its philosophy is one of so-called targeting of benefits. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there is a difference in philosophy between our side of the House and his side of the House on this issue, because in my view the targeting is really a euphemism for the kind of means testing so hated by previous generations of poor people, and with good reason. That is why there is a relatively low take-up of means-tested benefits, even now. It is low compared with child benefit, which is a universal benefit, where take-up is of the order of around 100 per cent.
We on this side of the House are concerned about the Government's attitude to child benefit as a result of the refusal to uprate it. We would remind the Minister that child benefit has a very substantial degree of support in the country, where it is fully understood that it has taken the place of child tax allowances, which were not targeted but which were applied across the board to all who paid taxes.
I should like to deal with the Bill in a little detail because I want to give the House an idea of the areas where we shall be seeking amendments in Committee. First, I shall deal with Clause 1. As we have heard, this seeks to amend existing legislation about entitlement to attendance allowance at nighttime in order to come to terms with the Moran judgment. The Minister claims that the clause has not been introduced to save money, although it is clear that there will be some small savings. One wonders therefore why it is necessary to bother with it at all. Could the Government not have accepted that the Court of Appeal in the Moran case had interpreted the law in a compassionate and humane way and allow that to stand?
I think that the wording in Clause 1 will lead to all kinds of difficulties in practice. Some of these points have already been raised by other noble Lords this afternoon including the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and my noble friend Lord Stallard. We shall certainly be seeking to explore this further in Committee.

455
I now come to the clause dealing with industrial injuries benefits. It is fairly clear to me after some two and a half years in your Lordships' House that the Government do not much care for the industrial injuries scheme. The Social Security Act 1986 removed entitlement to disablement benefit for cases where disablement is assessed at less than 14 per cent. We on this side of the House opposed that at the time when the Bill was before your Lordships. I myself moved a couple of amendments, but without success. We now have a further erosion of the scheme; an ending of entitlement to reduced earnings allowance when recipients retire from regular employment and its replacement by a new benefit, retirement allowance, at the rate of 25 per cent. of the previous REA entitlement. Further, industrial death benefit is to cease for deaths after 11th April 1988 and there are other restrictions and cuts to which my noble friend Lord Basnett has already referred in some detail.
Provision for injured workers has had a somewhat chequered history in this country. Before the industrial injuries scheme was introduced by the Labour Government after the war there had been the Workmen's Compensation Act, under which an injured worker had to decide whether to opt for very small weekly compensation payments or whether he would sue his employer at common law for negligence. That was a pretty iniquitous system and it meant that in practice many employers got away with unsafe conditions because workers simply could not afford to forego the weekly payments and run the risk of not getting anything at all if they sued. I speak with some knowledge of that scheme because I started my working life working on employers' liability for a very large insurance company.
The industrial injuries scheme was an attempt at a no-fault system of compensation for industrial injuries, since an injured worker did not have to make that choice. Provided the accident arose out of or in the course of employment he or she could secure benefit under the industrial injuries scheme and could also sue at common law if it was believed that the accident was the result of negligence. However, the scheme has gradually been eroded. The replacement of the reduced earnings allowance by a retirement allowance of 25 per cent. of the maximum level of £25·80 per week will mean a benefit loss of around £19·35 per week for injured people. That is quite unacceptable to us.
The claim is that the changes will cut expenditure by £2 million in 1989 to 1990 and by £10 million by 1991 to 1992. Those savings are being made at the expense of people who have had accidents or suffered diseases at work. It is generally accepted that there are risks in going to work. That is why employers have to carry employers' liability insurance, although it must he said that only 10 per cent. of all accidents at work result in successful common law claims. Some work environments are hazardous no matter what the Health and Safety Executive does to improve health and safety standards. Moreover, the scheme is part of a separate insurance for which contributions have been paid. There is no case for a cutback of this nature. That is an area in which we
456
shall be seeking revision when the Bill is in the Committee stage.
I turn now to a clause which a number of your Lordships have described as the most controversial in the Bill. That is Clause 4, which seeks to remove entitlement to income support for persons between 16 and 18 years of age. That matter has already been discussed quite amply this afternoon. One of the aims of the clause appears to me to be not so much to encourage but to coerce young people into YTS schemes. However, as has already been said, it has always been the desire of the Manpower Services Commission that participation in YTS schemes should be voluntary. That is also the view of the TUC and the CBI.
Efforts have been made by many employers to improve the quality of YTS schemes, and we welcome that. However, the image of a cheap labour scheme with nothing very much at the end of it still clings to YTS. If that image is to be dispelled, we must ensure that the schemes provide high-quality training and proper opportunities for achieving recognisable qualifications. YTS should be able to attract young people. Coercion will be counterproductive. In any event, employers themselves are not happy about poorly motivated trainees, which is one of the reasons why the CBI has taken the view that it has over voluntary participation. Moreover, as a number of noble Lords have said, recent research appears to indicate that 91 per cent. of all unemployed school-leavers would actuall prefer some employment to receiving benefits. There is already substantial provision to prevent abuses of the benefit system.
There are other aspects of the proposals which give us cause for concern. Although the Minister says there will be protection for some young people suffering from severe hardship, that is to be a discretionary power in the hands of the Secretary of State. There is no indication that there will be any mechanism for appeal if a hardship application is rejected.
Subsection (3) of the clause seems likely to cause problems, since the net result would appear to be to make young persons entirely dependent on their parents. Moreover, there is a substantial difference between the amount of child benefit which will be payable and the current supplementary benefit—£18·75 per week at current levels, compared with £7·25 per week of child benefit. That in itself could place some strain on low income families. We believe that the Government's proposals in that part of the Bill are based on populist inaccuracies of the kind that have appeared in a number of newspapers and have been aired from time to time in the less reputable parts of the media. We are unhappy about that and we shall be seeking revisions at the Committee stage.
I turn now to Clause 5 and the proposal to tighten up contribution conditions for entitlement to unemployment benefit and to sickness benefit. In general, those provisions extend the period for which a person has to work and pay contributions both after first entering employment—for example, school-leavers, students, immigrants and so on—or on re-entering the employment market after a period

457
of absence such as is experienced by parents bringing up children and those caring for others at home. Most of those people are women, and indeed it is women who are most likely to be hit if the provisions become law unamended. They, more than men, are likely to have had an interrupted work pattern. In the main, they care for children and for the sick and disabled in the family. They will lose their right to unemployment pay in many instances and they will he forced on to income support instead of receiving unemployment benefit.
Clause 6 extends to people aged 55 or over the provisions first introduced in 1981 under which an unemployed person with an occupational pension suffers a reduction in unemployment benefit. That has already been dealt with to some extent by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Swann. It is estimated that such an extension to people of 55 would extinguish unemployment benefit for 27,000 people and would reduce benefit for 7,000 more. As several noble Lords have said, it would save £15 million in 1988–89, rising later to £65 million.
However, most people who take early retirement at 55 do so as a form of compulsory redundancy. I can speak with some knowledge of that matter because in my time as a union official I was responsible for negotiating a number of voluntary redundancy schemes. Few people of that age regard themselves as not being available for work. Most people would be only too happy to work if work was available for them. In many parts of the country it is not. They suffer reduced pensions because in most occupational schemes they have not reached normal retirement age and they therefore are not entitled to a full pension. If the Bill goes through unamended, it will make it more difficult for unions and employers to negotiate voluntary early retirements, particularly in areas where the prospect of obtaining alternative employment is slight.
Moreover, unemployment benefit is not a charity. It is a benefit for which payment has been made. The employee who retires early has paid both for his occupational pension, which in any event would be reduced, and for his unemployment benefit. If he or she can satisfy the condition of being available for work, he or she should be entitled to receive that benefit. I emphasise that the scheme is an insurance scheme. One wonders how a private insurance company would fare if it reneged on insurance contracts in that way. Again, that is an area where we shall he seeking amendment.
Turning to the social fund, there has been much criticism of the social fund concept, not only from our side of the House. In the main, our concerns are that the social fund will be cash limited, will give help through loans rather than grants, will be discretionary and will give no right of appeal to an independent tribunal. My noble friend Lady Jeger dealt with that matter at length. Concern about the Bill still remains. Since those who will be applying for assistance from the social fund are from the poorest in our society, how is it to be expected that they will be better able to cope if they are given loans which they must repay? We voiced our dissatisfaction with that provision when the Social Security Act was debated and we still oppose the whole idea.
458
Schedule 3, dealing with the social fund, indicates that further assistance will be available to those persons who require help with heating during the winter. The wording of Schedule 3 is very unclear. While I welcome any improvement, clearly it would be better if older people were entitled to a prescribed heating allowance to cover the winter months. That would remove the element of doubt and the insecurity which still remains with the wording that appears in Schedule 3. That has long been the policy demand of organisations with special concern for the care of the elderly. The Government should have heeded that, and Schedule 3 presented an opportunity to do something about it. We shall attempt to do that when the Bill is before your Lordships.
All the proposals in the Bill would effect savings, except that it is alleged that the extension of YTS will cost more. However, I do not think that investment in training, which should be undertaken anyway, should be set against social benefits affecting in the main poorer people and those least able to look after themselves. The Government's proclaimed philosophy is that people should be encouraged to stand on their own feet. The proposals in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, will have the effect of removing the benefits for which people have contributed and forcing them on to income support or means-tested benefit. That does not seem to me to
be necessary or desirable, particularly in circumstances in which we are constantly being told that the economy is improving, that the Chancellor has money to spare, that we are in surplus and that tax reductions could be on the way. That makes it even more imperative that we look after the disadvantaged and do not remove, in a quite exceptionally mean way, quite small benefits which nevertheless mean a lot to people who rely on them. I regret that the Government have seen fit to introduce this Bill and sincerely hope that it does not leave your Lordships' House without substantial amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, this is a short Bill but it is wide-ranging. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, described the Bill as a gallimaufry. I must confess that I could not spell the word "gallimaufry" and so I looked it up in the dictionary. One definition is that it is a heterogeneous or, in other words, a diverse matter. I certainly agree with her on that point. I rather suspect that it is the last point on which I shall agree with the noble Baroness on the Bill.
Nonetheless, I found the debate most interesting. Not surprisingly, a wide number of points were raised. One set of points—having absolutely nothing to do with the Bill—I do not propose to answer today. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was the first of many speakers to devote what I considered a disproportionate amount of their speeches to general aspects of the social fund already found acceptable by this House—on a division, it is true. I accept that they are important points that deserve answers. But, as I said, they have nothing to do with the Bill. Therefore, unless any of your Lordships objects, I propose to

459
write an encyclical answering all the various points. I shall circulate it to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have taken part in the debate so that we all know exactly what we are talking about. Any noble Lord wishing to come back to me as a result of that letter is perfectly entitled to do so. Following normal practice I shall make a copy available in the Library for those noble Lords who have not received the encyclical. I hope that that procedure will be sufficient.
As I said, a vast number of points have been raised. I think that perhaps it would be best to go through the Bill clause by clause if there is time. Under the new provision of Clause 1 disabled people qualify if, in order to avoid the risk of substantial danger, someone else is required to be awake and watching over them for a prolonged period or at repeated intervals during the night. The daytime and alternative night time conditions of entitlement remain unchanged.
My noble friend Lord Trafford, for whose words of wisdom I am extremely grateful for the second time today, described himself as very experienced in the matter of attendance allowance. He said that he had always understood that standby attendance did not entitle a claimant to attendance allowance. That is absolutely true. He went on to say that the board has always interpreted the matter fairly, which I also believe to be true. Our intention and that of the Attendance Allowance Board is simply to return to the position as it existed before the Moran judgment. The board has assured us that it will not seek to tighten its interpretation and that the same sorts of people who qualified before the Moran judgment will continue to qualify.
I should make the general point that as a result of the Moran judgment the law is in a considerable amount of uncertainty. What constitutes continual supervision for the purposes of Section 35(1) of the 1975 Social Security Act has been considered in various social security commissioners' decisions since the benefit was introduced in 1971. Some supported our understanding that continual supervision required the overseeing or watching over of disabled people by someone else, the frequency or regularity of the need for supervision being factors to be taken into account. In other commissioners' decisions, however, it was held that anticipatory supervision, in other words, someone being available to intervene if and when a dangerous event occurred, might he sufficient to satisfy the continual supervision criteria.
Not only is that an anomaly in the findings of the commissioners; there is also an anomaly in the finding of the Court of Appeal. In the case of Regina v. The Secretary of State for Social Services ex parte Connelly in 1986 (AER 998 is the reference) the court considered continual supervision at night and considered that the real basis of decision in that case was whether the risks involved to the claimant gave rise to substantial danger. Although the court considered the possible effects of the claimant being left alone by night, the decision did not comment on or over-rule previous law.
460
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that in the Moran judgment, the court did not award higher rate attendance allowance to Mrs. Moran. The court made clear in its judgment that it had no power to decide entitlement to the allowance. Satisfaction of the medical conditions for entitlement is a matter for the Attendance Allowance Board and its delegates. The court said that the board's interpretation of the law in respect of the night time supervision condition—an interpretation based on the decision of a tribunal of social security commissioners—was wrong. The court set out its interpretation of the law and returned the case to the Attendance Allowance Board for further consideration in the light of that interpretation. The board has done so and its decision has been notified to Mrs. Moran.
It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, particularly who zeroed in on Clause 2. The noble Lord mentioned the relationship between the industrial injuries scheme and levels of litigation. I am advised that there is no evidence linking any increase in litigation with the introduction in October 1986 of a 14 per cent. threshold for the payment of disablement benefit, and I can see no reason why that should be so. However, the. noble Lord has made the point and I shall consider his remarks in my general reading of the Official Report. Claims for damages at common law can only succeed when an employer is shown to be negligent whereas the industrial injuries scheme is based on a "no fault" principle.
The noble Lord suggested that the number of occupational accidents is rising. I believe this to he untrue. Although accident trends were rising during the period from 1981 to 1985, the latest report from the Health and Safety Executive shows that this movement has been arrested and that there are signs that the number of accidents in construction is now declining. I am advised that the number of fatal accidents during 1986–1987 is the lowest on record. It is believed that the incidence of occupational disease has also been substantially reduced.
Many noble Lords majored on Clause 4 and the Youth Training Scheme—not surprisingly, as I did so myself in my opening speech. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde whose contribution I very much welcomed. He is quite right in stressing the value of training for young people. He claimed to be the youngest of those who have spoken. I think that that is probably true but looking at the Front Bench opposite, there may be some dispute as to whether or not I am the second youngest.
Many of your Lordships will have children and grandchildren who are in the 16 to 17 year-old age group and may, I suggest, be closer to what those young people think than either my noble friend or myself. However, YTS provides a guarantee of a good quality training place to all young people under 18. With such a guarantee for the able bodied and a safety net for those who are not able to take up a place, there is no longer any reason to continue paying income support to the under-18s. That is our aim in Clause 14.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out that the Government's philosophy is that people should be encouraged to stand on their own feet. I suggest

461
that you do not proffer such encouragement by allowing young people to go straight from school into the benefit culture.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, suggested that the new rules went beyond what our manifesto commitment said. The Government have decided that the best way to avoid youngsters becoming accustomed to and reliant on state benefits when there is no need to be so is to remove general entitlement to school-leavers from the outset. The YTS guarantee is open to them, and child benefit and other dependency additions as appropriate will be available, as the House knows.
I accept that there is another, reverse, way of doing it; namely, the existing situation could be kept and one could excise from it. What the Government have chosen to do is to do away with the existing procedures and then add to them for particular groups of people. I accept that it could he done either way, but this is the way that the Government have decided to do it.
The severe hardship rule places an extra power in the hands of the Secretary of State. That was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The Government are removing part of the safety net by disentitling people under 18 except in prescribed groups. It is reasonable, therefore, to place in the Bill a discretion to re-entitle people. The power will he exercised by the Secretary of State in cases not prescribed in regulations where severe hardship would otherwise arise.
The very existence of the power demonstrates that the Government are being realistic in acknowledging that it is impossible to legislate for every conceivable situation that could arise. The power has been given to the Secretary of State as centralisation of such discretion will result in standardisation of treatment, as it has with the exercise of such discretion in relation to boarders who claim exemptions from the time limit rules. In 25 per cent. of such referrals the Secretary of State's decision is, I am advised, in favour of the claimant.
It is our intention under Clause 4 to extend the treatment of the child as dependent on his parents up to the end of the calendar year for summer school-leavers and an extra three months for leavers at other times. The only exceptions will be children living away from home with good reason, as will be specified in regulations; for example, those at risk of physical or sexual abuse, married couples with or without children, cohabiting couples with children and those who are not required to be available for work, such as the long-term sick and one-parent families.
I understand that this year there are likely to be 600,000 school-leavers, of whom 200,000 are expected to go straight into a job and 360,000 on to the YTS. Thus what we are talking about are 40,000 extra places to be made available on the YTS. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about the training allowances given to the YTS people. A supplement can be paid on top of the YTS allowance to cover board and lodging costs, and in appropriate cases income support would also be available. That will
462
also cover the problem when young people have to move away from home.
The 21-hour rule and the impact on part-time study was another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The principle behind the change comes from the manifesto commitment that the Government will take steps to ensure that those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed will not be eligible for benefit. Young people studying under the 21-hour rule are first and foremost unemployed and seeking work, even though they are filling some of their time with part-time study. It is right that they should be treated in the same way as all other unemployed 16 and 17-year olds.
Those genuinely seeking to improve qualifications have the option of staying at school or going to a college of further education on a full-time basis. Part-time study may equally be undertaken at night school while in employment or on the YTS. Study without restriction on the hours of attendance can still he undertaken during the three-month or four-month period during which child benefit will continue for those seeking employment or YTS placement. Those aged 18 and over will not be affected.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned the opportunities for mentally and physically handicapped young people. The YTS has been designed to cater for all young people, including those with mental and physical handicaps or learning difficulties. As I pointed out, additional funding is available for employers to provide specially designed training programmes for disabled young people, or those who require sheltered training. Some 12,000 special grants were available in 1987.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked: what are the Government doing about using their powers to disqualify a person from unemployment benefit, if it is decided that he or she is voluntarily unemployed? At present the maximum disqualification period is 13 weeks. In the light of the increasing incidence of voluntary unemployment the Government intend increasing the maximum disqualification period to 26 weeks from April 1988. The same periods apply to a reduction of supplementary benefit and income support, normally a reduction of 40 per cent. of the claimant's benefit.
We recognise that in so far as voluntary unemployment is a problem we should take steps further to extend the period of maximum disqualification. However, it is maximum disqualification. On our view it is the right approach, bearing in mind the choice and advice given to young people. We prefer the positive approach of encouragement to train, gain skills and experience for a career which this will give.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, suggested that children from low income families will suffer in all this. During the child benefit extension period those parents in receipt of income support will be able to claim a dependency addition in respect of any 16 or 17 year-old child who has registered for a job or a YTS place. There will, therefore, be no reduction in such a family's income during the child benefit extension period. After that period there will be

463
money coming in from the YTS training allowance, and so the family as a whole should not be disadvantaged.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested that Clause 5 will result in a large reduction in the count of unemployed. It is expected that a large majority of those affected by the contribution changes will continue to register in order to qualify for other benefits or national insurance credits. Therefore to that extent it is unlikely that it will affect the figures. However, some married women are not entitled to claim income support, and people over 60 may leave the register. It is estimated that the count may be reduced for these groups by about 10,000 people.
Savings on Clause 5 were mentioned. The gross savings on unemployment benefit rise to £380 million by 1990–91, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said. But there are increased costs on means-tested benefits such as income support. The net savings are £68 million. I shall have something else to say on savings a little later—perhaps quite rapidly, looking at the time!
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who declared an interest as chairman of the company pensions information system. I can confirm to him that the changes in Clause 6 will not come into effect until January 1989. I can also tell him that it is our intention that personal pensions should have the same effect on benefits as do occupational pensions.
For most people the new arrangements to facilitate their taking up personal pensions or to enable them to transfer from occupational pensions to personal pensions will not come into effect until later this year. I understand that it will he some time thereafter before any significant effects are felt. We shall be introducing the necessary amendments to legislation in due course. This is a very complex area which we do not wish to rush. Although I shall he interested in the noble Lord's assessment of the problem, I do not think it would be practical to make amendments in this Bill to cover that eventuality.
There was a suggestion, among the many others made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that those aged 55 to 60 are being unfairly disadvantaged under Clause 6. This clause is an extension of the abatement arrangements for the over-60s introduced seven years ago. It is likely that many in this age group will not wish to take a further job but I accept that some will do so. If they do, and if they unfortunately should become unemployed, they will suffer total withdrawal of benefit only if substantial amounts of occupational pension are in payment. A married man claiming for his wife at current rates continues to receive benefit until his occupational pension exceeds £85.90 a week for a single man. His pension would have to be £66.50 before benefit is withdrawn.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked me what is meant by "other bodies" in reference to emergency payments. In certain circumstances, for example when a local authority is unable or unwilling to enter into an agreement to make emergency payments on behalf of the Secretary of State, an agreement could be reached with any voluntary body which has
464
regular contact with a particular group of social security claimants. Inevitably there will be occasions when it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to use a voluntary body as an agency rather than local authorities. This stipulation provides for that.
I said that there were two parts of Clause 10 and Schedule 3 which I would respond to now because they refer to exceptionally cold weather payments. The provision gives us power to make payments from the social fund in respect of extra heating attributable to cold weather. The word "extra" is particularly important because in so much of what we have heard it is suggested that this concerns just cold weather payments. It is indeed for exceptionally long periods of severe weather, and whether it starts on a Monday, a Sunday, a Saturday or any other day of the week does not matter. Effectively what it means is that an exceptionally long period of weather varies between seven and 13 days.
As I understand the position, this has always been the case, even under the last Labour Government. But, looking at the noble Baroness's face, I should like to check that and perhaps write to her. I hear her say that perhaps I had better. I have given the offer and I will do it. I have already said that these payments will be made on the same basis as maternity and funeral payments, and they will not have to be funded from the budget limited section of the social fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, also referred to the regulations in force this winter which relate to cold weather payments under supplementary benefit regulations. We have yet to decide the details of the scheme for exceptionally cold weather payments from the social fund.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about the severely disabled living in the community. As the House will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given a commitment to meet the special needs of very severely disabled people living in the community, who are in the very small minority of disabled people who lose from the introduction of income support. He is still considering this matter in consultation with organisations representing disabled people and he will make an announcement in due course. Of course I shall make sure that your Lordships also have the benefit of that announcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, also raised that point. We shall be considering a long-term solution once we have the report of Sir Roy Griffiths on his overview of care in the community and the result of the OPCS survey on disability. In the meantime we are considering how best to find an interim solution.
There is one more point that I should like to make. It is absolute nonsense, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out rather in advance of the speech of the noble Lord, I was amused to see, for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to say that the purpose of the Bill is savings. I do not deny that it accounts for some modest but necessary and worthwhile savings in expenditure. On the social security programme it will save some £80 million in the coming year, rising to £222 million in 1990–91, although, as the noble

465
Lord himself pointed out, these savings will be substantially offset by increases in the cost of YTS. But the saving should be seen in the context of social security benefit expenditure as a whole.
This has risen from around £16 billion in 1978–79 to £44 billion in the current year, an increase in real terms of about 38 per cent., and it is set to rise to around £46 billion in the next financial year, at a time when unemployment benefit is being reduced because the number of claimants is less. So I think that the figures speak for themselves.
This is a heterogeneous Bill. This Government are not prepared to sit back and leave young school-leavers to sink into unemployment and dependence on benefit. It is not fair to them, and equally it is not fair to taxpayers that they should have to subsidise those who deliberately choose unemployment. We are instead guaranteeing them an opportunity of good quality training to equip them for the future and to help them lead independent lives. While undergoing this training they will get a YTS training allowance, which is worth considerably more than income support rate for the under-18s. Deliberate unemployment at the taxpayer's expense need not and will no longer be an option for those who are able to take up a YTS place.
For all the reasons that I have enumerated in my winding-up speech, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I know we are not going to get any answers to our questions about the social fund, but his excuse that it was not relevant to this Bill does not hold water as far as I am concerned. Clause 10 might be just one sentence. Schedule 3 has 10 paragraphs in it. A number of them deal with financing, and our questions were about the financing of the social fund. I know that we are not going to get any answers to our questions now, but I think the noble Lord was perhaps wrong in saying what he did.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Countess can hold that view if she wishes, but I have already spoken for 28 minutes and it would probably take me another seven minutes to respond to the various points on the social fund, which we have accepted is a discrete subject. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, I should prefer to respond to all the points globally by letter to make sure that they are properly answered rather than give a gabbled and garbled response, which I am frightened of doing at this moment.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Australian Bicentenary
6.30 p.m.
Lord Willis Lord Willis rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, on the occasion of the Australian Bicentenary, whether they will use their influence to secure the renaming of one of London's major streets in honour of Australia.
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I should first say that I have just heard that the "Young Endeavour", which was built with a subsidy of £¾ million from Her Majesty's Government, £¾ million raised by public subscription in this country and £¾ million given by Arthur Weller, an Australian living in this country, has just won the Tall Ships Race.
I believe I am qualified on two counts to ask this Question. First, I live in Chislehurst, where Lord Sydney of Chislehurst preceded me and his name was given to that great city which now exists on the east coast of Australia. In fact in Chislehurst we have a Botany Bay Lane and my local pub is the Sydney Arms. Therefore, I have a special affection for Australia.
The second reason is that in 1956 I sailed as a £10 emigrant to Australia under the government's scheme. I was really a phoney emigrant because I was there to write a film on emigration, but I did everything else that the emigrants did. I lived on the emigrant ship as an emigrant and my cover story was that I was going to he a tram driver in Melbourne. When I arrived in Australia—it was my first visit—I spent four months going round every state as far as Albany and Broome in West Australia, Cairns in Queensland and all over Victoria, New South Wales and so on. I came to love that great sunburned country.
A lot is said about Pom bashing in Australia. Let me give your Lordships an illustration of what happened on that first visit. I went into a small pub in Western Australia and was standing at the bar chatting to the barman when three huge men from the forestry works came in, all tattooed with "I love Lucy" and everything else on their arms. Suddenly I heard a deep Australian voice say, "That's a Pom up there, ennit Bert?" I quaked in my shoes a little. The reply was "Yes. Where are they getting them from?" The voice said, "Oh, they're scraping them off the keels of the ships in Fremantle Harbour".
I thought that I should do something, so I said to the barman, "Would you ask those three gentlemen to come and have a drink with me?" They did so and once we got talking it turned out that they were all Poms. They had been there for 30 years and had rather forgotten it. All I can tell your Lordships is that I was supposed to travel on that day but I spent another night there because Australian hospitality is fabulous. It originates from the old bush country where if you saw a traveller coming through you did not let him pass; you bought him a drink and gave him a meal.
It is impossible to imagine today when one goes to Australia—I have just returned from a recent visit—the hardships that those early settlers we sent there had to endure. In Western Australia last November I was shown what was called a saw pit. It was about as long as these Benches. A tree was placed on it. They had no mechanical means of operation in those days, so one man had to get down under the log, one man stood on top of it and they sawed in into planks. They did that for 12 hours a day. The man

467
underneath got all the sawdust on him and was standing knee deep in mud, but that was how they carved out of that country the nation that we have today.
Two hundred years ago we sent to Australia not only criminals but some good people. We sent good trade unionists like the Tolpuddle Martyrs and people who had been deported simply because they had stolen a chicken or poached one of the lord's rabbits. They laid the foundation of that stern, sturdy, wonderful, independent spirit which I and I believe most other people admire so much in Australia.
The Australians have no side. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen "Crocodile Dundee" but the film sums up the Australian spirit. He is driving around New York and winds down the window and says, "How do you? I'm Crocodile Dundee from Australia". That is the spirit that I find all over Australia.
The flow from this country has never really stopped. About 2 million Britons have gone to Australia since the end of the last war. They still make up the greater proportion of the inhabitants. Last year about 23,000 Britons went to Australia. There has of course been a higher proportion of emigrants from the Pacific region because that is the area in which Australia is set. Nevertheless, it is still basically a British country in its outlook and in its base. It is a country which still thinks of this place as "the old Dart", as I have heard the Australians affectionately call it. Australians ask, "Do you come from the old Dart?" or they say, "We are going home to the old Dart".
We must remember that we remain an important trading partner of Australia. Exports of Australian goods to the UK increased from about £353 million to £500 million last year and our exports to Australia have increased from £650 million to about £1,000 million. We are still the third biggest investor in Australia.
Britons are not only going to Australia; we have a flow of Australians coming here. Apart from His Excellency the High Commissioner, who is sitting in the guest seats below the Bar, I have some Australian guests here who are part of that constant flow of people. From April onwards my phone never stops ringing with Australians calling to say, "How are you?" and "Are you free for a drink?" I know that the same has happened to the noble Lord, Lord Parry.
Most significant—and to be really serious—is the debt we owe to Australia from the First and Second World Wars for the ANZACS; and not only to the Australians but to the New Zealanders and the Canadians. That country, 12,000 miles away, in 1914 and 1939 did not hesitate, did not even blink an eyelid, but came to our support. What doughty fighters they were. It is an established fact about which nobody can argue that in the greatest battles of the First and Second World Wars the Australians, the Canadians and the New Zealanders were in the heat of battle because they were the best fighters.
They were an undisciplined mob. There is a classic story from the First World War: the Australians found a British soldier tied to the wheel of a gun carriage undergoing a 48-hour field punishment. They just cut him down and said, "Oh, we do not stand for that sort of thing". Nothing that the British command could do could persuade them to tie him back up again and there were too many Australians to discipline. That was their attitude. However, once they were put into battle, they were fantastic.
There are changes taking place. Australia is in the Pacific region. It has been taking in non-European migrants and we for our part have joined the Common Market and our links with the Commonwealth are of necessity growing thinner. It is important that we maintain our links with our ancient friend, this old friend that sprung from our loins. It is important that we keep the mateship and the friendship which have sustained us throughout the years.
In view of our movement towards Europe and Australia's essential movement towards trade in its region, it is more important than ever today that we maintain these links. Tomorrow is Australia Day. I should like to think that from this House we send our love and greetings to our brothers and friends in Australia and thank them for all they have done for this country in the past and all that I know that they will do in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Willis: How appropriate it would be—and I know the Government have no power in this—if we could mark it by naming a street. I have had some facetious suggestions like Hawke Highway and so on, but it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to persuade Westminster Council to rename, for example, Northumberland Avenue ANZAC or Australia Way. "Northumberland" does not have a particular significance, or at least not the significance of "Australia" or "ANZAC".
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Would it not be more appropriate in view of the young and up and coming continent that Australia is to build a new road instead of revamping an old one?
Lord Willis: My Lords, nothing would please me more and nothing would please the Australians more. The occasion ought to be marked because we owe them so much, as I say, from the First World War; thousands of their dead lie in Flanders. We owe them so much from the Second World War. Therefore it is appropriate to make such a gesture.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I confess that I had not worked out in my mind what the noble Lord had planned until I heard his speech. I am most interested in what he said and thrilled that from Ted Willis we have got an imaginative idea.
I feel compelled to support any step designed to celebrate the bicentenary of our association with

469
Australia. I feel particularly justified for various reasons which are not altogether the same as those of the noble Lord. A great-grandfather of mine was a pioneer and explorer 150 years ago. As a boy of 19 he took his patrimony and saw a vision of the Australia of the future. He went there, stayed there and bred there.
He established the settlement of Port Essington, which has now disappeared. It was cleared out by malaria—we have been talking of hardships—and it is now the Port of Darwin. George Windsor Earl was his name and he was a friend of Darwin. Among other things he took a share in the reduction of the Aborigines' language to writing. Indeed it was his knowledge of Polynesian languages which led him to accompany Darwin on some of his voyages in "The Beagle".
He was also an advocate of a telegraph link between London and Sydney and I have seen his plans in the Mitchell Library. The only part he was not sure of was an area he said would be under water and where the natives would take the copper. As I have said, his plans are to be seen in the Mitchell Library today. He had a voluminous correspondence with Mitchell himself.
George Windsor Earl's daughter (my grandmother) was born in Wooloomooloo, and now one of my daughters has produced a daughter in Melbourne who has been graciously pleased to refer to me as "Grandpa Pom".
I have many pleasant memories of Australia. I shall never forget my first sight of Sydney, which was from the flight deck of an aircraft, with the bridge below me. I have raced in the harbour, but I shall not continue with that because this is not an occasion for personal recollections. I love Australia and I shall never forget that view from the aircraft.
A cousin of mine has settled there with an old friend and they have a large family. A niece of mine is running an air company of her own. How could I resist the urge to support the noble Lord in this debate? I am not sure that his proposals will meet with the desires of Australia. It is for the Australians to say, but that can be left to the future or to the noble Lord.
There is the point of view of London. I am a Scot and although I love London I do not feel competent to make any suggestion. I have turned over names in the watches of the night stretching from "Anzac" to "Southern Cross" to "Wooloomooloo". There are thousands we can choose from. I agree with the noble Lord, and I hope your Lordships will too, that this is an occasion to send out affectionate and friendly greetings to that great country and to the people who live in it. I served in the Army with a number of Australians and one cobber has recently died, ending a friendship of 50 years. I commend this Question to your Lordships and I look forward to the debate which is to take place and to my noble friend's reply from the Front Bench.
6.47 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble, Lord Willis, for raising this matter. After
470
hearing his description of Australia and its people he has given the strongest possible argument for his request to be granted. I obviously support him; it would be a worthy recognition of Australia's celebrations if a part of London could be named in honour of this event. I am a firm believer in the Commonwealth and strongly support its continued existence. To me it is a unique and most valuable club. People from all over the world who choose to live in Australia, on being granted citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen which strengthens the bond between our countries.
I believe a word or two should be said regarding the Aborigines, who after all claim quite emphatically that Australia is not 200 years old but has been inhabited by them for 40,000 years. I suggest that if Australia is to be recognised in this manner, respect can be shown to the original inhabitants by naming a street after them. Doing this would go some way to give a satisfaction that is deserved.
If the Government are at a loss in deciding where a street should be named, may I suggest that a part of the new Dockland area would be very suitable? I hope that the Minister is willing to take on board what is being said this evening.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in a disciplined response to the Motion on the humble Address I took a moment or two of the time of the House to speak of at least one famous London Welshman who had made a major contribution to the history of Australia. I do not propose to repeat tonight the words that I used then, but I believe it would be fairly apt if the somewhat badly named M.4 that leads to Wales were to become New South Wales Way since it would link old South Wales and, through London, New South Wales. I believe that is at least as good a suggestion as one that was made to me that the Inns of Court should be named Kangaroo Court.
The serious point that noble Lords make today in this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Willis is that we as a House wish to associate ourselves with the joy, happiness and seriousness of tomorrow's Australia Day and the celebrations that Australia is holding.
We have all enjoyed friendships with Australians; we have all respected them for what they have been, as has already been said, in war and in peace. Some of us have had the great privilege of seeing a great deal of Australia and something of the parliamentary systems which are so close, so akin, to our own and which still uphold democracy in that part of the world.
One of the most exciting aspects of the present time—I speak now of the moments immediately before the financial collapse which has caused echoes to run round the financial systems of the world is that Australia is establishing itself in South-East Asia as a confident nation in its own right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? The noble Lord, Lord

471
Harmar-Nicholls, appears to be indicating that he wishes to speak for a few moments before I rise. Perhaps I should inform him that another noble Lord has also said that he wishes to speak in the gap.
Lord Parry: My Lords, happily today we are free of some of the restraints and I think there is time to develop a theme. Here is Australia, confidently taking its place as the leader of South-East Asia. In my own particular spheres of interest—the growth and development of international tourism and all that that means—Australia has placed itself firmly in the forefront, and the developments that are taking place there are exciting in the extreme. All down the coasts of Australia there have been developments which will make it the sunshine coast for the world, and we rejoice in that.
I pointed out that the people who originally went out to Australia went not of their own volition. It is inevitable that at this time there should be some reference to the difficult beginnings of that nation. In reading the literature (which is now copious) on the subject of the early development of Australia, one finds evidence of people from all parts of Great Britain—the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the English themselves—who, finding themselves in an environment that was strange and difficult. nevertheless thrived.
One of the things which always excites and interests me in the folk literature of Australia is that the women who found themselves with their men in Australia setting up home, giving birth to families in that difficult territory, contributed to the development of the nation in a substantial way and in a similar way kept the apron strings with home strong and tied. There was one case that I read about of a mother who, every Sunday afternoon, used to take the chair from the kitchen to the extreme point of their piece of land, the nearest point to Great Britain, and her children grew up with a feeling of a home beyond the sea. Perhaps in some ways that both helped to develop the growth of the native Australian and at the same time limited that growth in a way which took some years to put right.
It is now a fact that while Australians look to Britain, and those who came from Western Europe to Western Europe, as home, they also know that their true home is in Australia. While they reach hack for the heritage that they share, while they take pride in their origins as a family, now much more than ever the native Australians see themselves as a part of, and contributors to, the development of the whole of South-East Asia.
That is part of the dream that Phillip had. When the first fleet, having, as he said, touched on the African continent and the American continent, eventually arrived off the shores of Australia, Phillip said that they were about to create a society in that part of the world which would take its place among the great nations; and tonight that is true.
Australia is an independent nation within the commonwealth. It has now broken some of the ties which restricted its growth. It is confident. Given the
472
difficulties that we are all facing in the economies of the world at the present time, its economy is optimistic. It is also conscious that some of the wrongs have to be righted. Australians do not need to be told how they should react to the social history of their land, because they react in the same robust way now as they have done to all the difficulties of the ages.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Willis, not simply on the technical issue of whether we name an old street anew, or whether we name—as has been so aptly suggested—a new street in favour of Australia in its third century, but because he has given this House a chance to show that here there are people who realise that Australia and Australians have devoted so much of themselves to the country from which they came that it is a joy for this country to congratulate them now on what they have become.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not putting down my name to speak. I simply subscribe to all the eloquent things that have been said by previous speakers about our association with Australia and our debt to that country. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has said something about the Welsh contribution to Australia, it occurs to me that the nation which has exported more of its people to the Canadas and Australias of this world than any other country is Scotland, for obvious economic reasons as well as for the great zest for pioneering and adventure of those people.
I take this opportunity of putting on record a few words about one of the early emigrants to Australia. I refer to Thomas Muir of Huntershill. He will not be known in this House but he deserves to be placed with the Tolpuddle Martyrs among the great pioneers of the struggle for democratic liberties who found himself on a boat and shipped to Botany Bay.
Thomas Muir was an Elder of the Church of Scotland, and a distinguised young advocate in Edinburgh. He distributed the works of Thomas Paine among the people of Edinburgh and addressed a meeting at which he expressed the view "that the spirit of freedom should move across this nation of Scotland." For these seditious words, and for spreading of the works of Thomas Paine, he was sentenced to be shipped to Botany Bay.
That is not the end of the story by a long chalk. The young Edinburgh advocate's fame had spread, and the Americans sent a frigate to Australia to rescue him because even there he had become a well known radical. Leaving Australia after three years, he was shipwrecked off Havana which, at that time, was in Spanish hands. The Spanish authorities recognised this great radical clutching his Church of Scotland Bible in his hand. Such a seditious character, they decided, must be shipped back to Spain. He was put in prison and only finally rescued from his Spanish gaol by the French Directorate who declared him an honorary citizen of the new French Republic.
When I think of Australia I like to think of people like Thomas Muir and two or three of his

473
colleagues—farmers from the Borders in Scotland—who made their way out there, or were sent out there, because of their witness for freedom. I like to think that some of the inspiration and spirit of people like Thomas Muir, who were punished for their advocacy of democratic rights in 1794, flourishes in the present Australian democracy.
Thomas Muir of Huntershill had a small suburb of Sydney named after Huntershill where he had established a small community. It might be a good thing if some of the radical convict pioneers of Australia were recognised in any street-naming. I notice that the city of Glasgow has called a square Nelson Mandela Square; it might be appropriate to name some place Huntershill Square in honour of this great man.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the historical references and reminders of the past are fascinating and interesting, but to me Australia is the future. The importance of the inspiration behind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is the fact that it has such a part to play in the future. There was one part of the noble Lord's speech which alerted me to a point which ought to he on the record. He suggested—and of course he is right—that the Common Market, and our movement there, had to some extent given the appearance of weakening the Commonwealth ties and links. That may have happened. We must see that that does not go on, if indeed it has happened.
It is absolutely vital not only this country but for the whole of Europe to recognise the important part that Australia can play in future development, because of its geography. There is no doubt that the ocean of the future will be the Pacific Ocean. Russia, China and America all have borders there. We see that the interest in the great America is rapidly moving from the east coast to the west. We do not have any direct foothold in the Pacific, except through our partners in Australia and also in New Zealand. It is important to let the whole of Europe know that it is vital to maintain a link which will give us that foothold, so that we in Western Europe can continue to play our part in world development through the ocean of the future, the Pacific.
I was a Member of the European Parliament along with my noble friend who is to reply to the debate. As part of a delegation, and for my own business, until last year I had to go to Australia once a year. I am so sad that I have lost my chairmanship, which means that I cannot continue to do so at their expense. I so looked forward to it.
To begin with, the European delegation—made up of people of all political groups from the other European countries—was a little disdainful that we had decided to go to Australia on an official basis. However, when we returned its mood was very different. It could see the Atlantic as an ocean of the past. The Mediterranean, for all sorts of reasons, is the ocean of the present. But the ocean of the future is the Pacific. If we wish to maintain a foothold, and to play an important part in ensuring that any
474
development will be for the world's good, it has to come through Australia.
It is therefore the future of Australia that interests me. I have intervened to suggest that if we are going to name a street we should name a new one rather than revamp an old one. My noble friend Lord Ferrier, who is always full of bright ideas gave the answer. We have this great development in the Dockland Area. We are very proud of it. It is reviving a part of this country that looked as though it was fading away. If we were to name part of that new developing, important Dockland Area—whose name will spread throughout the world because of its general position as a port—to let the Australians know how deeply we feel about our continued partnership with them, it would not be a bad idea. I hope that when my noble friend is talking about and considering the matter she will keep such an idea in mind.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may first congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on seizing this timely opportunity. His good luck has meant that we are able tonight to discuss this Question. The words "joy", "pride", "pleasure" and "satisfaction" have been used in this debate. I feel all those emotions when I think of Australia. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that he visited Australia for the first time in 1956. But I had to wait until 1986 before I visited it. I went there for 10 days and came hack as enchanted in 1986 as he was in 1956. I cannot believe that anyone from this or any other country, who may be borne down by worry, despair and a great many of the other feelings that can beset us, can return without having become a friend of Australia for the rest of his or her life.
When I look around the House and listen to those who have spoken, I see many reasons for us to feel satisfaction about the nation of Australia, whose bicentenary celebrations we are discussing. Many people for many good reasons think of Australia with humility and a great deal of emotion. I can certainly recall the Second World War, although not the Great War. Perhaps some can remember that too. But no words can adequately describe the emotion that many of us felt in 1939, 1940, 1945, and throughout the war. We have the medium of film, which is well known to my noble friend Lord Willis. We have documentaries. There is a programme called "Neighbours" which is televised now. I cannot abide it but the rest of my family think it is marvellous! The medium of television portrays Australia as a country and as a nation. Individuals who are known first and foremost as sportsmen or personalities are also Australian personalities, and one warms to them.
We are all taking this opportunity to reminisce. Without one sad note perhaps we can remember some of the beginnings of the nation. My noble friend set the scene very fairly by pointing out the way in which we are tomorrow celebrating the events of 200 years ago and some of the history such as the Tolpuddle Martyrs. That is part of our history.

475
We have also had reference to the sad plight of the aboriginal indigenous population of Australia. I am delighted to note in recent years some of the utterances of the statesmen of Australia. It is quite clear, as my noble friend Lord Parry said, that they may not need any lessons on how to deal with their affairs. However, I am delighted to note a tendency in speeches by their statesmen which leads me to believe that grievances which have been held by the aboriginal nation and others appear to be about to receive some redress.
The House will be aware that the British Parliament has celebrated this great event in two ways. There were the events in this House and in the other House during the last two weeks. Fine words, well said, well meant and true, were uttered in respect of the presentation to Australia of the vice-regal chair. That must bring great joy and satisfaction to those, unlike myself, who have been inside their Parliament. We then had the debate last year on the Australia Bill. Perhaps I may say a word about that.
We are asked in this Question to consider whether it is a good idea to name a street or streets in London in commemoration of the bicentennial celebrations. I for one say hallelujah, if it is possible. I realise that it is not within the gift of the Government to say that these streets shall be so named because it is up to the local authorities, councils and other bodies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has already indicated, some authorities have decided to name streets after individuals of other nations. There is absolutely nothing wrong in London boroughs such as Westminster, Kensington, Camden or, if it is to be the Dockland area, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich or Newham, taking that initiative. I hope that those who wish to mark this year for Australia, besides considering a range of options such as the naming of trees or other places, can celebrate the bicentenary in that way.
My noble friend Lord Willis referred to Botany Bay and Chislehurst. Coming from Tottenham, from my part of the world, he will know that there is a Botany Bay just outside Enfield. I do not know which comes first.
Lord Willis: My Lords, Chislehurst always comes first!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The last shall be first; and where there is a Willis there is a way!
We come up against a problem with the naming of places. My noble friend suggested that one of the great London streets should be renamed. He asked about Northumberland Avenue. I come from Northumberland. I imagine that many people will have even stronger views than I have about changing a name. If the suggestion were made to change the name of Regent Street or The Strand people would say no. I think the answer lies with new developments, wherever they are, which must be grand and prestigious. They would benefit from having such a name.
476
When looking at the map of Canada or Australia it is a joy to see the names of places in this country. Emigrants have gone out from this country and have wanted to attach some feeling of the places they come from. I come from Newcastle-upon-Tyne and there is a Newcastle in Australia. There is an Enfield, a Southgate and a Peterborough. Every place one can think of is replicated by people who want to remember.
We are celebrating the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, epitomised Australia not as a nation of the past but as one with a great future. I remind the House that our relationships cannot he dictatorial or formalised. They are all about trust and confidence. I repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on the Australia Bill:
"However, Clause 7 holds out the hand and the hope of friendship and mutual trust. This is not the 'farewell Australia' Bill, as a few have described it, but a Bill passed in a spirit of co-operation and understanding by two equal and friendly countries which have almost as many things in common as there are miles which separate them".—[Official Report, 16/1/86; col. 1171.]
Those were prophetic words which presaged what we are about tonight. My noble friend Lord Willis has given us a first-class idea. I hope that the Minister is kind in her response but more importantly that those outside the House will take to heart what we have said and give substance to the words of my noble friend.
7.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on his timing and say how grateful we all are to him for introducing this entertaining but short debate. I know that in addition to all those who have taken the opportunity this afternoon to join in wishing the Australian nation well there are many more who would wish to he associated with the remarks that have been made. In particular, I should like to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has been prevented from attending only for the very good reason that she is even now in her native Australia attending the celebrations there. I can assure your Lordships that she has no inconsiderable influence on the Lord Mayor of Westminster. When she returns I undertake to draw to her attention the many suggestions that have been made in the course of this debate.
Many of us have happy recollections of Australia and of Australian friends, so perhaps I may also be permitted some personal reminiscences. My own first visit to the country of the Southern Cross was in 1984, so I beat the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, by two years. Little did I think then, as I visited Liverpool in Australia and as I viewed the commemorations of the first centenary celebrations in the Botanic Gardens in Sydney and the foundations of the new Parliament House in Canberra, that I would be privileged some three years later to reply to this debate.

477
Despite our common roots and shared ideas, a form of tyranny has dulled our relationship for many years. I speak of the tyranny of distance. Many a family felt that they were to be split forever when a member emigrated to Australia. The great distance meant that our perceptions of developments in Australia were also limited. For the first centenary celebrations I think it took something like six weeks to travel there, and that is nothing in comparison to the rigours of earlier voyages about which we have heard this evening. But thanks to technological advances, all that has changed.
When we can see Australia on our television screens, speak instantly over the telephone—and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ferrier's ancestors in this respect—and when we can travel there in a day (we are promised that it will soon be possible to travel there in six hours by HOTOL) we now feel that we know Australia and Australians so much better. The broad and rapid exchanges of people, information and images brighten our relationship today. We probably now have a greater appreciation of the changing nature of Australian society and the cosmopolitan mix which makes up that modern country. But we continue to have a special feeling for a country which still has such a large proportion of its people who trace their roots hack to these islands of ours and who take the trouble to come hack and visit those roots with vigour and enthusiasm.
Australia's bicentenary celebrations are therefore of particular significance to Britain and we look forward to our participation in a wide range of events both in this country and in Australia. As has been said, Britain's bicentennial gift to Australia, the sailing training ship "Young Endeavour", has been widely praised as an excellent choice. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, clearly realised in arranging for this debate today, it was actually handed over to Mr. Hawke a few hours ago by our High Commissioner in Canberra in the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I am sure that it will serve the young people of Australia well, and I hope that it goes on to win many more tall ships races.
The Lord Privy Seal announced to your Lordships last week the joint gift from both Houses of Parliament of a vice-regal chair to the Australian Parliament. The chair will stand in the Senate Chamber of the new Parliament House in Canberra, which is to be opened in May by Her Majesty the Queen as one of the major national projects commemorating the bicentenary. Perhaps the largest single event of the celebrations will he the world Expo 88, to be staged in Brisbane from April to October. Its theme will be "Leisure in the Age of Technology". Britain, I am happy to say, was the first country to accept the Australian invitation to participate and we have secured an excellent pavilion in a central position. Our display will feature the very best of British design and high technology in the field of leisure. The Government are sponsoring the pavilion, with additional contributions from the private sector.
The Britain-Australia Bicentennial Committee has endorsed about 150 other national and regional
478
bicentennial events to take place both in Australia and in this country. They include, as well as the visit of a group of 60 or so schoolchildren and teachers from Lincolnshire (of which I am aware in the context of the Department of Education and Science), tours by the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Royal Ballet and the exhibition, which I warmly commend to your Lordships, First Impressions—The British Discovery of Australia, currently on display at the Natural History Museum in South Kensington. I cannot contribute to this debate without in this respect paying a warm tribute to Sir Peter Gadsden, chairman of the Britain-Australia Bicentennial Committee, and to the many others involved in Britain's participation in the celebrations.
As we have been reminded, our trade with Australia remains healthy, despite Australia's current economic difficulties. We see Australia as an attractive and valuable market for British exporters. In the course of 1988, the Department of Trade and Industry is sponsoring 21 trade missions to Australia by United Kingdom companies. Furthermore, the Government have been making a particular effort recently to strengthen our political relations with Australia. We are convinced that we can learn a great deal from Australia as we work together on international political problems.
The Government are totally in sympathy with the affection for Australia that prompted the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to ask his Unstarred Question. The natural and spontaneous affection of the people of this country for Australia and Australians has been evidenced in this debate.
The proposal which stimulated our debate, however, is not one which, as we have been reminded, Her Majesty's Government have it in their power to carry out. The power of assigning street names in London is vested in the City of London and the London boroughs. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that, when Parliament has given a discretion to a local authority in a particular matter, it is for that authority to make up its own mind on it. But I feel sure that the many suggestions made by your Lordships will be taken on board by the boroughs; for example, the appropriateness of the new London docklands, as suggested by, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Grey, for a special association with Australia.
In fact, I have to say that it is not only in this country that people might wonder about changing the name of a major London street. I believe that many Australians would object if, for example, we re-named Piccadilly "Australia Way", and where would they stay if there was no longer an Earl's Court?
However, it may interest your Lordships to know how widely Australian names already feature in the role of London streets. Sydney features no less than 19 times, Melbourne 18 times, Canberra six times and Brisbane five times. Austral, Australia, Hobart and Tasmania, among others are also represented.
These Australian names of our streets are a reminder of the enduring nature of our warm and friendly tics with Australia. Most of them, of course,

479
come from this country. Since the arrival of the first fleet in Botany Bay in 1788, our histories have been, and are still, very closely linked. We have naturally had some differences over the years but these have never been great. How much more often, as we have been reminded, have we stood side by side. On the field of battle we have both paid dearly to defeat together tyranny and totalitarianism.
Australia started her modern history as an outpost of Empire, a branch of Europe in the South Pacific. She reaches her bicententary as a major Pacific state with which the United Kingdom is on the very best of terms. Tomorrow, 26th January, is Australia Day and the 200th birthday itself. Among the many
480
celebratory parties will be one at Australia House here in London, given by the High Commissioner, Doug McClelland. he will be well known to many of your Lordships, who, I am sure, will agree that he and his staff do a tremendous job here for Australia and for relations between Britain and Australia, as indeed does our own High Commission in Canberra. I am sure that all your Lordships will join me in hoping that the Australian people will continue to flourish and prosper. We now look forward to the next hundred years.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.

  ARAB/ISRAELI DISPUTE: NEGOTIATION PROPOSAL
  ARAB/ISRAELI DISPUTE: NEGOTIATION PROPOSAL
  TYRA HENRY: REPORT
  TYRA HENRY: REPORT
  NHS: LEAVE WITH PAY CONDITIONS
  NHS: LEAVE WITH PAY CONDITIONS
  BLOOD GLUCOSE TESTING
  BLOOD GLUCOSE TESTING
  TYRONE AND ARMAGH: NEW BUSINESS
  TYRONE AND ARMAGH: NEW BUSINESS
  NORTHERN IRELAND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: CLOSURE OF SERVICES
  NORTHERN IRELAND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: CLOSURE OF SERVICES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: STATUTORY RULES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: STATUTORY RULES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  WINE: SALE BY THE GLASS
  WINE: SALE BY THE GLASS
  REPOSSESSION OF HOMES
  REPOSSESSION OF HOMES
  REPOSSESSION STATISTICS
  REPOSSESSION STATISTICS
  LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROPOSALS
  LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROPOSALS
  WILTSHIRE AND BERKSHIRE: DOWNLAND GRASS RESTORATION
  WILTSHIRE AND BERKSHIRE: DOWNLAND GRASS RESTORATION
  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS
  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS