Sitting of 26 July 1988

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH WATERWAYS (NO. 2) BILL[Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL(By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.
  HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    NATO (Conventional Stability Talks)
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): NATO Heads of State and Government set out their approach to conventional arms control at their summit on 2 March this year. We have regular discussions with our NATO partners concerning the translation of this overall approach into NATO proposals for tabling at the conventional stability talks which we hope will begin later this year.
    Mr. Ewing: I congratulate the Secretary of State on holding on to his job yesterday when all around were losing theirs. Is he aware that that is the second narrow escape that he has had in the past 12 months?
    Will the Secretary of State now finally accept the need for demilitarised zones as a contribution towards preserving world peace and reducing the risks of war? Is he aware that, in the next decade, the West German armed conscript forces will be reduced by 40 per cent. because of demographic changes? Against that background, is it not now vital that we establish demilitarised zones and negotiate for extensive disarmament in conventional weapons?
    Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are pursuing disarmament most vigorously and, unlike all their predecessors, are achieving successful results in doing so. We are taking an active role in working out a mandate for the conventional disarmament talks. It is on our text that the discussion is now taking place. I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for demilitarised zones. They are wholly unenforceable and, therefore, not something that we should approach.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the European Community's Foreign Ministers have welcomed Mr. Gorbachev's suggestion of a pan-European summit to reduce conventional forces in Europe? Is it only the Governments refusal to include in the talks dual-capable weapons that is standing in the way of NATO's mandate and of an agreement?
    Mr. Younger: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The preparations for the talks are going well. Discussions are proceeding principally on the text of the Western proposals. As the hon. Gentleman probably

    239
    knows, the inclusion of dual-capable systems will depend on whether their conventional role is applicable to the talks. That is not an obstacle to proceeding.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the European pillar of the NATO Alliance, does my right hon. Friend envisage any part being played by the Western European Union?
    Mr. Younger: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now in the chair of the Western European Union and, in the course of our year's chairmanship, we shall encourage the WEU to make a contribution towards strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and forwarding the disarmament talks.
    Mr. Forman: Is there any hard evidence available to my right hon. Friend and to his NATO Defence Minister colleagues that, as a consequence of the internal changes that are in train in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government are now more amenable than they have been over the years to appropriate reductions in conventional weapons on each side?
    Mr. Younger: The new atmosphere in Moscow is more conducive that the previous atmosphere to achieving reductions in weapons, including conventional weapons. However, I am afraid that at this stage there is no sign of any reduction, or even easing, in the growth of military expenditure in the Soviet Union. We hope to see that, but there is no evidence of it yet.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a sad day when the French and German Foreign Ministers are prepared to accept the need for conventional cuts of the kind that have been suggested, but the British Government are not willing to enter into the spirit of the new hopes that many have for relations with the Soviet Union? Therefore, will the Secretary of State explain to the Foreign Secretary that there is scope for European initiatives as well as NATO initiatives on conventional talks and conventional cuts?
    Mr. Younger: There is scope for ideas and initiatives from anyone involved in these processes, but it would be extremely disruptive of the opportunity to make progress in the talks if we were to start separate talks on other bases at the same time as we prepare for these major and important talks.

    Spare Parts (Labelling)
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has on the effect on prices charged of his Department's policy of requiring suppliers to stick a two-tier price label on packages of spare parts; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Last year the Department introduced the requirement for spares to be price-labelled. This initiative is part of the Ministry's drive to ensure value for money in defence procurement. Price labelling will provide a further check against possible overcharging for spares by contractors and improve cost awareness among our personnel. It is much too early to quantify the benefits that will be obtained.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in practice in some cases the labelling requirement is resulting in
    240
    higher prices being quoted to the Ministry of Defence? Is he aware that a company of my acquaintance made two quotes, one without the labelling requirement and one with the labelling requirement at a 5 per cent. premium, and the MOD contracts office accepted the higher price? Is there not a case for introducing greater flexibility into the system?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that adding a small additional piece of information to a label that is already required is likely to result in a negligible increase in cost in the vast majority of cases. If particular difficulties are associated with one product, we are prepared to discuss that with the supplier, but, overall, we see major benefits which would greatly exceed the small extra cost of putting that information on the label.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is not the only anomaly in the Ministry of Defence's procurement policy. Is the Minister aware that his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it
    "sought to avoid getting into a situation where one"——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote. Paraphrase, please.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it sought to avoid a situation where one contractor was supplying all the frigate procurement package in order to make long-term savings and then went on to place the entirety of the frigate procurement package with one yard in direct contradiction to what was said to the Public Accounts Committee? How does the Minister account for that?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have capable frigates on order, and I scarcely think that they fall into the category of spares.
    Mr. Page: Price labelling will help to give value for money on the £2 billion-plus spares order for military equipment and prevent scandals such as occurred in the United States with the $1,200 ashtray and the $1,500 toilet seat, but does my hon. Friend agree that more could be saved by avoiding small uneconomic batch ordering and looking more closely at the quantities that are being ordered?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has a good point. We are looking at the size and frequency of each order, but, as he is clearly aware, there is a large spend on spares—over £2 billion—and we must ensure that we avoid the sorts of instances that have been reported from the United States, where, to give another example, a list of stores contained what was called a multi-directional impact device priced at $400, which, on closer examination, turned out to be a hammer.

    Royal Dockyards
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at

    241
    Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.
    Mr. Sainsbury: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer questions Nos. 4 and 11 together.
    The balance between the core and unallocated programmes is kept under regular review.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that since privatisation it has been proved that the Government gave incorrect information at that time? Has not half the work force been destroyed in job terms since privatisation, and is it not a fact that another 1,500 jobs are in jeopardy at the Portsmouth repair yard? Will the Government reconsider the question of allocation and look at the situation again in order to safeguard the remaining jobs?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we gave inaccurate information. We gave the information on job losses that was available to us at the time. The level of employment in the dockyard is a matter for DML. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that we re-examine the balance between the core and unallocated programmes, because about two dozen firms throughout the country benefit from the jobs provided by the unallocated programme. It would be totally inappropriate and destructive of our urge to seek greater competition to deprive them of the opportunity of tendering for that part of the work that is in the unallocated programme.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister mentioned question No. 11, but I believe that he meant question No. 10.
    Mr. Powell: Have not the Government's assurances to the Devonport workers before privatisation proved to be more useless than a bent penny? They were promised 60 per cent. of the core naval refit and repair programme, but that work has since been slashed. Will the Government give an assurance that the cuts made to the naval refit programme will be reviewed and that some jobs will be saved?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I apologise to the House, Mr. Speaker. We have had rather a large number of changes in questions. I should have referred to question No. 10.
    It was known at the time of the contractorisation tender that we were maintaining a core programme to give a base work load for the new contractors. The royal dockyards, DML and BTL have an opportunity to tender for the work that is in the unallocated programme. As I have already said, it would be totally wrong to take that work back into the core programme and deprive a large number of other ship repair yards of the opportunity of obtaining work from the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still genuine anxiety locally about dockyard capability to respond in an emergency? If he is not prepared to increase the core programme, will he consider lifting the artificial restraint placed on the dockyards in respect of the allocated work?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate that there is concern in my hon. Friend's constituency about the dockyard's work load. As I have said previously, we keep under review the ship repair industry's total capacity, which covers not only the royal dockyards but the private sector as well. One of
    242
    the factors taken into account is the opportunity in an emergency to transfer workers from refitting to repair work, because that could provide a considerable surge capacity. In those circumstances, we are confident that there is sufficient capacity in the dockyards to meet any crisis.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the purpose of offering all that repair work for tender is to obtain the best possible value for money for the Royal Navy rather than to provide local jobs in any particular area? Will he further confirm that the remaining core programme for Devonport is of a size and scope that almost any other naval repair facility in Europe would greatly envy?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have a substantial capacity in both the former royal dockyards and in the private sector, which we believe is sufficient to meet the Royal Navy's needs and to ensure that its ships are maintained to the usual high standards.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister review what he has been saying to the House, in the light of the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Select Committee on Defence about the rate of redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth? Will he confirm that the rate of redundancies at Devonport is far in excess of what was anticipated, and that the crux of the matter is that the core programme has been diminished and the dockyard at Devonport has not found itself capable of obtaining additional work? We are finding it difficult to keep up an adequate repair and maintenance service in the Navy. Will he come clean on the issue?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are confident that we have an adequate ship repair capacity throughout the country in both the public and the private sectors. We have ample capacity to meet any surge of demand in a crisis, for the reasons that I have already advanced.
    There has indeed been a more rapid rate of job loss than originally anticipated. We have discussed the matter in the House. The reasons include the lower maintenance needs of modern ships, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. The total naval work load has been reduced, and that has been reflected in a more rapid reduction in the number of jobs available at Devonport than was first envisaged.

    Challenger Tank (Replacement)
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to decide on a replacement for the Challenger tank; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: The Challenger tank entered service in 1984, and deliveries to equip a total of seven regiments will not be completed until the end of the decade. We have no plans at present to replace Challenger.
    Mr. Fatchett: We seem to go through this process of questioning every month. At the Vickers factory in Leeds there appears to be an unfortunate hiatus in orders for the new Challenger tanks and in their development. If an order is not placed before long, 700 jobs will be lost at the factory. Is the Secretary of State at all concerned about the potential loss of jobs in Leeds, or is he happy to allow the order to go to its German and American counterparts?
    Mr. Younger: There is no question of that at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering whether we can replace the Chieftain tank and, if so, with what tank we should replace it. We hope that there will be competition and that the Leeds factory will feel able to put in a competitive bid for whatever orders are put out to tender. We hope to decide what to do before the end of the year.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in making that important decision, which is overdue for the Army, he will take into consideration the potential of dedicated battlefield anti-tank helicopters against armour?
    Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We are looking widely at the whole range of methods by which we can deal with the threat from enemy armour. One is the provision of effective tanks, but there are other alternatives, and I shall not rule out what he has said.
    Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State's reply, that he has no successor programmes in hand, is very alarming. He must know that the last significant British development in tank technology was announced by a Labour Government, in respect of Chobham armour. There has been nothing of significance since, although, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Soviets have made significant developments over the past two years. As his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has just reminded him, that also applies to anti-tank weaponry.
    Mr. Younger: That is perfectly true, and that is why we are examining the choices that we can make for the replacement of Chieftain and whether we can afford it.
    Mr. Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend accept, when taking advice on the matter, that the great weight of anti-tank weaponry possessed by all sides in a future battle is likely to make the tank about as effective as the horse was at the beginning of the last war? Will he be very careful before he proceeds to spend large sums on future tank technology?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate that there are various ways of dealing with the threat from tanks, but I do not think that I would subscribe to my hon. Friend's description of the tank as being quite so ineffective.
    Mr. Wallace: Is not the delay in placing orders for Challenger tanks and coming forward with a replacement programme for Chieftain a symptom of the problems that the Secretary of State faces in trying to get his defence budget to match? He is postponing important decisions. Now that such a distinguished Conservative Back Bencher as the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) has advocated a defence review, does he not think that it is time to take that advice?
    Mr. Younger: I do not agree. As there was no question in the past of further tank orders, we are now considering what to do about replacing the Chieftain tank. We review the defence programme every year and balance resources with the programme. This year is no exception.
    Mr. Patnick: If and when my right hon. Friend considers a replacement for the Chieftain tank, will he bear in mind that the tracks and turret are made in a subsidiary
    244
    of a Sheffield firm, William Cook plc? Will he take that fact into account in ensuring that the best possible equipment is obtained for the British Army?
    Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that fact. It would be for the makers to decide whether subcontractors should be employed to do the work. I have no doubt that in due course that my hon. Friend will be drawing that fact to the attention of the makers of the tank.

    Front-line Aircraft
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of the Royal Air Force's front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of Royal Air Force front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): It has been the policy of successive Governments not to provide detailed information about the operational readiness of elements of the armed forces. However, I can assure the hon. Members that all Royal Air Force aircraft assigned to operational duties are fully manned and equipped and thus able to undertake their designated missions.
    Mr. Buckley: The Select Committee on Defence has reported that, despite the high cost of the maintenance and repair budget, one third to one half of the front-line defence aircraft are not available. Is that not dangerous and deplorable, and is it not yet another example of the Ministry of Defence procuring expensive equipment and then having to spend large sums of money on repairing and maintaining it?
    Mr. Hamilton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Tornado aircraft. It is customary to have reserve aircraft, although I accept that the number of Tornado aircraft in reserve is very high. These aircraft are due to be modified at the end of the production run. I expect them to come on stream in the early 1990s.
    Mr. Soley: No Opposition Member will be surprised to learn that the Conservatives have consistently refused to give such information, even though it is readily available to research workers at airports around the world. Will he say whether some of the operational failures are due to the lack of Foxhunter radar? Does he intend to return to the bizarre idea of filling the noses of some of the aeroplanes with concrete, with which, presumably, to ram our opponents?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knows that in 1984–85 the non-availability of Foxhunter radar meant that the programme had to be rescheduled. That is why we are now operating according to the availability of both radar and pilots to fly the aircraft.
    Sir Antony Buck: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his front-line appointment and wish him a long and happy tenure in his office.

    245
    Will he ensure that pressure is put on the Royal Air Force to make sure that a larger number of aircraft that at all times are operational are in service? Will he keep up pressure to that effect on the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks.
    The intention is that the aircraft should operate at maximum efficiency. That is why we are not prepared to bring the reserve aircraft into service until they have been modified.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: The ratio is of great significance, but what is the point of either the Royal Air Force or NATO maintaining a high ratio of operational aircraft if they are unable to communicate with each other in times of war, except through a third party, or if they are unable to be rearmed on the aerodromes of another allied nation or if, because of the current disastrous IFF position, a very large proportion are likely to be shot down by our own forces?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend confirms the remark that I made, which was that the operational efficiency of those aircraft must be supreme before we are prepared to let them fly.
    Mr. Rogers: May I offer my congratulations to the Minister and welcome him back to quiet pastures.
    The Defence Select Committee has rightly pointed out on a number of occasions in the past year that the Government's defence procurement programme is a shambles. When will the Government acknowledge that many of our front-line aircraft and other services are unable to meet a threat that may come at any time?
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
    That is precisely the point that I have been trying to make. In practice, it is very important to ensure that those aircraft maintain operational effectiveness on the front line. That is why aircraft that do not meet that requirement are kept in reserve.

    Low-frequency Sonar
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being done into low-frequency sonar for defence purposes.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Low-frequency passive sonar is already in use with the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Defence is currently conducting a research programme into low-frequency active sonar and its potential applications. That work is being undertaken within the Ministry of Defence research establishments. For security reasons it would not be appropriate to comment on the specific research projects.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that there has been a dangerous weakening in Britain's anti-submarine defences because of the declining effectiveness of towed array sonar and the hydrophone barrier? Will the Minister therefore give the research into long range low-frequency active sonar to which he has just referred the utmost priority and accompany it with design studies into a new generation of ships that are capable of deploying it?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman was not very accurate in referring to the declining effectiveness of towed
    246
    array sonar. The towed array sonars in use are very effective. What has changed is that the latest Soviet submarines are a great deal quieter than earlier generations.
    With regard to the platforms from which we might deploy low-frequency active sonar, it is too early to make any decision. We can make a decision on the appropriate platform only after a decision on the sonar itself has been arrived at. As the hon. Gentleman knows, low frequency sonar exists in a number of forms. Some of them—like the sonar systems currently in service—could be fitted to existing or planned warships.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When does my hon. Friend expect to be in a position to make the decision to which he has referred, and when will the order for new sonar buoys be placed? Will he remember that the firm of Dowty's in my constituency has always done a brilliant job in such matters?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am aware of the contribution made by firms in my hon. Friend's constituency to our sonar capacity. We have a steady programme of new sonar buoys and sonar equipment. The particular type of sonar involved in the question is currently the subject of a major research programme and has not yet reached the stage where we can make a decision to purchase.

    NATO (Expenditure)
    Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to discuss with NATO colleagues the relative share of military expenditure borne by individual countries within the Alliance.
    Mr. Younger: I shall have a number of opportunities later in the year for discussion with NATO colleagues on the sharing of risks, roles and responsibilities within the Alliance, including at the defence planning committee in December.
    Mr. Clay: Why is the Secretary of State being so acquiescent and weak-willed about the United States' demands that Britain and other European members should pay a higher proportion of NATO's costs? Has he ever pointed out to the United States—or will he point: out to the United States—that Britain already pays disproportionately high amounts of NATO's costs? Are the British Government bailing out President Reagan's economic incompetence, with his budget and trade deficits? Most of NATO's policy decisions are made in the interests of the United States, so why does the Secretary of State not suggest that the United States pays most of the costs?
    Mr. Younger: The United States does pay most of the costs. It pays more than any other member of NATO. It is worth noting that it does so because it takes the view that it is in the interests of defending the United States that Europe should be sound and solidly defended. It is my view, and that of the whole Alliance, that the European members should do more than they do at present, and I shall be encouraging them to do so.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the American request is entirely reasonable and that the European countries should respond? Bearing in mind that there is already limited discreet French co-operation on air

    247
    defence and related matters, although the French are not members of the military command, is my right hon. Friend confident that that can be extended, by a further limited amount at least, so that the pressure on the other contributors can be mitigated?
    Mr. Younger: The European members of the Alliance have a major role to play in ensuring the defence of western Europe. The United States has drawn attention to that, and that matter has been dealt with by a NATO Alliance initiative to set in hand a study of the relative shares of the burden carried by Europeans and the United States. We hope to get a report of that study by the end of the year.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: In view of the financial implications of our respective defence policies, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Government believe that conventional parity is compatible with flexible response?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, it is a very compatible aim that we should get conventional weapons on each side down to parity, or much nearer to parity, while the whole question of the flexible response enables us to have a variable range of different types of major weapon to respond to whatever threat comes.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that the United States, as the largest contributor to NATO by far, should be reassured that Europe is prepared not merely to contribute to its own defence but to pay for it as well?
    Mr. Younger: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. It is remarkable that the United States is not only a full member of NATO but plays the largest part in providing resources for all of us to defend western Europe. That solidarity and that linkage across the Atlantic have prevented war for 40 years, and if the policy is maintained I see no reason why it should not continue to do that.

    Nuclear Test Site (Nevada)
    Mr. Heffer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely continued availability of Nevada as a test site for British nuclear weapons and as to the factors which will influence this.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Nevada test site will continue to be available for as far ahead as we can foresee. Any change to that position would have to be considered in the light of the needs and circumstances pertaining at the time.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that it is now 43 years since Hiroshima was bombed? Is it not time that we worked towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is it not also time that we stopped following the United States of America, made our own decisions and recognised that we do not really have an independent nuclear deterrent? We are very much dependent upon the United States of America, and we ought to start declaring some independence from it.
    Mr. Sainsbury: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we continue to play a leading role in efforts towards balanced and verifiable disarmament. That will continue to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. In that policy we are
    248
    fully supported by the whole of the NATO Alliance, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said, shares the view that there is a need for flexible response.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend look at the question again and note that it is interesting that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should be worried about whether we shall continue to be able to test our nuclear deterrent? Does that not show a scintilla of sense that is unusual in the hon. Member for Walton?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has his own special views on nuclear deterrence—to my mind he does not fully appreciate the nature of deterrence—and his views may be quite widely shared on the Opposition Benches.

    Disabled Ex-Service Personnel
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding ex gratia payments for ex-service men and women seriously disabled by alleged negligence before 8 December 1986.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): A number of representations have been received from the right hon. Gentleman and others.
    Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister agree that every service man and woman now has a right to sue for compensation if he or she is disabled as a result of negligence and that that right was won partly by the campaigning efforts of a group of severely disabled ex-service men who, ironically, are denied that right? Will the Minister reconsider his refusal to set up a trust fund to make ex gratia payments to ex-service men who are disabled but who do not have the right to sue?
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that service men and women now have the right to sue for negligence. I pay tribute to him and to many other right hon. and hon. Members for the campaign that was waged to draw attention to this inequity. As was made clear during proceedings in the House, we have no intention of making that repeal retrospective, and that includes the application of the trust fund. But I can confirm that those ex-service men and women to whom he referred receive benefit payments from the DHSS and from the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many serving men and women have made claims for damages since December 1986?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes. Since 8 December 1986 some 250 service men and women have made claims for damages and those cases are now in course of settlement.
    Mr. Cohen: Have not many of the nuclear test veterans and their families suffered terribly purely in the course of serving their country? Should not the Government provide proper compensation for those families?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government maintain that there is no evidence of any causal link between the nuclear tests

    249
    that took place in Australia in the 1950s and any injuries or disease that may or may not be suffered by service men and women.
    Mr. Alexander: If there is negligence, surely an ex-service man or service men ought to be entitled to sue? What is so magical about the cut-off date? Is not the cut-off date causing grave damage and disturbance to those members of the services who otherwise would have perfectly valid claims?
    Mr. Freeman: That was just the reason why the Government decided to repeal the law to permit service men and women, effectively from 8 December 1986, to sue for damages, so I agree with my hon. Friend, but we cannot turn the clock back and make that repeal retrospective.

    F111 Aircraft (Cruise Missiles)
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the possibility of F111s stationed in the United Kingdom carrying air-launched cruise missiles.
    Mr. Younger: The United States Defence Secretary and I met at the NATO nuclear planning group meeting in April, when Ministers discussed the need to keep the Alliance's forces properly structured and up to date. No decisions on NATO force adjustments have yet been taken.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Secretary of State seen the report in the recent Jane's Defence Weekly, which says that a fleet of Amrican FB 111A planes will be stationed here in 1989–90 and that they will be armed with short-range attack missiles and air-launched cruise missiles? Is that not a cynical attempt to subvert the recent arms control treaties?
    Mr. Younger: I did see some report of that nature, but there is no truth in it. NATO is still considering a number of options for adjusting its remaining nuclear forces following the INF agreement. Options include possible redeployment to a number of European countries of longer-range dual-capable aircraft currently based in the United States, but no decisions have yet been taken. Deployment to Europe of strategic air-launched cruise missiles is not one of the matters under consideration.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does not the INF accord enhance the importance for deterrence of air-launched systems such as the F111s stationed in this country? Is it not important that they should be able to continue to penetrate Warsaw pact air defences?
    Mr. Younger: Yes. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It is necessary that at all times we should have the capability in the NATO Alliance to respond to any level of attack. To do so we have to be able to penetrate Soviet territory. It is our policy to make sure that in the evolving situation of threat we are always able to do so.
    Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), conventional balance and flexible response are compatible. Is it not the case that it logically flows from
    250
    that statement that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept air-launched cruise missiles as part of that flexible response?
    Mr. Younger: I was talking about air-launched strategic cruise missiles. I made it clear that that was not one of the options. I have already made it clear that among the options that we are considering for the possible replacement of our nuclear free-fall bombs is an air-launched, air-to-ground cruise missile. That is perfectly well known, and we are still studying whether it will be possible.

    NATO Ships (Nuclear Weapons)
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review with his colleagues in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the number of nuclear weapons carried by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ships; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: NATO Ministers regularly review the nuclear forces available to the Alliance, including sea-based weapons.
    Mr. Galloway: The Secretary of State would not be so complacent if he had read the recently published American report, entitled "Nuclear Warships and Naval Nuclear Weapons", which reveals that 16,000 nuclear bombs are currently sailing on the world's waterways—that is, 16,000 nuclear accidents waiting to happen in a nuclear traffic jam on the high seas. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, even within his policy, and even within his nuclear obsessions, there is a case for talking to the other side about a reduction in the sheer number of weapons that are currently sailing on the high seas?
    Mr. Younger: I am sure that there must be better ways of trying to get headlines than that. The hon. Gentleman must come to terms with the fact that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, our security depends upon any aggressor being certain that it cannot attack us without the risk of receiving an attack in return. That is the basis of the maintenance of peace, which the Government and the NATO Alliance are successfully achieving at the moment.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Paul Obeng, chairman of the Committee of Secretaries of Ghana.
    Mr. Franks: I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister, who, in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, once again when abroad batted for Britain and for Barrow to try to secure the Canadian submarine order. After almost eight weeks on strike, pending further negotiations to settle the dispute, is it not time that local unions in Barrow balloted their members for a return to work?
    The Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. I understand that management and unions are meeting today, and I hope that the dispute will be resolved. I share my hon. Friend's view that the strike is damaging to Britain and to our prospects of getting more orders from abroad. It is particularly damaging to Vickers, and it could even be damaging the prospect of getting more home orders, too.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Health mean that the Government are now ready to provide the actual cost of the nurses' pay award and the grading review?
    The Prime Minister: Dividing the DHSS is something that many people have thought should have been done for some time. I was in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance when it was mooted that the two Departments should be put together. The two Departments together were more than one person could legitimately undertake. The burden was very great indeed, so we have separated them.
    With regard to nurses' pay, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have provided the full amount of £803 million estimated by the review body. We believe that that should be sufficient for a fair implementation of the new structural pay agreement, and we hope that regional health authorities and districts will get on with making that structural arrangement.
    Mr. Kinnock: The pay review body said:
    "the actual cost of our recommendations may well differ from our estimates".
    Will the Prime Minister now give a specific undertaking that if the actual costs are higher than the estimates she will make up the difference, or is she again to betray nurses and patients?
    The Prime Minister: We believe that the £803 million is sufficient to reach a fair implementation of the structural pay agreement. It is for the regions to determine how to allocate the funds to the districts. The main allocation of the central funds has already been made to the regions. It is for the regions to determine how to allocate funds to districts, because they are best placed to take account of local factors that may affect the outcome of the grading exercise. One of the problems is that the local health authorities are not getting on sufficiently rapidly with the regrading and, therefore, the nurses do not quite know where they are.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the cuts to nurses pay under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Do my right hon. Friend and her newly enlarged Cabinet plan to introduce legislation to abolish oaths of allegiance being sworn to the Crown and to replace them with democratic oaths? Does she not regard such a proposal as disloyal, if not treacherous? Is she surprised that a Bill has been introduced by a group of Members of the Labour party who expect that their candidate will win the next Labour leadership election on that basis?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has made his own point very effectively indeed.
    Dr. Owen: In view of the deplorably short sighted decision not to give any further financial support to the HOTOL project, will the Prime Minister agree, first, to
    252
    declassify the patents and, secondly, if any other Government are prepared to come forward in a collaborative project, that this Government will also support HOTOL?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the HOTOL project is only in its very early research stages, but I think that a contrary impression may have been given in certain newspapers. It is a concept of a space plane to reduce the cost of launching satellites. There is no question of this country being able to finance the research or production of such an enormous project, which would be in the order of £4 billion to £6 billion. We think that our research moneys could far better go to many other projects which would help our own people far more.
    Mr. Alexander: Following my right hon. Friend's recent involvement with the Tidy Britain Group, will she consider turning her energies towards the problems of noise in our streets? Does she agree that some of the noise coming from open car windows and transistors in the streets is deeply offensive and that legislation should now be considered to reduce that noise to much more acceptable levels?
    The Prime Minister: I agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We should hear the answer.
    The Prime Minister: Answering from this Dispatch Box, I agree with my hon. Friend about noise and how very difficult it can be to make oneself heard.
    With regard to a clean Britain, if people did not throw things down, had more personal pride and responsibility for their villages, towns and cities, and made less noise and objection to such an unexceptionable statement, we might have very much cleaner towns and cities.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: As the Prime Minister in her reshuffle has now made the Secretary of State in charge of the Department of Health and Social Security half the Minister that he once was, will she now sort out the mess in the Scottish Office? Is she aware that, on the one hand, there is no Law Officer or Agriculture Minister who can participate in debates in the House and, on the other, the one-man band from Stirling, for example, is responsible for education, for health, for social work, for sport and so on? He is not very good at it. To those have now been added agriculture, forestry and fishing. Will she turn her attention to a sensible and organised form of government in Scotland, for the first time in decades?
    The Prime Minister: The Scottish Office works extremely well under one of the best Scottish Secretaries of State that it has ever had. It has an excellent team— [Interruption.] I point out to the hon. Gentleman, if I can be heard through the noise, which is such an awful example to schoolchildren, that the Scottish earnings are the third highest in Britain.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when she visited the Nottinghamshire coalfield in 1976 output stood at 2 tonnes per manshift? Today, under the leadership of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, output has reached over 5 tonnes per manshift. Recently, the Black Diamond of Sherwood Thoresby colliery broke the European weekly record for deep-mined coal, at 61,700 tonnes. Will my right hon. Friend take time in the next year to visit Nottinghamshire to see for herself how the Notts miners are preparing to meet the challenge of privatisation of the electricity industry?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The record that my hon. Friend mentions is quite outstanding and it is a great tribute to the UDM and all of those who work in the coal mine. It puts miners in a very good position to meet the challenges of the next decade. I shall certainly try to come up next year and give them my personal best wishes on their marvellous record.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread anger in the country at her appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) as European Commissioner? Is she further aware that that appointment is regarded by the overwhelming majority of people as a pay-off for silence during the Westland affair?
    The Prime Minister: The nomination—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to answers.
    The Prime Minister: The nomination of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is an excellent one——
    Mr. Skinner: Why did the right hon. Lady sack him then?
    The Prime Minister: I believe——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only fair that, when the Prime Minister has been asked a question, she is given an opportunity to answer it.
    The Prime Minister: The Opposition cannot debate— they can only shout. That is why they shout. The nomination of my right hon. and learned Friend, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is an excellent one. I believe very strongly that we should put to Europe those who have had considerable experience of Cabinet office. My right hon. and learned Friend served in the Treasury as a Cabinet Minister, he served in the Home Office as a Cabinet Minister and he served in the Department of Trade and Industry as a Cabinet Minister. He will be very well placed to represent Britain at an extremely difficult and important time for the future of Europe and of the Commission. I hope that the Opposition will see fit to put up names that are as distinguished.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: As the secretary of the ANZAC group, may I wish my right hon. Friend a successful visit to Australia at the end of the week? Will she confirm that
    254
    while she is there she will not make any speeches critical of the Leader of the Opposition, that she will not make any tasteless jokes about his wife, that she will not swear at any Australian soldiers and that she will behave with a dignity that will forever elude the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I have no difficulty in giving the confirmation that my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wallace: The Prime Minister will be aware that although the closure of Dounreay is being phased over many years the job loss implications are worrying for the north of Scotland. Is she aware that we will not be satisfied by being fobbed off with the idea of a nuclear dump in the north of Scotland? Indeed, it might discourage many of the employment opportunities that we shall now have to develop in that part of the country.
    The Prime Minister: I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates the strenuous efforts that we have made to phase out those job losses over a long period, because we are well aware of the problems of getting extra jobs in that area. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was such an enthusiast for nuclear energy. With regard to Nirex, we have not yet received a report from that organisation about the disposal of some of the waste.

    Foreign Terrorist Organisations
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to foreign terrorist organisations known to be in regular contact with the IRA having offices in the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: The IRA is a proscribed organisation in this country, and anyone who has a meeting with members of the IRA may be liable to prosecution under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.
    Mr. Hunter: Since the IRA, the ANC and SWAPO, as exemplified by the statement made by Mr. Sam Nujoma in Dublin last November, not only show interest in one another but support one another's tactics, and bearing in mind that the ANC is responsible for the murder of 600 black South Africans in the past two to three years, is it right that London should be an open haven for South African terrorist organisations, which are the self-confessed friends of the IRA?
    The Prime Minister: The information that my hon. Friend has given about the links between those organisations will, of course, be investigated. As he knows, the other organisations that he has mentioned are not proscribed in this country. Therefore, the tradition is that anyone is free to express his political views, provided that he does so within the law. Of course, we condemn violence from whatever quarter it comes in South Africa. The only way in which progress can be made is by peaceful negotiation. The current talks on Angola and Namibia are encouraging in that respect.

Select Committee Report
3.31 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would investigate a serious breach of the procedures of the House. I am talking about the pressure that has been put on the Chairman of a Select Committee by the Government to change a report arbitrarily without taking it to the Committee. Today there was a press conference on the Chernobyl report, which had been agreed by both sides of the Committee. The Chairman instructed the Clerk of the Committee to alter the report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—where it said that it was "highly probable" that lamb had got into the food chain. The Chairman instructed the Clerk to delete the word "highly", so the report reads only "probable". The only reason for that was that the Chairman had been got at by the Government. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Matters of that kind must be dealt with in the Committee. They cannot be dealt with by me. I call Mr. Harry Barnes to move his motion on the ten-minute Bill.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Harry Baraes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me— [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Order. Matters relating to a Select Committee are for the Select Committee concerned. They must be taken up in the Select Committee.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that at some point Select Committees must report to the House and that on occasions those reports are debated? What my hon. Friend has said is that the Chairman of that Committee has doctored that report, on the advice of the Government. The report has been nobbled. That means that a report that will be presented to the House, under your stewardship, Mr. Speaker, has been nobbled by the Government. Of course it is a matter for you to investigate.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for reports made by Select Committees. That must be a matter for the Committee concerned. If the Committee does not like what has happened, it can report to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Wiggin.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I was given no warning by a member of my Committee. I was informed by the Clerk of the Committee that there had been a misprint in the summary of recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Accordingly, I directed that that change should be reported to a press conference that I held this morning.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of the Committee has given his explanation.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect to you, I,
256
and I believe the House, would be extremely grateful if you would review, with great accuracy—as I know you will —the words that you used about the responsibilities of Select Committees. I am sure that the House will recognise that the sole function of a Select Committee is to report to the House. The substance of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) related to a report to the House.
Mr. Martlew: It has been published.
Mr. Douglas: Yes. Therefore, if that report has been put into the public domain, any consequential alteration of that report is a matter for you and the House. I ask you to take that on board.
Mr. Speaker: First, as I understand it, this is not the report of the Committee, but a summary of it given at a press conference. Secondly, the substance of a Select Committee report is for the whole Committee to agree. If the Committee feels that something has gone wrong and that an alteration, which the Chairman has said is a technical one, has been made, it is a matter for the Committee to investigate.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While a Select Committee is considering a report it remains the property of that Committee, but once the report is published by the Committee—the report in question obviously has been published, because it was dealt with at a press conference —it is then reported to the House. The general rule is that until a Committee has concluded its deliberations the report remains its property and you, Mr. Speaker, would object to hon. Members referring to its contents on the Floor of the House.
That is not the case here. The report has been published, the Government have apparently brought their influence to bear on the final report and therefore it is the job of this Chamber to ensure that some sort of investigation is established, because——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this, because the House knows that this is an Opposition Day, and we should get on with the debate. The position is absolutely clear. The report that is made to the House cannot be altered except by the Committee. It is not open to any individual hon. Member to do that. That is the position.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the points of order, but there must be no complaint if hon. Members who wish to take part in the housing debate do not get called.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Hansard yesterday you rightly said that you hoped that
"the whole House will always uphold the authority of the Chair. If that does not happen, anarchy becomes the order of the day".—[Official Report, 25 July 1988; Vol. 138, c. 33.]
It is clear that that is what is happening. In the Division yesterday, on a motion to support you in your decision to name a Member, only three Opposition Members supported you and 26 voted against you. How does that in any way square with your advice to the House that the whole House should uphold the authority of the Chair when, patently, only a minuscule number of Opposition Members are prepared to support you and nine times as many are prepared to oppose you?
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said about the Select Committee report, I ask you to say that, for once, you will look into the matter, consider it and report back to the House, rather than taking a hasty decision based upon the fact that my hon. Friend may or may not have been right. This is a matter that should be decided by Back Benchers and the House. Surely, as the representative of Back Benchers, it is your duty to uphold the rights of all Members of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly it is, but I believe that the whole House feels that it would be wrong for the Speaker to assume responsibilities that he has not got. As the hon. Gentleman has pressed the matter, and so that we may get on with the debate, I shall look into it. However, I do not believe that it is my responsibility and, as I have already said, I believe that it is the responsibility of the Committee. Once a Committee has reported, it is not possible to alter its report.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The time taken by points of order will have to be taken into account later in the day.
Mr. Hoyle: Does it not concern you, Mr. Speaker when it is being said that a Select Committee report has been tampered with by the Chairman of that Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I have said that I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has provoked me to take this up with you, Mr. Speaker. I was a bit disappointed that you did not respond to that point of order. It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman was trying to put you in a position in which you felt that you did not have the support of the Opposition. That is simply not true. It is very unfair of the hon. Member for Tatton to raise that sort of point of order and it should not go unanswered. It should be denied here and now.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I assure the House that if I felt that I did not have the support of the whole House there would be no point in continuing.
Mr. David Curry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You should know that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is suffering from amnesia. He should recall that it was said in the body of the report that it was "probable", and that the whole Committee agreed to exclude the word "highly". That reflects what is in the body of the report. The hon. Gentleman's amnesia betrays him, and he should not cast aspersions on the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of this report. I said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that I would look into the matter, even though I do not think that it is really for me.

Petitioners' Rights
3.42 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the signatories of petitions presented to any organisation or body outside the House of Commons from any penalty or discrimination, legal or otherwise.
The Bill that I seek to introduce is about petitioners' rights. Three of the greatest petitions ever presented to Parliament were the people's charters of the 19th century. They contained six points of wide constitutional and democratic significance: secret ballots, equal electoral districts, payment of MPs, the end of property qualifications for people entering Parliament, universal male suffrage and parliaments to be elected annually. Only that last demand has not yet seen the light of day. The suffragettes helped to overcome the sexist limitations of the initial Chartists' demands.
The poll tax legislation which has just been adopted, together with the earlier measure for Scotland, likewise contains six points of great constitutional and democratic significance, but they are all regressive, making it a counter-charter. First, the franchise will be cut, as many of those who cannot afford their poll tax seek to evade it by leaving their names off the poll tax and electoral registers. Secondly, normal democracy will be virtually ended as the central state machine takes over the last remnants of local government independence. Thirdly, just to be on the safe side, local government elections will be fixed as pressure is created to keep down poll tax levels and the services that they provide.
Fourthly, the poor will be required to subsidise the rich, in contrast to the norms of democratic taxation systems. Fifthly, for the first time since the universal franchise was finally achieved in the Acts of 1918 and 1928, people will have to pay tax to qualify to vote. Sixthly, civil liberties essential to a democracy will be damaged, as poll tax registrars will be required to invade all sorts of sensitive information to try to discover who is missing from their registers.
In the House on 28 March, at column 839, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) even hit on the notion of using anti-poll-tax petitions as an avenue for placing people's names on poll tax registers. The Minister of State, Scottish Office agreed with that in column 851—as, it seems, did the Leader of the House in answer to my business question on 23 June, in columns 1278–79.
There is, of course, a logic to such illiberal thought. If criminal records, housing benefit and educational grant records and so on can be invaded by the poll tax registrar, why not use petitioners' names and addresses? Fortunately, public petitions to Parliament are out for such purposes because, as you confirmed, Mr. Speaker, in column 1281 of Hansard of 23 June, the names and addresses of such petitioners are Parliament's property and are not available to the Government or to the registrars. However, petitions to the Prime Minister, Government Departments and poll tax registrars are available for this use and abuse unless the House decides to pass a Bill on the lines of the one that I seek to introduce.
It is time to turn the logic of the hon. Member for Stockton, South the right way round. If there is a sound, democratic and constitutional reason for protecting

259
petitioners' names and addresses, might there not be a similar reason for protecting sensitive information on housing, employment and education? The word "petition" means a prayerful request and in its constitutional form it is an application for redress to an authority, and no duress can be levelled at petitioners for the act of petitioning. Nowadays such authorities are often Government Departments and agencies, but it is essentially the monarch, Parliament and the courts that are currently covered by petitioners' rights.
My Bill would protect the signatories to petitions presented to any organisation or body outside Parliament from any discrimination, legal or otherwise, and would include such petitions as the people's petition recently presented to the Prime Minister. Petitions to the Commons must be in writing and must be free from disrespectful language or imputations against any tribunal or constituted authority. The Bill would require similar provisions and checks over petitions qualifying for protection when delivered outside Parliament.
I am seeking to place petitions in this country on the same, or on a similar, level to petitions in the United States of America, while acknowledging the constitutional differences between the United Kingdom and the United States. The right to petition the Government in the USA is secured by the first amendment to the United States constitution, which was ratified between 1789 and 1791. It says:
"Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A United States Supreme Court ruling in 1875 in the United States v. Cruikshank case took the view that the first amendment assumes
"the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the states. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and has never been surrendered. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the national government is an attribute of national citizenship, and as such under the protection of and guaranteed by the United States. The very idea of a government republican in form implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances".
That protection should be provided in this country in connection with petitions to Government. My Bill seeks to protect petitioners who add their names and addresses to petitions to the Government and other official bodies.
260
That protection would be similar to the protections provided to those who petition Parliament in the way that is laid down in "Erskine May".
In seeking to extend petitioning rights I should tell hon. Members that they should be aware of the role that petitioning played in the development of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. The right to petition the monarch goes back to Saxon times and was implicitely recognised in Magna Carta. The Bill of Rights 1688, the tercentenary of which we have just celebrated, said:
"it is the right of the Subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitions are illegal."
Parliament probably originated in meetings of the King's Council, which considered petitions. Up to the start of the 15th century the main work of Parliament was the considering of petitions. It was only with the final growth of parliamentary democracy, especially with the slow start of the working-class franchise from 1867, that petitioning started to lose its constitutional significance.
When people acquire the vote, have the freedom to join together in trade unions which can freely negotiate for their interests, start to have their ideas and interests expessed in the press, make the political system respond to their concerns through a progressive taxation system and a growing welfare state, petitioning will be of minor significance. However, when employment Bills, Budgets, cuts in the Health Service, attacks on housing benefit and income support, Murdoch and the poll tax start to dismantle the workers' achievements, petitioning rights become important in an age of declining freedoms.
Furthermore, we can no longer be described as a parliamentary democracy. Elections are presidential. Governments dictate to Parliament through the Whips and through their use of patronage. The new computer technology adds to central control and authority. Against such trends, democratisation at the workplace and decentralisation are essential. Petitioning rights have their part to play in the struggle for re-enfranchisement, similar in many ways to the Chartists' initial struggle for working-class enfranchisement.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Max Madden, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Alan Meale.

PETITIONERS' RIGHTS
Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to protect the signatories of petitions presented to any organisation or body outside the House of Commons from any penalty or discrimination, legal or otherwise: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 27 July and to be printed. [Bill 209.]
Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Housing Benefit Transitional Scheme
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House recalls that in April Her Majesty's Government imposed savage cuts in Housing Benefit which continue to cause serious hardship to millions of claimants; notes that the vast majority of losers are not eligible for help from the emergency scheme of transitional protection which Her Majesty's Government was forced to set up; is concerned that three months after this scheme was announced to the House only a handful of applications have been processed and that at the present rate it will be at least February 1989 before Her Majesty's Government achieves its inadequate target of 350,000 successful applications; records its alarm at recent Ministerial statements that even many of those who are successful will lose their transitional protection next March; takes the view that the scheme has failed to relieve the pressing hardship caused by the cuts in Housing Benefit; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reverse those cuts forthwith.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Cook: Last April, the Government, as an act of deliberate policy, cut housing benefit. That removed housing benefit from 1 million claimants and reduced housing benefit for 4·5 million other claimants. How popular that step turned out to be can be gauged from the front pages of today's newspapers in which the Secretary of State, who had to defend those cuts in the House, is variously described as "shunted sideways", "chopped in half" or "sidelined".
  Over the past 12 months, I have developed a degree of affection for my sparring partner. I was not always sure whether that affection was reciprocated, but, nevertheless, I have a healthy respect for my opposite number. I regret the fact that he is unable to be with us on this occasion, owing to another engagement, but I am sure that he will read the report of our proceedings. As his skills of presentation have been somewhat criticised over the past 24 hours, I take this opportunity of putting it on the record that I, for one, am quite sure that, if it were possible to make popular the idea that taking £10 off the weekly benefit of a pensioner was a step toward ending the dependency culture, the right hon. Gentleman could have achieved it.
  The Government are in trouble over health and social security not because the man at the top is not a good enough saleman, but because nobody wants to buy the Governments policies on welfare. I note that one of today's papers says that the Secretary of State is now left with
  "the dull routine of benefit payments."
  Let me offer encouragement to the Secretary of State, because he may need cheering up in his current position. Those constituents whom we meet who live on benefits do not regard the question of their payments as a dull routine. On the contrary, they are matters of vital necessity and importance to them. To nobody is that more important than those constituents whom my hon. Friends have met
  262
  over the past three months, who have seen their housing benefit cut by £40, £80, £100 a month—by definition, people on low incomes.
  There is a droll debate going on among the new Right on how one can define poverty. Let me offer an invitation to any hon. Members who may find it difficult to work out what poverty is. They need not worry themselves any more about such a difficult question. All they have to do is to come with me and my hon. Friends and meet the people we know who know the meaning of poverty because they live with it every day of their lives and have seen it worsen over the past three months. The most telling testimony to their poverty is the evidence that they simply cannot afford to pay the new levels of rents that are being demanded of them.
  Rent arrears across Britain have bounded ahead since April. In Wales, a survey by the Association of District Councils has found that rent arrears have increased by 50 per cent. Lancaster informs me that its rent arrears have increased by one third since April, and it understands that that is one of the lowest increases in Lancashire. Edinburgh projects that the increase in rent arrears will double over the course of this year.
  That evidence was not available to the House when we last debated the matter on 27 April. On that occasion, the then Secretary of State for Social Services wisely gave up the attempt to defend the scheme that he had just imposed. Instead, he pulled out of the hat an emergency package to mitigate the worst consequences of his own scheme. We were invited then, and we are invited again in the Government's amendment, to applaud the Government for their generosity in protecting some people from the worst consequences of the Government's cuts.
  It is now three months almost to the day of that debate and I—and I suspect that I speak for many of my hon. Friends—have yet to meet anyone who has received a payment for transitional protection. I know that I meet different people from Ministers. I know that with some confidence because two weeks ago, opening a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), expressed surprise when he heard of complaints that people had not been receiving transitional protection and proceeded to assure the Committee that if any hon. Members had evidence that somebody was not receiving the transitional protection he would investigate it on their behalf. He was obviously blissfully unaware that, on the day that he spoke, nobody in Britain had received a single payment for transitional protection. He is, I concede, not a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, only a Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for housing and, as such, cannot be expected to know about such things.
  Since then, a handful of claimants have managed to get under the wire. Last week, in answer to a parliamentary question from me, the DHSS stated that 18 people had received payment for transitional protection. I checked again this morning and was informed that yesterday that figure of 18 leaped ahead to a total of 68 claimants who have been paid transitional protection. Some of my hon. Friends have met more losers of housing benefit in a single weekend in their constituencies than that figure.
  I note that in today's amendment Ministers again preen themselves on the fact that it is remarkable that anyone

  263
  has been paid in such a short time. The last time that the Minister of Social Security and the Disabled took part in Question Time, he said:
  "It is a remarkable achievement that we have been able to set up the new office, employ and train the staff, establish the procedures and advertise".—[Official Report, 12 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 172.]
  What busy people those Ministers are. No wonder they need another Secretary of State to help them shift the furniture around the new office. The truth is that it is not the Ministers who did all this, but the much-abused civil servants who have gamely set out to make sense of Minister's decisions.
  I give credit to the civil servants who have been working these past three months to fit into that tight timetable, but I give none to the Ministers because for three years they knew that the cuts were coming. For three years they were warned what those cuts would mean by the citizens advice bureaux, Help the Aged, the Child Poverty Action Group, and the National Consumer Council, and for three years they did nothing to soften the blow.
  One of the last things that the current crop of Ministers did before the blow fell was to abolish housing benefit supplement in the last week of March, rather than in the first week of April, in a deliberate attempt to stop those claimants qualifying for the transitional protection that they would otherwise have received. It is perfectly clear not only that Ministers did nothing for three years before the cuts were made, but that they would have done nothing in the three weeks that followed had they not faced the possibility of defeat on our motion of 27 April. As it was, the Secretary of State then produced the minimum necessary to buy off rebellion among his own Back Benchers.
  I must utter a word of warning to Conservative Back Benchers, because I fear they are about to discover from their outraged constituents that they were bought off too cheaply. There has been another fresh development in the past couple of weeks. Not only have the first payments been made by the transitional protection unit, but the first rejection slips have been issued by that unit. Last week, 190 claims were processed by the transitional protection unit and, of that number, 96 did not qualify for a penny in transitional protection. Half of those who applied have been refused all benefit. They are the claimants who do not meet the scheme's small print.
  I note from the circular to local authorities explaining the inquiry form that is completed in response to every application for transitional protection that where they fill in the boxes marked "No", they should then go straight to what are described as the "escape points". There are plenty of escape points in that form, each of them devised to evade liability to that particular claimant.
  First, young tenants with no children are excluded from transitional protection. That is rather odd, because they are the very people who are hit hardest by the invention of a new junior rate of benefit. Any young adult under 26 years of age loses housing benefit at the ferocious marginal rate of 85p in every £1 on any income above £26 per week. I know of one case in Nuneaton of an unemployed man who has been in work, has paid his contributions, and who therefore qualifies for unemployment benefit of £32·75 per week. Out of that meagre income he must pay, as a result
  264
  of the cuts in housing benefit, £5·70 rent per week, although his sole income is unemployment benefit. He is not entitled to a penny in transitional protection.
  In my own constituency, I know of one person who is working on an MSC scheme, as are many of his generation, and whose net pay is £56 per week. He is now paying a full rent of £24 a week. He would be better off out of work than in work. He also does not qualify for a penny of transitional protection.
  Nor is the existence of children itself sufficient to unlock the key to transitional protection. On the contrary, I predict that relatively few families with children will qualify. I can predict that with confidence because the Government's scheme offsets what they lose in housing benefit by any gain that they make in family credit.
  I refer to a case that has been passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) concerning a Mrs. White, who is a single parent holding down a low-paid job. She gained £12·60 in family credit, but she also lost £13·60 in rent and rate benefits. On top of that, she lost £3·50 per week in free school meals and milk for her children. Therefore, she is £4·50 per week worse off. My hon. Friend took up Mrs. White's case with Ministers. I have before me the reply from the former Under-Secretary of State. I shall preserve it all the more carefully, because this morning I heard John Cole announce that he is a man who should be watched as a future Prime Minister. I shall treasure his letter with due care and as a memento that I knew him when he was a young man.
  Replying to the case of Mrs. White, who the House will recall lost £4·50 per week in benefits because of the changes, the former Under-Secretary wrote that her case
  "demonstrates the success of this scheme."
  Mrs. White is deemed to be a success. If the scheme's successes loses £4·50 per week, how much do its failures lose? Still, the Under-Secretary was promoted. In his letter, he helpfully went on to explain the scheme's details, although it must already have been clear to him, as it is clear to me, that Mrs. White has no hope of qualifying for transitional protection because her net loss of £4·50 is not large enough to make her eligible for it.
  I turn to the largest number of people not qualifying for help because they are not hit hard enough by the cuts. The Government claim that anyone who has lost more than £2·50 housing benefit will qualify for transitional protection. That comes with a number of footnotes. First, that commitment to £2·50 maximum loss does not include the new 20 per cent. rates penalty that is now excluded from housing benefit. Since that is a new feature of the most startling novelty, I am perplexed as to why it is not covered by the transitional protection that was devised to help phase in the new scheme. I am particularly perplexed because, having met many tenants who have seen their benefits reduced, I can assure Ministers that not one of them has the remotest idea which part of that loss is attributable to the 20 per cent. cut and which is attributable to the general housing benefit cut.
  In my own constituency—and, conveniently and coincidentally, in the constituency of the Minister of State —that 20 per cent. adds an average of another £2·60 per week to loss of benefits. Additionally, there are this year's rent and rates increases, most of which took place in April and which are good for another £2 increase in most weekly charges. That, again, is exempt from any transitional protection. That also is rather curious because the

  265
  increased rent and rates charge qualifies for housing benefit but apparently it does not qualify for transitional protection, to compensate for the cut in housing benefit.
  There may be no logic in those exclusions, but I can understand their political attraction. They enable Ministers to keep saying that they have limited losses to a maximum of £2·60 per week, when in reality they are only helping people who have seen their weekly bills increase by a minimum of £7 per week. One of the dangers of which I am conscious—and it is a failing of which I myself am sometimes guilty—is that, because from time to time I and my hon. Friends meet people who have suffered spectacular losses in housing benefit, we end up with a dulled appreciation of their devastating impact on tight weekly budgets of lesser sums. To individuals or couples whose total weekly income is £50, £60 or £70, £7 per week is an enormous sum.
  It may be difficult for certain hon. Members to appreciate the enormity of that sum to many people when, to them, £7 represents the price of a large round in the Smoking Room. However, I can tell hon. Members what £7 means in a pensioner's weekly budget. It means one dozen eggs, a daily newspaper, a couple of loaves, half a kilo of margarine, seven tins of soup, and half a stone of potatoes. That is what £7 means to pensioners, and that is what they must give up if they are to find another £7 out of their weekly budget. Those are the purchases that they must do without.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in commenting that the Minister does not care, will have noticed that Conservative Members do not care either. Look at the empty Government Benches. They are not at all bothered about the subject that we are debating today.
  Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many widows and pensioners in Nottinghamshire who are being served a dirty deal by the Government? The heating allowance that they receive from British Coal because of their service is linked to housing benefit, and part of that benefit is reduced because those widows and pensioners receive cash in lieu. That is how the Government serve the pensioners in my constituency.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has made a brilliant cameo speech. Let me take him up on his second point first. It was precisely to allow for such local financial considerations that local authorities used to have the discretion to top up the rent rebate scheme that the Government have taken away
  As for the numbers present in the Chamber, I remind the House that in a previous debate I pointed out that each Conservative Member represents an average of 7,500 losers of housing benefit. Many of them, tragically, go unrepresented in today's debate, but I suspect that many will be in touch with their Members of Parliament in the weeks ahead as the rejection slips come in from the housing benefit transitional protection unit.
  Among those excluded from transitional protection are the claimants who have fallen into one of the many oubliettes with which the new regulations are studded. I remind Ministers of one of the deepest traps, which I drew to their attention when we debated the regulations last November. That is the provision that, after six weeks in hospital, a tenant effectively loses entitlement to housing benefit, because of the odd notion of Ministers that after
  266
  six weeks in hospital any person needs only pocket money. Now such people lose housing benefit at 85p in the pound on any income over £8·25 a week.
  When I pointed that out to the House in November, the then Under-Secretary said that I had misunderstood the provisions. As he has kindly joined us for his swan song, let me tell him about an elderly constituent of mine who is currently in the local psychiatric hospital. As usual with such illnesses, she has been there for over six weeks. Now, on a single person's state pension, she is paying a weekly rent of £24 a week and is £157 in arrears. Last week she received a notice of repossession from the local authority. It would be an understatement to say that that is unlikely to aid her recovery from a psychiatric illness.
  If the House wants to savour the full degree of political bias in the regulations, let me point out that my constituent would continue to qualify for maximum housing benefit if she were in a private hospital, because the regulations make explicit provision to protect the housing benefit of paying patients. However, she qualifies for no transitional protection towards the cut in her housing benefit.
  As well as claimants who are not entitled to transitional protection, there are the minority who are so entitled. The real tragedy is that most of them probably will not receive it. Here it is necessary to grapple with the sheer complexity of the structure that emerged from Ministers' panic response to the consequences of their own cuts. We now have a system in which each claimant must apply to the local authority for housing benefit and then make a separate application to an entirely separate agency—the DHSS—for compensation for the cut in housing benefit that the same DHSS has imposed on the local authority.
  If the claimant is lucky, he will end up with two separate payments for the same rent: payment of housing benefit from the local authority, and payment of transitional protection from the DHSS. It would be unkind at this point to remind Ministers that they promised us that the scheme would be simple to administer and less confusing for claimants. It has certainly succeeded in confusing some of their own Back Benchers. The Minister of State will recall the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) causing some hilarity at Question Time by asking if he would use his influence to get Norwich city council to hurry up payment of transitional protection, as the delay was causing hardship to his constituents. The Minister was rather more reticent than Norwich city council subsequently turned out to be in pointing out that it was nothing to do with the council.
  How many claimants are as confused as Conservative Back Benchers we do not know. Nor do the Government. We know from a parliamentary question three weeks ago that the Government have made no estimate of the take-up rate of transitional protection. That is probably wise of them, as the indications are that it will be pretty miserable. In the past couple of weeks, Ministers have made much of the fact that applications are coming forward at a rate of 4,500 a day. That is a tiny fraction of housing benefit claimants. To be precise, it is 0·0006 per cent., or six per 10,000 claimants. On current form, half of them will receive nothing anyway. At the rate of 2,250 successful applications each working day, it will take until February to hit the Government's own pathetic target of one in 20 claimants—and four weeks later, in March, some of them will lose it again.
  We now know from a letter from the Secretary of State that some claimants will lose their transitional protection

  267
  at the end of the first year and others at the end of the second. That is because the protection is apparently to be subject to what is described as an erosion factor. That erosion factor has yet to be announced. Let it be announced today. Let us find out just how long "transitional" will be, and just how long the few claimants who receive transitional protection will be entitled to it before they are exposed to the full depth of the cut in their housing benefit.
  It was always clear that the emergency package of transitional protection was too late and offered too little help to too few claimants. It is now clear that the scheme is failing to achieve even the Government's meagre targets for it. It is difficult not to compare this grudging, mean little scheme with the unstinting way in which our society helps with the housing costs of more affluent people. In the past week, the press has been full of coverage of the rise in mortgage rates. That 2 per cent. rise will cost the Treasury £900 million in tax relief—nine times the cost of transitional protection. It is given automatically: there is no need to fill out form RR4 and send it to the transitional protection unit. It is not transitional at all, but permanent —or at any rate for as long as interest rates remain high, which, under the present Government, would appear to guarantee it a degree of permanence
  The arrangement that automatically releases that support is not in contention between the two sides of the House. No doubt it is proper that a Government who have just forced up mortgage rates should subsidise owner-occupiers for the extra cost. I am sure that all quarters of the House were impressed a fortnight ago when the Prime Minister made the stirring declaration that she got very cross if anyone wanted to stop mortgage interest relief when they themselves had got their feet on the first rung of the ladder by making use of that relief. But what about the people who buy their houses and get their feet on the first rung with the help of mortgage tax relief, and then vote to take away the benefit that the poor need to pay their rent? Why does that not make her cross? Is it because she is among them?
  I will tell the Prime Minister what makes Opposition Members angry. It is sitting in our surgeries and hearing the despair and bewilderment of those who have seen their careful weekly budgets wrecked. It is sitting in the Chamber witnessing how the Government can always find the money for tax handouts that target more help on those who need it least. Ours is not a heated, unwise anger, but a cold and resolute anger that leaves us with the determination that, although we may lose the vote tonight, we will spare no effort in gaining the support that we need to end this wicked Government and their evil priorities.
  4.19 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
  'applauds the Government's recent reforms of social security; notes that these will result in more taxpayers' money being spent this year than if the old system had continued, and spent in a way better targeted towards those in most need; recognises that the coverage of housing benefit had become too broad; notes that after the reforms housing benefit will still be received by more households than in 1979 and at greater real cost to the taxpayer; welcomes the Government's
  268
  announcement of 27th April that some transitional protection for losses in housing benefit is to be made available to people in vulnerable groups; commends the Government for the speed with which the unit to administer these payments has been set up; and congratulates it on meeting its stated target of making the first payments in July.'.
  I shall respond to the criticisms and comments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) by putting them in the context of what the Government have done about social security and housing benefit since they came to office. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement:
  "But while tax reform is a simple matter for the armchair critic, it is very much more difficult in practice. It is difficult technically and difficult politically—since any tax system, however it arose, creates powerful vested interests in favour of the status quo."—[Official Report, 15 March, 1988; Vol. 129, c. 999.]
  If that is true of the tax system, it is certainly true of the social security system.
  Since we introduced our reforms in April the Opposition have been looking back all the time to a system to which, after this system has been running for a year or so, I do not believe for one moment anybody will wish to return. This system will be infinitely more desirable, flexible and able to cope with need than the previous system.
  Apart from the structural reforms that we have introduced, anybody could be forgiven, after listening to Opposition Members, for forgetting that the Government are spending more, not less, overall on social security in the current year. It is worth reminding the House that, within the scope of the additional resources that we had made available, we have sought to simplify the social security system so that claimants are better aware of that to which they are entitled and staff are better able to administer the system.
  We have sought to target the additional help that is available to those who need it most, to get rid of the nonsenses and idiocies of a tax and benefit withdrawal combination in excess of 100 per cent., and, above all, to deliver a better service to those who need the help of the social security system. Of course it is a huge change. It is the greatest change in the social security benefit system since the end of the second world war. No change of that kind can be introduced without problems, but at least the Government have had the courage to tackle the inadequacies, the complexities and many of the nonsenses of the old system.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister castigates what he calls the old system. Why does he not tell the truth? The old system was introduced by the Conservatives. The brand new system that they have introduced is causing so much chaos that they are having to rectify it because it is inflicting so much unnecessary pain and damage.
  Mr. Scott: If that is to be the quality of Opposition interventions, I do not think that I shall bother to give way again.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Answer the question.
  Mr. Scott: I intend to answer it, but I should like to develop my speech. However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. In April we changed a system whose basic structure

  269
  was established in 1948. As the years went by bits were bolted on to it, which added to its complexities and difficulties. We had the courage to put that right.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way again. This is a short debate. The hon. Member for Livingston was not interrupted, and I should like to get on with my speech. The subject can then be debated for the rest of the afternoon.
  It is worth reminding the House and those who read the accounts of its proceedings of the Government's record on social security. The taxpayer is now spending £1 billion a week on social security. That is one third higher in real terms than we were spending in 1979. We have spent that amount at a time when unemployment has come down in each of the last 21 months. It is also worth reminding the House that it is possible to pay the extra benefits only because of the success of the Government's economic policies.
  Since 1979 we have steadily been spending more each year on housing benefit than was spent in previous years. Expenditure this year is running at over £5 billion. In real terms that is an increase of about 50 per cent. since we came to office in 1979, even after allowing for rises in rents and rates during that period. During the last Labour Administration, using the same measure, expenditure increased by only 3 per cent. in real terms.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows that I always give way to him, but perhaps he will allow me to finish this point.
  About 6 million people now get help—one in three households. In 1979–80, the equivalent figure was 5 million. I am prepared to stand by that record. We have given more help to more people than the Labour Government ever did.
  Mr. Field: Will the Minister remind the House that the White Paper on public expenditure shows that expenditure on housing benefit will fall by £1 billion?
  Mr. Scott: This year we shall spend £50 million less on housing benefit, but that has to be set against an overall w expenditure of £5·2 billion. That is a minimal clawback of a benefit which was set inexorably to rise and which we believed it right to bring under control. Increases in benefit, increases in the expenditure on social security and increases in expenditure on housing benefit do not matter to the Opposition. To them, April 1988 was Paradise lost.
  Today we heard not a word from the hon. Member for Livingston about an alternative strategy. With his incisive intellect, the hon. Gentleman knows the kinds of problems that those in control of the social security system face, but he made no attempt to free himself from the intellectual and political baggage with which the 1987 general election landed the Labour party—a muddled, inconsistent and expensive policy. He set out no new strategy. He simply harked back to what the Opposition regard as the good old days.
  Of all the graffiti that have bedecked our walls in recent years, the one proclaiming that nostalgia is not what it used to be might best be used as the Labour party's slogan.
  270
  The reality under a Labour Government was, as Lord Barnett said, that when they were in office they spent money that they did not have, that they ended up in the arms of the International Monetary Fund and that they had to cut back, not enhance, the social security system. We have never been driven into that position and we do not intend to be.
  In April 1988 we embarked on a new strategy. We said goodbye to over 20,000 paragraphs in the manual required to operate supplementary benefit. We said goodbye to the opportunities to be better off on benefit than in work. We said goodbye to an effective marginal tax rate of about 112 per cent. We also said goodbye to housing benefit supplement, the Byzantine bridge between two entirely different systems of help with housing costs for those in work and those not in work. The English language is rich in a variety of wise sayings. The saying that empty vessels make the most noise is the most accurate one to describe the Labour party. We said goodbye to many indefensible anomalies and extraordinary social security complexities which the last Labour Government had failed to tackle. We said goodbye to all those things—and good riddance.
  I shall not pretend that there are no problems or dilemmas to be faced in remodelling social security. It is hard to achieve the right balance between providing a safety net for life's emergencies and creating disincentives to employment. It is hard to achieve a balance between the objective of targeting help on those most in need and the wish to avoid over-detailed and intensive means testing. As society changes, and as time goes by, we must constantly review and revise our judgments on these issues. We cannot indulge in the luxury of ignoring them, as the Opposition do.
  I re-emphasise the point that the changes and the extra resources would not have been possible without steady growth in the economy, the tight control of inflation and a firm grip on public expenditure. Those were not qualities that were noticeable under the previous Labour Government. That is why we can spend more, not less, on social security. It is worth reminding the House that under this Government inflation over the past five years has been about the same as it was in a single year under the previous Labour Government.
  I understand, of course, that the main thrust of the debate is on housing benefit, and it is right for me to set that within the context of the Government's wider policy on social security reform. I shall refer in a little more detail to the system that we have replaced. When we introduced changes to housing benefit, our objective was always to protect the poorest and neediest. Many families on low incomes who receive housing benefit will gain overall because of the more generous family credit scheme, so our reform of housing benefit reflects our overall approach to the reform of the system. We aim for a better targeted, simpler, system that helps those who are really in need, without encouraging dependence on the state—that is, the taxpayer. The old system was costly, complicated and random, and this Government have had the courage to tackle it.
  Prior to April this year, 3 million householders on supplementary benefit were getting full rent and rate rebates paid by their local authorities. Another 3 million people on low incomes had their incomes judged by local authorities against a series of needs allowances. The amount of help that they received with rent and rates varied, depending on their individual circumstances. That

  271
  was the system that was criticised by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in 1976. The anomalies that were pointed out and the criticisms that were made were not tackled by the Labour Government, and it was left to us to introduce changes finally in 1983. However, the continuance of two separate means tests made the system difficult to describe, and even more complicated to administer, and it was difficult for claimants to understand. The system worked very badly indeed.
  The problems were easy to identify and costs were rising fast, but the system still did not give enough help to those who really needed it. It insulated many people against the real costs of local services, and we continue to believe that accountability suffered as a consequence. Therefore, we introduced a new system, with common rules for the three income-related benefits, and the same income test for everyone. People on similar incomes are treated in the same way. We also introduced the system whereby benefits are calculated on the basis of net, rather than gross, income, and that means that ordinary people see a cash increase for extra money earned. The Labour Government never tackled that problem. People on income support will continue to receive the maximum help available, as will others on similar incomes.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the Minister concede that many of us sought figures in the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security" that would show how the equalisation of benefits would work out, and that the only figure that the Government submitted showed a reduction in housing benefit? That was the only figure in the Green Paper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is in the Green Paper?
  Mr. Scott: We never made any secret of the fact that total expenditure on housing benefit was growing inexorably and that we thought it right to cut it back. We made that clear from the outset as we re-ordered our priorities in the overall system of social security. Although we have cut back expenditure very modestly, the reform of social security has meant that we are spending more on social security and are giving more help to those in greatest need. We have given almost £100 million extra to families through the income support structure, in which we have identified the real needs in society.
  Mr. Tony Favell: Is it not a fact that many Opposition Members will not be happy until 100 per cent. of the population are dependent on the state or their town hall for housing?
  Mr. Scott: I have to say that sometimes I have that feeling when I listen to speeches from the Opposition.
  In my opening remarks I referred to the issues that face those who have the responsibility of office when they seek to change and reform systems in the sensitive area of social security. One of the most important is the pace at which change can be introduced. When we made our reforms in April this year we recognised that there was a need for transitional protection from the outset for the poorest in our community—those who receive supplementary benefit. In April we listened again to the reasoned and reasonable arguments that changes in housing benefit were too sharp for some vulnerable groups.
  272
  We were not forced into that, as the Opposition motion implies. We followed the promise that we had given the House on several occasions to monitor, review and, if necessary, to act if we saw that the benefit system was not operating as it should. We did that, and I repeat today that we intend to continue to do so. That commitment was honoured and led to the changes that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 27 April.
  The changes showed that we could respond sensitively and quickly to areas of genuine concern about the operation of housing benefit, and we took swift action when we had identified what was necessary. We committed another £100 million to the already massive social security budget. My right hon. Friend then announced, less than 12 weeks ago, transitional payments to help up to 350,000 people. The first payment was sent out on 14 July and the unit set up to deal with applications on a national basis is now fully operational. It will quickly build up to optimum efficiency and output.
  Any Opposition Member who has seen the application form for payments could not possibly—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many have gone out?"] I shall give hon. Members the figures. Thousands of them have been sent out and are available, and we shall make the process even simpler in future. Special arrangements have been introduced to deal with cases of urgency, and freepost and freeline services have been set up to provide help and advice to those who need it. Those services have been extensively used by the public and by many Opposition Members.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The form is very simple, but many people simply will not qualify for transitional payments. What will the Government do to help those who have lost out and who do not qualify under this miserable scheme?
  Mr. Scott: I have already explained what the transitional protection scheme was designed to achieve, what it is achieving and what it will achieve in the near future. We have already run one national publicity campaign to encourage take-up for this very important protection. We shall launch another campaign later this week, which will run for two weeks. The advertisement will include a cut-out coupon so that people can receive an RR4 application form from the Department by return of post.
  Despite the whingeing from the Opposition Benches, by any standards the arrangements for transitional protection have got off to an excellent start. In my letter to colleagues on 5 May I promised that freeline and freepost facilities would be put in place at once, and they were. We undertook to ensure that payments were made immediately to those in urgent need, and that has happened. The first general payments for housing benefit cases were promised for this month, and the first payments were made on 14 July. The next step is to ensure that applications are processed in the week when they are received. We are well organised to do that.
  Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit the Glasgow unit. I spoke to a number of the 500 staff now in post there. They have been recruited and trained in record time to do that job and I was impressed by their commitment, their interest and the enthusiasm with which they are tackling the job. There was a feeling of drive, efficiency and commitment in the office. As a result of the applications

  273
  that have come in, the staff have already issued 50,000 inquiry forms to local authorities—[Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Livingston was at pains not to criticise the civil servants who are doing that important job. The sneering by some of the hon. Members behind him at junior staff who are tackling the job ill becomes them.
  About 50,000 inquiry forms have gone out to local authorities to provide the information that we need to process the claims. Of course we depend on local authorities' commitment to turning round those applications.
  Miss Joan Lestor rose——
  Mr. Scott: Our target is to get up to date as quickly as possible with the processing of the applications.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: I intend to set firm and tight targets for the processing of the applications, although, to an extent that remains in the hands of the individuals to apply promptly and the local authorities to turn round the applications quickly. For our part, in the transitional payments unit, we shall seek to meet those very tight targets and to respond to individual needs.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Miss Lestor rose——
  Mr. Scott: I should have thought that we should get some credit for coming to the House to talk about a scheme that has been introduced to provide significant help to pensioners, the long-term sick and disabled, widows and families with children, but I should have known better
  In my view, the Government have demonstrated a speedy and flexible response to large cash losses, but we have done that without deviating from the overall aim of providing a simple and straightforward system of housing benefit which is much better than that which it succeeded.
  4.42 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: After that speech, I do not think that we are in any danger that the phrase "incisive intellect" will be thrown around the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I were trying to ask the Minister a very simple question to help us with our own remarks: how many payments have been made to date under the transitional scheme? My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised that point. I believe his figures are correct and I have tried to check them. If a scheme is to be talked about in this way, it is essential that we should know exactly how it is working.
  I take issue with the Minister on two other points. He made a distinction between the needy and the real needy. He spoke about those in "real need". People are either in need or they are not in need. His definition of the real needy means that large numbers of people who will not qualify for transitional payment will be left in poverty and need. The Minister did not deal with that.
  The Minister made great play of the fact that the Government are spending more money now on social security than ever before. Of course they are, given the number of unemployed people in my constituency and
  274
  throughout the country. That is not something to be proud of. Incidentally, they would not have had that money to spend without the revenues from oil and from selling off many of the country's assets. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He is not listening."] Of course the Minister is not listening; that is part of his arrogance throughout the debate. He should not be proud of the fact that we are spending more money; he should be ashamed of the fact that the rise in poverty and unemployment in areas such as my constituency have forced us into this situation
  I do not have very long, so I cannot read out all the cases, but this morning I spoke to my local DHSS office and my local city council. I have a large number of cases, which I shall be sending to the Minister; indeed, some have already been sent. They include the disabled, the elderly and one-parent families who are in desperate need and who have been badly affected by the changes in benefits, including housing benefit. As far as we can discover from the guidelines on the transitional benefits, insofar as they exist, those people will not qualify for those benefits
  The Minister did not deal with a matter that concerns many of us—the fact that transitional payments will not include the 20 per cent. of housing benefit that people will lose, so the qualifying amount is actually higher
  The Minister said that the scheme is working very well. This morning, I spoke to Salford city council. I understand that there is some pilot scheme in my area, but I am told that there is now a form to apply for the forms to start making applications for transitional payments. I remind the Minister that in my constituency, where the divide between the north and the south is very graphic, where industry declined over the years and where there is a large number of long-term unemployed people, the people who are receiving benefits are all in need. The Minister seems to have forgotten that the people were not receiving benefits that they did not need or to which they were not entitled. The people were already in poverty and already had very grave problems. Those other people have been very badly affected
  I should like to draw the House's attention to a letter that I received today from Salford city council, asking me to draw this point to the attention of the House of Commons:
  "the increase in the number of tenants in rent arrears rose … by 6 per cent., which represented a rise in monetary arrears of £140,000"
  in the period in which we have had a reduction in housing benefits. I am asked to draw to the attention of the House
  "this increase in the amount of rent arrears, which is a direct result of the reduction in housing benefits which has made more tenants responsible for paying their water and general rates."
  So the burden will be borne by many local authorities which are not in a position to bear it.
  I could read out to the House many cases similar to those that were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. One particular case is very important. It involves a constituent with injury who claimed supplementary benefit in 1984 but was not entitled, as his income exceeded requirements, even though those included high rate heating addition and diet, the cost of extra baths and a lower-rate diet for his wife. However, he was awarded housing benefit and housing benefit supplement by the local authority. When housing benefit supplement was abolished, he was then entitled only to housing benefit. As a result, he was liable to pay approximately £10 a week more for rent and general rates. Income support replacing

  275
  supplementary benefit was not payable, as it was argued that his income exceeded requirements. Therefore, his total weekly reduction is now about £12 a week.
  The DHSS in Salford said that this was very disturbing, but as far as the regulations are concerned, there is very little that it can do to counter it. I have asked whether he will be entitled to transitional payment, but I am told that on the basis of the guidelines he will not. There are many others, including pensioners and disabled people. A mentally handicapped person who is rehabilitating herself and has found a small job is now worse off than she would be had she remained in residential care. A pensioner receiving £40 a week retirement and industrial injury pension is now having to pay £15·90 towards his rent and rates instead of £1·74 before April.
  I could go on reading out such cases, as I am sure we all could, but we have not gone around the country looking for them. Details arrive in our postbags, and they come to our constituency surgeries. I do not believe that Conservative Members have not experienced similar cases, and I do not understand why they are not defending their people. Right across the country, those who can least afford to meet the problems and pay the money are being discriminated against. It is an absolute disgrace.
  As I said at the start, most of the people in that situation in my constituency were already in need. I object to the hon. Gentleman's distinction between "real need" and need: they were not scroungers. They were not getting something to which they were not entitled. By virtue of the kind of constituency that I represent, they were in need, are in need, and will continue to be in need.
  The hon. Gentleman dealt with transitional payments in a cavalier fashion—as though they were flowing well and people's needs were being met. He did not answer the question about how many people had received transitional payments. He did not answer the question about what guidelines will determine what people are entitled to. Many people in my constituency and in other constituencies will be pushed into greater poverty. They were already in poverty, and that poverty will now be greater. As far as I can tell, despair is moving to deep distrust and misery. It is reminiscent of what happened in the 1930s. Poor people will get poorer, while those who have money will get richer. That is an absolute disgrace.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: There are three acknowledged staples of life—food, clothing and housing. Food and clothing are predominantly provided by the private sector. There is variety, choice and good standards. There is a much larger public sector component in housing. That is why that staple has always been hedged about with political controversy and argument. It is part private, part public, and inevitably and understandably political. Among political contentions there have been disputes and debates about state and municipal intervention in the cost of housing. General assistance has taken two traditional forms. Tax relief on mortgage interest has benefited the home owner. Subsidised council housing has benefited the municipal tenant. Again, there is a kind of political counterpoint in the two general forms of housing assistance.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more than half of owner-occupiers do not benefit from mortgage interest relief? They are owner-occupiers, usually elderly and usually on low incomes, who bought houses way back in the past and have paid them off. Therefore, they do not benefit from mortgage interest relief, and are dependent upon the housing benefit system, in common with all the other people about whom the hon. Gentleman is about to talk.
  Mr. Taylor: It might oblige the hon. Gentleman if I concede his contention that not all home owners have the benefit of mortgage interest tax relief. That point must be self-evident. I do not know the exact proportion. I was endeavouring to be fair to an Opposition Member and let him comment on my somewhat undeveloped remarks. I was merely giving the background to financial intervention in housing, and showing that it had taken an essentially political form. On the one hand, by their origin and development, certain benefits tended to favour home owners and, on the other hand, certain other kinds of assistance helped municipal tenants. They are general assistances.
  Specific assistance, which is directed to the individual rather than to his ownership or tenancy, has grown out of rent and rate rebates that were initially administered by local authorities. Furthermore, in the earlier stages, various local authorities introduced rebates according to their own rules. There was a different pattern of rules for rent and rates rebates before they became part of a national structure. Another origin from which specific personal housing assistances were derived were housing and rental additions, which were part of the national assistance scheme. That was one of the original principles of the welfare state, and a precursor of what we now call supplementary benefit. Payments of specific help were intended for the poorest members of society, and quite rightly so, and they were invariably means-tested.
  We can be sure of one thing, and that is that, with every proper and supportable intention, those who devised the systems to help the poorest people cannot possibly have contemplated that, by 1987–88, amid quite admirable levels of general prosperity, qualifiers for "the neediest need" would have increased to one third of the population. In the words of a satirical newspaper, "Shomething wrong, surely."
  I admit that it is easy to point out that something is wrong. One can mock a regime by highlighting anomalies—some hon. Members have made careers out of it—but, by any admission, it is a great deal harder to replace an outworked system with a new one that will be proof against all the old criticisms, cost less to operate, be much simpler to understand, and command instant universal respect, acclaim and even affection. They never found El Dorado, and they will not find such a benefit system either.
  Over the course of time, I have learnt that man-made benefit systems are inevitably arbitrary. It is because they are man-made. They follow no natural law, because there is none. Instead, they follow a series of definitions. That is as true of education grants as it is of invalidity allowances and housing benefits.
  One critical thing about definitions is that they describe qualifiers, but that is not the most critical thing that they do. The most critical thing that they do is to describe and define non-qualifiers. That is the original sin of man-made

  277
  arbitrary benefit systems. Their public face—their appearance from the street—is one of instruments of exclusion. Some people are only just excluded at the margin, frontier or boundary of the definition. They are the truly marginal cases.
  Woe betide anyone who thinks that protestations about marginal cases can be bought out or paid off by pushing the frontier outwards a little, slightly extending the definition, or moving the margin. All that one gets for that is a new, larger category of marginal cases who were previously resigned to being some distance from the definition—even content to be so —but who now see themselves as only just outside the adjusted definition. They are a new set of near-qualifiers, who resent what they are only just not getting.
  It would surprise me if the Government expected to win battalions of friends by introducing benefit system reforms. But if it is the Government's realistic purpose to tackle systems that have outgrown their original Good Samaritan intention and strength, they will gain respect for doing so, and hon. Members will support their amendment in the Lobby tonight.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister is popular and respected in the House, even if hon. Members do not always agree with his policies, but in response to the characteristically excellent and incisive speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) —this is an important issue to thousands of people—his speech was an utter disgrace. It was a disgrace to churn out that hackneyed cliché-ridden trash and to give so little information about the workings of the transitional payments centre. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to him daily on this matter, so he must be aware that a tremendous amount of anxiety is deeply felt by many thousands of people. He did himself and his Department—what is left of his Department—less than justice.
  Although the Minister did not have the gall to refer to the amendment too much, it is one—although the Government have made a complete shambles of the issue —that applauds, welcomes, commends and congratulates. I wonder sometimes how Ministers have the gall to do such things.
  Presumably the House appreciates that it is being asked to applaud a cut of £540 million in housing benefit. Presumably Conservative Back Benchers are welcoming the fact that many poor people have to start paying 20 per cent. of their rates contribution, and want to commend the fact that the capital limit that has been introduced, along with the taper that is now in place, will leave many pensioners who would otherwise have qualified for support ineligible. No doubt they are willing to "congratulate"—in the words of the motion—a transitional payments system which had to be introduced because of the original shambles and revolt.
  From what the Minister said, we have no clearer idea how long that transitional protection will last. That was a specific question put to the Minister, which he skated around completely. He was asked how many payments had been made, but he did not tell us. If press reports are to be believed and it will take some 31 more weeks at present processing levels to meet the full payments, what will happen to those people whose transitional payments
  278
  may not be fully met until next February, and who may be affected by further changes a few weeks after that? None of those questions was dealt with by the Minister. I hope that when he makes a further contribution we shall hear more.
  The transitional protection scheme was designed to limit the losses of some groups of claimants—for example, the elderly, the sick and those with children. In other words, there will be no extra help for young single people. The Government's thinking comes over time and again —they believe that such people should not qualify for help, because they should be working.
  We heard another illuminating speech from Ministers in the Scottish Grand Committee, and the hon. Member for Livingston referred to another one a few weeks ago. If the Minister had been at the Committee, he would have heard the figures quoted for job opportunities for young people. For every 50 youngsters coming out of school in Strathclyde, there is one job. How can it be unnatural for them not to be in employment? The Government appear to miss the fact that unemployment continues to bite deep.
  Secondly, the Minister did not deal with the fact that the loss is to be limited to£2·50. It must be said again and again that that £2·50 maximum does not include any loss from the 20 per cent. rates contribution. It is much more tightly drawn than many of those who have applied, or who are seeking to apply at the moment, realise They suspect that they will have a much more significant cushion in terms of their benefit loss than will prove to be the case.
  I wonder to what extent the second round of the advertising campaign—I must have missed the first one —will underline that reality. That would avoid a second blow to morale when people make the application, find out about the centre, expect a transitional payment to come through, and then find out that it is limited strictly to the housing benefit implications and will not cover the other losses caused by the social security changes.
  Perhaps this is a matter for a written question, but I wonder how much the DHSS is spending on those two advertising campaigns in comparison with how much was spent on the privatisation of British Telecom or the British Airways advertising campaign.
  I very much endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) about the dubious and distasteful distinction that is now being introduced between the needy, and the non-needy, or the legitimate needy and the less needy, when considering applications for transitional protection payments. The Minister makes a face, but his speech was shot through with such a distinction.
  I shall take as an example one of my constituents. A Mrs. Corbett, who lives in Invergordon, came to see me recently. Mrs. Corbett has had housing benefit withdrawn. She now gets only £2·26 a week housing benefit towards her rent. Therefore, out of her £62·11 take-home pay as a caretaker in a community centre, she has to meet her rent of £17·67, minus £2·26 which she is losing, and all her rates. That equals £22·45. Her available income to spend is £62·11 minus £22·45, which works out at £39·66
  If Mrs. Corbett chose not to go to work, she would get a weekly allowance of £33·40. On top of that, all her rent would be met, as would 18 per cent. of her rates. Her weekly disposable income would therefore be £33·40, minus 20 per cent. of her rates—£1·24—which would give her £32·13 a week. For working a 40-hour week in a

  279
  low-paid job, and looking after a young family as a single parent, she is the princely sum of £7·53 per week better off. However, that does not include her travel costs to and from work. We were told that the Government introduced this system to help people in that position—people whom the previous Secretary of State referred to as those who are poor with families.
  Mrs. Corbett could not believe it when this scheme was introduced. She wrote me a letter in which she stated the position rather well:
  "Can this really mean that someone with a good salary and any amount of savings is to be asked for only £2·26 more per week (the full rent and rates) than myself?"
  The answer is yes. How the Minister can be sanguine about that I do not know.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I appreciate the problems that the reforms have brought about for some individuals, but I cannot understand what general point of principle the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is putting forward. Unless he is prepared to say that there will be no rate of withdrawal, regardless of income, and he is therefore proposing a sort of basic earning guarantee which is non-taxable and unrelated to income, we shall always be faced with the problem of tapers and withdrawal of benefit, which will produce high marginal rates, which will be a combination of tax and withdrawal of benefit. The aim of the reforms is to reduce those difficulties to below 100 per cent. Surely that is an improvement.
  Mr. Kennedy: The principle which I am enunciating, which I suspect is shared by Conservative Members with guilty consciences, is simply that social security reforms should not hit the poor, who are at the weakest end of the income spectrum. That is the simple principle which should guide any Government with a sense of morality. The case of Mrs. Corbett is indefensible and was a direct result of the changes. She was exactly the sort of person that was supposed to be helped
  For the longer term, I support full integration of the tax and benefits systems and the allocation of credits which are withdrawable as income rises, so that some of the worst marginal effects would be mitigated far more effectively than under the present system. The Government, however, have not seen fit to pursue that course of action.
  Mr. Scott: I am not sure which party the hon. Gentleman is a member of at the moment, but the predecessor party which supported the Labour Government in office, and Opposition Members who were making such a noise earlier, supported a system in which there was a combination of tax and withdrawal of benefit of 112 per cent. We have at least got rid of that nonsense.
  Mr. Kennedy: I think that the Government have got it down to 85 per cent. withdrawal in certain categories and 65 per cent. for most others. That is an improvement, certainly, but I do not accept the principle on which the new structure is established. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends opposed it in the previous Parliament and we shall continue to oppose it and argue for our alternative.
  I have a second example of a problem. It arises because, lo and behold, the Inverness office has had a computer
  280
  breakdown. That is hardly unheard of, but as a result, it has been impossible to assess many people's entitlement to transitional protection
  Another constituent —a widowed pensioner with an income of £53 a week—has written to me. At the moment, she pays an extra £10 into her rent account each fortnight in the hope that it, with her old rent payment and her new housing benefit entitlement, will cover the new figure. Given her age, she could well be entitled to transitional protection if the council ever manages to work out how much housing benefit she has lost. It is unable to do that, however, because of computer problems.
  My constituent writes:
  "I have been paying £10 approximately extra but it is hard going and this very long delay has changed me from a happy person to an anxious old woman … I desperately want to go to visit my elder sister who is ill in Aberdeen but want to be clear before I go. I am a widow over 70 and unfortunately just above the magic figure which would entitle me to supplementary benefit so fare worse than most. My total income is £53 and with heating so necessary in this cold glen every penny has to count."
  There are thousands of such people. Dozens come to my constituency surgery each weekend. They are confused, upset and dismayed about what they have lost and what they may still lose. Many are under the false impression that the £2·50 cushion is applied generally and is not drawn strictly for housing benefit. Many are confused because they do not know what they are eligible for. They find it almost impossible to believe the loss that they have already suffered.
  The Minister has not answered the salient questions asked by the hon. Member for Livingston—how many payments have there been so far, for how long will the transitional arrangements go on, and what happens to the payments that are caught up with early next February? What steps is the Department taking to salvage this sorry and, from the point of view of the lack of political principle involved, increasingly sordid move towards changing housing benefit, with all the attendant misery?
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: Before last April's reforms, one household in three received housing benefit. That statistic shows eloquently that housing benefit was being applied wrongly and that it was being distributed too widely and too indiscriminately.
  It was absurd that a person with £30,000 in a current account could still be entitled to housing benefit. It was absurd that a person could have £20,000 in, for example, a low-yielding Japanese unit trust and still be entitled to housing benefit. It was unjust that capital was not taken into account.
  Housing benefit cried out for reform. Reform was not just necessary£it was imperative. We needed a redirection of benefits towards those people in greatest need. Such a process inevitably means that some will get less. There is, at that point, a political dilemma. Alterations involve grave risk of political unpopularity.
  By deciding to do something about the problem, and by facing the dilemma, the Government have shown high political courage. It is all very well for Opposition Members to mock the Government and to accuse them of callousness and hard-heartedness, but I should have a lot more respect for the Opposition's arguments if they acknowledged that there was a problem and a need for reform. Instead of approaching the issue positively,

  281
  however, Opposition Members only put forward the solution of never-ending waterfall of additional public expenditure.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. He seems to be arguing that, simply because of the number of people who receive housing benefit, there is a need for reform. Has he noted that one third more people get mortgage interest tax relief? What proposals does he have for reform of that system?
  Mr. Irvine: The hon. Lady is trying to deflect me from my argument. As much as one household in three received housing benefit. That shows that the benefit was not being directed effectively.
  Mr. David Winnick: As the hon. Gentleman is arguing that people who do not deserve assistance have received it—an argument which I do not accept in respect of housing benefit—can he tell us whether he has ever received tax relief on mortgage interest? If he has, has he refused it on the grounds that, as a lawyer and a Member of the House of Commons, he does not require it? That being the case, did he refund the money to the Exchequer?
  Mr. Irvine: I have received tax relief on mortgage interest. The hon. Gentleman is well away from the point that I am arguing. I am attacking Opposition Members because——
  Mr. Winnick: Why did the hon. Gentleman take the money?
  Mr. Irvine: —instead of making constructive arguments and acknowledging that there is a problem, they are entirely negative, try to deflect the thrust of the argument and resort to jeers, abuse and personal innuendo. That will not do.
  In their heart of hearts, the thinking element of the Opposition, in so far as there is a thinking element in the Opposition, acknowledge the need for reform. They also acknowledge that any reform involves deciding priorities and making hard choices about how to allocate benefits. Such changes involve the danger of political unpopularity.
  One of the most refreshing features of the Government throughout their nine years in office has been their readiness to face short-term political unpopularity and grasp the nettle of reform to attain necessary, desirable and long-term objectives. The House is debating another instance of that today.
  Inevitably, when there is a major reform on the scale of that which was introduced last April, certain hardships and injustices will come to light. Opposition Members have referred to the volume of constituency correspondence that they have received and to the fact that Conservative Members must have received similar letters. I am sure that we have all received them and that we have all made our points to the Government. What is more, the Government listened and, within a month of the reforms coming into operation, announced the transitional arrangements. Far from being a sign of weakness or retreat, that was a sign of the Governments strength and readiness to be flexible and to adapt. Having listened to their Back Benchers, the Government announced the transitional arrangements and, moreover, directed those
  282
  transitional measures rightly so as to give protection to pensioners, disabled people, low-income families with children, and single parents.
  While congratulating the Government on their political courage, may I, however, say to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no doubt that some people—a minority—have suffered sudden and proportionately severe reductions in their income levels and standards of living as a result of the introduction of the changes. It is a fair point that a reduction of £7 or £8 a week on an income of £70 or £80 is a substantial hardship. I acknowledge that.
  The Government must have in mind two essential points. First, it is important that the Government should press ahead with all possible speed to implement the arrangements for transitional protection. I am glad that the transitional protection unit has been set up and is now in operation. It is important that the unit is given all the forresources that it needs to operate effectively.
  Secondly, it is essential that the Government remember that there are some people on modest incomes who, for one reason or another, fall just outside the qualification for transitional protection. In recent months I have sent details of cases where that is so, or where it seems to be so, to Ministers for their consideration.
  Careful monitoring of the effects of the changes that have taken place in housing benefit is essential. There are bound to be further instances of hardship and further injustices that require to be remedied. However, if there is careful monitoring and identification of such cases, and if injustices are remedied promptly, the underlying merits of the Government's reforms will become more speedily apparent. The Goverment would then end up reaping long-term benefits from their courage in facing short-term unpopularity and taking the difficult decisions necessary to implement the reforms.
  5.23 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: This morning I received some staggering information about soaring rent debt in local authority housing in my constituency. Because I received this information this morning, I tried to raise the problem under a Standing Order No. 20 application, but was advised that I might be called to speak in the debate.
  Before April and the so-called reforms of housing benefit, the record of rent arrears in my constituency was comparatively good, despite the fact that the economy has been through troubled times, and despite the fact that we are an area of high unemployment and low wages. Good counselling, a good committee and a good housing management kept rent arrears at a reasonable level, considering the poverty and distress that people face.
  However, since April, when the Government introduced the changes, there has been a serious escalation in rent debt. On I April the current debt outstanding stood at £468,582. In the 10 weeks that followed, including one free week, rent debt soared to over £639,000. That increase in debt of over one third was almost certainly due to the reductions in housing benefit.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech.
  Mr. Patnick rose———
  Mrs. Mahon: No, it is a short debate and I want to get some facts on the record.
  A similar pattern of escalating debt is evident throughout the country. It is important that the responsibility for such an increase falls squarely where it belongs—at the feet of the Government. In Calderdale, after 48 weeks of the financial year ending April 1988, 11,344 people—76 per cent. of council tenants—received housing benefit, totalling £236,580. By the 11th week of this financial year 10,077 people—68 per cent. of tenants —received housing benefit, totalling £220,076. That is a loss, not only to tenants, but to the local economy, because that money is not available for other things. Therefore, the level of housing benefit has fallen despite the fact that there were rent and rate increases in 1988 which mask the full level of the reduction.
  Those shocking figures do not include housing association tenants, of whom there are many. There is no doubt that housing associations have suffered a similar increase in rent arrears. Many elderly people, and many people who fall into special categories, need to live in housing association accommodation. In fact, there are specific schemes for them.
  I should like to read out a couple of cases and to give some figures of some of the people whom the Minister claims to have protected. We know that 6,000 tenants now have to pay a weekly water rate charge, plus 20 per cent. of their general rates. Those are the protected people, but they have to pay. The capital cut-off point was £6,000—it is now £8,000—and the national income from capital calculations for persons with over £3,000 has affected about 1,000 rent rebate claims. Steeper taper adjustments of 65p for rent rebate and 20p for rates rebate applied to every pound of excess income over income support levels have meant reduced entitlement for about 3,000 tenants. I repeat that the people who have lost all that enjoyed the Minister's protection. About 400 single parents not on income support have had their benefit entitlement reduced because single parents are no longer treated as couples when benefit entitlement is assessed. None of those people has £30,000 in the bank, which is what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) hinted.
  A single male, aged 24, recently came to my surgery. He is employed on a Manpower Services Commission scheme for three days a week. Before April he paid £24·26 rent and received a rebate of £15·19. After April his rent was £26·02. He is worse off by £16·95 per week. That is a substantial reduction by any stretch of the imagination.
  I also have the tragic case of a 20-year-old who is unemployed and is worse off by £17·55 per week. He is now in serious rent arrears and is before the county court for repossession. That young man had to leave home because of the depressing situation there. Those are the people whom the Minister claims he has protected. He should be ashamed of himself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) already described the difficulties with the transitional arrangements. According to the information that I received this morning from my local authority, it is facing many problems with people complaining that the forms are difficult to understand. The housing staff in my local authority have concluded that the forms appear to be designed to deter people from applying for benefit. They are under no illusion about that.
  I do not know whether we will have any impact on the Government, and I do not believe that they will make the
  284
  transitional arrangements work to the benefit of the poor. I believe that they are designed to do the opposite. I believe that these arrangements are part and parcel of another attack on local authority housing. Perhaps that was the bonus that the Minister handed to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Housing and Planning.
  The housing benefit reforms represent an attack on local authorities as providers of public housing. Any loss as a result of the write-off of arrears must be borne by the housing revenue account. Obviously the reduction in rent income adversely affects a council's cash flow. Ultimately, that will lead to a loss of interest on balances and, therefore, to rent increases
  Mr. Patnick rose——
  Mrs. Mahon: I have already said that I will not give way. This is a short debate and the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
  The housing benefit reforms will damage the provision of local authority housing and will also damage housing associations, which the Government purport to want to help.
  The Minister has made the outrageous claim that he wants to protect the poor and that the reforms are intended to do that. The poor know that they are worse off. The young man who I shall see in my constituency next week knows that he will be homeless and that he will not have a roof over his head. People who are getting further and further into debt are aware of that possibility. Because one is poor and on an extremely low income, it does not mean that one is brain-damaged or mentally inadequate. People know that they are receiving less money. The Minister should cease to adopt a hypocritical stance and stop talking about reforms, because doing so insults the dignity of people who are in serious debt and it also insults the intelligence of hard-working housing officials and councillors who are trying to cope with the disgraceful increase in debt that the Minister has deliberately triggered.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), in an elegant speech, spoke of the three staples of food, clothing and shelter and the danger of allowing the state to assume responsibility for them.
  My hon. Friend's speech reminded me of a conversation that I had with a German boy whom I recently took round the Houses of Parliament. We got on to the inevitable subject of the unification of Germany. I asked him if he thought that that was likely and he said that he thought that it was extremely unlikely. On being asked why, he told me that a completely different philosophy exists in East Germany from that in West Germany. He said that 40 years of Socialism had completely changed the East German people. Although the East Germans originally came from the same stock and spoke the same language, he thought it highly unlikely that the unification would take place. I asked him why he had come to that conclusion, and he told me about two boys who had recently joined his school after coming over the border from East Berlin with their families.
  At first those two boys were absolutely delighted to be in West Germany and thought that people were better off, that housing was better, that the standard of living was

  285
  better, that they had a great future before them and that things were much brighter and more cheerful. However, gradually they became more depressed because their family background was one of complete dependency on the state. The West German boy had come to the conclusion that those two boys would go back to the grey, drab life from which they had come because of the way in which they and their families had been oppressed for the Conditions in our country are completely different from those in East Germany. In terms of housing—one of the three staples mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull—almost 64 per cent. of the population own their own homes.
  Mr. Battle: It is 68 per cent.
  Mr. Favell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) for his help.
  Despite the fact that 68 per cent. of the population own their homes, one third of all households depend upon housing benefit for help towards the payment of their rent and rates. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently asked: where is the sense in two thirds of the people supporting one third of households to meet their housing costs?
  The figures are bad enough for the entire country, but in certain parts of the country the position is far worse. In Manchester, for example, 57 per cent. of all households are receiving housing benefit. In Liverpool, no less than 81 per cent. of council house tenants receive rent and rate rebates. That means that more than four fifths of council tenants in Liverpool receive housing benefit. They are dependent upon the town hall and the state for the most basic human need, shelter. Because they are dependent and unable to move they are held capitive within their grey surroundings. What a joy that is to their Left-wing Socialist masters, but what misery for those dependent upon them.
  Those people, deterred from work lest they lose their housing benefit and unable to save to provide for themselves, are caught in a vicious circle of dependency and are enslaved by the masters of Liverpool.
  I welcome the first brave steps away from housing benefit, away from state subsidy of housing costs and towards a greater concentration upon family credit. That will encourage poorer families to look for and to stay in work, and eventually it will enable them to escape from their grey, drab housing estates in Liverpool and the other northern cities that I know so well.
  Mr. Eric. S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Favell: No.
  With a major upheaval such as the reform of the housing benefit system, there have been some hardship cases and it is to the Governments great credit——
  Mr. Heffer rose——
  Mr. Favell: No, I shall not give way because I wish to develop my argument.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman does not know anything about Liverpool.
  Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber.
  Mr. Heffer: So what? I heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Favell: My constituency also happens to be on the Mersey, but my constituents do not depend on Socialist masters to provide for all. Four fifths of council tenants in my area do not receive housing benefit because we have an independence culture and the people are happier. Unemployment in my constituency is now under 7 per cent. Such are the differences between a town further up the Mersey and Liverpool, where the people who run that city insist on having the local population dependent upon them because that keeps them in their fat jobs in the town hall.
  Mr. Battle: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the unemployed should have their housing benefit cut to price themselves into work? Is that the logic of his argument?
  Mr. Favell: The logic of my argument is to encourage people to go out to work rather than to stay at home.
  Mr. Battle: Where are they going to work?
  Mr. Favell: It is to the Government's great credit that they have recognised the hardship cases. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said that the surgeries of Opposition Members have been packed with people bemoaning their loss of housing benefit, but in the previous breath he was bemoaning the lack of people claiming transitional relief. The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that fewer people are dissatisfied with their lot than the hon. Gentleman would have us believe.
  I was glad to learn from my hon. Friend of the Government's determination to continue to roll back the sea of housing benefit, which now reaches one in three households in the United Kingdom. I have already mentioned the unemployment trap in places such as Liverpool and Manchester, which are close to my constituency, but such unemployed people will be relieved by the doubling of family credit.
  Housing benefit has other unwelcome effects. For example, as much as 57 per cent. of the population of Manchester depend upon housing benefit to pay their rates. Therefore, there is absolutely no incentive for that town hall to keep its spending down. For that reason, I also welcome the introduction of the 20 per cent. payment of the community charge, which will be paid for by everyone. That will control spending. It will bring sense to our town halls; and the sooner it is introduced, the better. I shall have no hesitation in supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobbies tonight.
  5.40 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Like other Opposition Members—if not Conservative ones—I have talked to people in my surgery, who are in tears, who wonder how they will cope with the severe loss of the income that they used to get in housing benefit. Some of them have asked me to explain why this is happening, because they cannot quite believe it. I shall send a copy of today's Hansard to every one of them. Then they will understand why this is happening—when they read the speeches made by Conservative Members, whose conduct hardly merits the description of "honourable". They inflict misery on people who have done nothing to deserve it.
  We have heard how hard it is to achieve the right balance, and that the objective of the Government is to protect the poorest. I shall spend a few minutes talking about a mere sample of the hardship cases that I have

  287
  heard of in my surgery. These people are only a few of the large number of losers in Maryhill and other constituencies. The Government have said that they aim their benefits at those who need them most. I know of a wide variety of people in all sorts of need. Who will benefit if they do not?
  I shall use people's initials, because some of them have expressed the fear that if I name them in public they will incur some sort of disbenefit. That shows the sort of mentality that people get into when they are desperately poor and do not know where the next penny to buy a loaf of bread will come from. They fear to raise their cases because of the sort of people who make up this Government.
  Mrs. S, a widow on a pension, will have to find an extra £49·60 a month to pay rent and rates. I know of two couples who are losing their higher pension premium on benefit supplements. One of those couples used to be on invalidity benefit. They changed to the old-age pension, so they are denied the higher pension premium and will be worse off by £48 a month. Another couple, have lost their housing benefit supplement and two chronic sickness allowances. They will be worse off to the tune of £37·80 a month. These people are already on very low incomes. There are pensioners in my constituency who are losing anything from £17·36 a month to £66·20 a month—not the £7 or £8 a week of which a Conservative Member spoke earlier.
  One man had a distinguished war service. He proudly showed me the commendation with which he left the Army at the end of the second world war. He loses £38 a month. He told me—he could hardly control his voice because he was shaking with anger and very upset—that this was the reward he got for serving his country and being a hero years ago. Now he was being treated like this.
  The Government talk about pensioners who have savings over the limit. One couple have a whole £3,000 —a fortune. That is nothing to many Conservative Members, who have their profits from the City and from other businesses on top of their salaries as Members of Parliament. This couple received the £3,000 as a lump sum after a recent retirement. They will have to find an extra £23.60 a month.
  I shall now give some examples drawn from the single unemployed. One such person, on income support, is a private tenant in the much vaunted private sector, with a private landlord. He used to receive a sizeable housing benefit but now finds he has much more to pay. He will have to find another £70 a month merely to keep his private landlord in the better standard of living to which he is accustomed.
  A single pregnant unemployed woman will lose the transitional protection following the birth of her child, and will have £10 a week extra with which to bring up the baby. As was said earlier, that is the price of a small round in the Bar of the House, and it is the amount with which she will have to bring up her child.
  Let us consider the mentally ill and handicapped. There are people in a housing association in my constituency which is especially intended for the mentally handicapped. They will lose benefit because the extra services no longer count towards housing benefit.
  288
  I could multiply these examples, but I also want to mention people who have been in receipt of industrial injury benefit. A disabled pensioner had an accident at work and could no longer be employed. He will have to find an extra £74·80 a month. A widow of a man who was injured at work and who eventually died from his injuries now finds that she will have to pay £99·07 more a month. The worst case of all that has come to my attention is that of a man who is disabled and retired following an accident at work. He will have to find an extra £102·36 a month ——
  Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fyfe: I will not give way; but I will tell the hon. Gentleman something. I am not here to engage in a polite debate, as if this were university debating club. I am here to speak for my constituents, who have no voice of their own—but it will be heard today. I urge my hon. Friends not to make fine speeches—they are wasted on Conservative Members. They should just list case after case of the kind of hardship that people are suffering. They should give the House the facts. The Government keep on saying that there must be balances, that some will benefit and some lose. We are listing case after case of those who lose——
  Mr. Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fyfe: I shall not. I have no time for the likes of people who can do this to the poorest among us. They can go and make their own speeches.
  If all these people are losing, who gains? We should all speak for our constituents who have no voice of their own. El Dorado? That bunch on the Conservative Benches must be joking. It is far from that: it is a living hell for the people we are talking about.
  5.48 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: Conservative Members have tried to justify the changes in the social security system, particularly the changes in the payment of housing benefit, by complaining that one in three households get housing benefit. When we point out to them that almost one in two households get mortgage tax relief, they have nothing to say. It is entirely characteristic of the Government that when the poor get money it is a problem, but when the rich do, it is a political advance. If the problem is so serious—if it is an ipso facto problem—why have the Government nothing to say about the arrangements for paying mortgage tax relief?
  A Conservative Member bravely said—it may have been an attempt at a pun—that the Government would reap long-term benefit from the changes. I do not know about that, but on the evidence of the hundreds of people who have written to me or seen me in my surgery I think that people in Hackney will reap long-term proverty from the changes—in many cases, ill-deserved poverty.
  Many of those who come to see me are pensioners. We have heard many sneering remarks about the poor from Conservative Members, but many of the people who have suffered under these housing benefit changes are pensioners who have contributed all their lives to occupational pensions and who now find themselves, despite all the brave words about transitional protection, having to pay £5, £6 or £7 a week more out of incomes as tiny as £30 or £40. What long-term benefit will accrue to

  289
  them? It is as if 50 or 60 years of work, service and contributions count for nothing. They speak of paying in for many years and now having the money taken away from them.
  I should like to put some questions on behalf of those people mentioned by my hon Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)—people who cannot speak for themselves. Exactly how many staff are in post in the unit in Glasgow? When can the people who have applied up to the end of this month expect to be paid? People in Hackney want to know the detail about the operation of the transitional unit. While the Government are making press statements and statements in the House, people in my constituency are running up rent arrears, and now they cannot pay. Old people are terrified by the threat of eviction. They do not want to know about the Government's press release but about how the unit is working and how soon they can expect to get their money.
  I should like to know exactly how long the transitional rent arrangements will apply. That is another question put to me by people in Hackney. I understand that there was a recent announcement about new protection under the arrangements for people on income support. Who will be able to claim protection? There is a great deal of confusion about that.
  In my constituency, 5,000 people have lost over £5 in their heating allowances because in the past Hackney used its discretion and was quite generous to old people in its heating payments. What will be the cost of newspaper advertising and the printing of the forms for these arrangements? Presumably the announcement means that the forms will have to be reprinted and new advertisements placed. Would that money not be better spent on housing benefit? Do the Government propose to repeat their advertising campaign?
  It is all very well for Conservative Members to talk in generalities and to speak about incentives to go out to work. They talk in high-arching terms of the enterprise culture. Hackney is one of the poorest areas in Britain and I cannot talk in generalities, in wide-ranging terms or in the abstract. I can only talk about the hundreds of cases of real loss and poverty and about the fears that I deal with as a result of the Government's change in housing benefit. I want specific answers to specific questions, because public relations rhetoric will not put food on the tables of my pensioners in Hackney.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) introduced an unfortunate party political note into the debate, when he sought to advance the proposition that, because very few of us were in the Chamber to listen to the debate Conservative Members did not care about the poor. I apologise to the House for having to pop in and out of the Chamber. That was because constituents and others had come to see me about a variety of matters, basically to do with the Barlow Clowes affair, and I felt that it was right to see them. I should like to correct the record. A majority of Conservative Members are in the Chamber at the moment, and to advance propositions such as that advanced by the hon. Gentleman does not help us to understand the problems of poverty or to cure the inefficiencies of the social security system. We have a long way to go to achieve that.
  290
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) did not allow my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to intervene in her speech. We are not here just to make set speeches into microphones. The hon. Lady should seek membership of inferior assemblies, such as the one in Strasbourg, if she wishes to operate in that way. My hon. Friend wanted to put a point to her and she refused to allow him to do so. If we all took that attitude it would mean the end of parliamentary debate.
  I listened to the cases that the hon. Lady described and would have liked to ask her how many of those cases have been reconsidered in the light of the transitional arrangements that have been announced. It seems likely that the transitional arrangements will cover a great many of them.
  Mr. William McKelvey: A great many people in Scotland applied for transitional benefits, but encountered difficulties because no forms were available. Eventually they got the forms, and two weeks ago I asked a Scottish Minister to name one person who had received a transitional payment, which, after all, is to relieve hardship. He could not supply one name. I put down a parliamentary question asking for the names or the numbers of those in Scotland who had received transitional benefit. The Minister wrote to me saying that he could not do so at the time and that he would reply further at the earliest opportunity. He has failed to do so. May I assume that no one in Scotland has received transitional benefit and that people are suffering hardship because of massive reductions in benefit? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can answer that question.
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising the public sector and thinks that we would do better to contract out or privatise. It may well be that he is correct. I am not in possession of the facts, and I am not sure whether he is. I am not prepared to attempt to answer the question that he asked without hearing the other side from the Minister concerned.
  It is extraordinary that, when speaking about the effect of the housing benefit reforms, Opposition Members are unable to agree that the social security reviews have bestowed significant advantages on people. Nobody denies that under these reforms there are losers. Constituents have come to me with problems similar to those described by Opposition Members. I am not unaware of the problems of poverty, as Opposition Members seek to say.
  When we look at the overall effect of the reforms, the whole package—and that is the only fair way to look at it —we see that nearly nine out of 10 people on benefit are now receiving the same amount as before, or are getting more money. Even after taking account of inflation, 57 per cent. of those on income-related benefits, such as housing benefit, are better off, or no worse off, including 81 per cent. of sick and disabled people, 77 per cent. of couples with children and 60 per cent. of single parents. Although there have been losers, there are significant gainers, and they outnumber those who have lost.
  Mr. Tony Banks: No doubt the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have not made up these examples. We are only responding to people who come to us and say that they are worse off. We take no pleasure from giving these examples. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why anyone previously on supplementary benefit should be made worse off? Even if

  291
  there were only one, that would be grounds for complaint. He knows that many thousands are worse off, Why should anyone be worse off?
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall come to that later in my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) gave cogent examples of cases where, under the old rules, it could hardly be fairly stated that all recipients of benefit were justified in claiming it. I am not saying that individual examples should be quoted across the Chamber, but some people might be described as deserving cases. In any big reform of the social security system, if we guarantee that no recipient will lose, we will not be able to make sensible reforms that introduce more accurate targeting according to need. Unless we face the problems that the Government have at least partially faced, we shall not be able to sustain the system of social security that has been built up over the years in an ad hoc way without any centralised thought behind it and with very little rationale.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes to which he is referring emanate from a level of expenditure by the state that is dramatically higher than the level that we inherited in 1978–79? When we are talking about the changes, we must bear in mind the massive improvements that the Government have introduced over the past few years.
  Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree. Opposition Members talk of savage cuts in the social security budget, but they must be totally unaware that this year the social security budget is in excess of £50,000 million. Even after the changes that have been announced, although we are saving about £600 million on housing benefit, £650 million extra is being spent on family credit and income support. We are seeking—no one is saying that we shall succeed in every case—to target the expenditure more accurately on those who are most in need.
  Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), if they go back to the Whips Office they will find that they have been given the brief for the debates that we had last year and the year before, not the brief for the speeches that they should be making today.
  Let me correct the figures given by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), which are completely inaccurate. There is no way in which there are more gainers than losers from the so-called reforms. Even the figures given by the hon. Gentleman for people who stand still are inaccurate, although I accept that they are Government figures, so I do not altogether blame the hon. Gentleman for that. However, his figures for increased expenditure on family credit assume, for example, a vastly greater take-up of family credit. That is not money being spent now; that is money that the Government say will be spent. In fact, the take-up of family credit is running at half what the Government expected, so all the hon Gentleman's figures for increased spending are totally illusory and flawed. I suggest that he goes back to his hon. Friends in the Whips' Office and has a word with them about the Trade Descriptions Act.
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot accept what the hon. Lady says, because the Government have laid down a planning total that is available for spending on social security benefits if
  292
  those who are entitled to them take them up. I fully accept that in the past the take-up rate on many social security benefits has been inadequate. That has been one of the products of the complexity of the system. People simply could not understand the benefits to which they were entitled. That has been one of the primary causes of poverty. It is not that Governments of all persuasions have not wanted to assuage poverty, but that the huge, conglomerate social security system that has grown up ad hoc over the years has become far too complex for ordinary people to understand. They are intimidated by it.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is there not another point at issue, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) did not address, namely, that some of the examples given to the House tonight have been of people with savings? Will my hon. Friend tell the House why someone who has substantial savings in excess of £8000 should look to the taxpayer before using his or her own resources?
  Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  I confess some astonishment at the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in that respect, because the proposition that she appeared to be advancing was that, regardless of the level of savings, a person should be entitled to housing benefit and there should be no withdrawal rates or tapers of any kind. If ever there was an anti-Socialist proposition, it seems to me that that is it. I would welcome the hon. Lady to our side of the House with pleasure, but it appears to me rather peculiar for somebody of her political persuasion to imply that if a person has savings he or she would still qualify for the benefit when there are people on low incomes with no capital who are inadequately provided for at the moment.
  Ms. Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman accept two points? First, no Opposition Member is saying that there is no level of savings at which a person's housing benefit should be reviewed. We are drawing the Government's attention to the failings of the taper currently in operation. That is not a party political point. All the interested voluntary organisations have made similar representations to the Government.
  Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman use his imagination and consider the state of mind of people in their 60s and 70s who, all their lives, have been taught that they must save against a rainy day? They are now faced with a Government who tell them that they have no option but to run down their pittance of a saving. If the hon. Gentleman has not met those terrified old people, I have. It makes no sense for a Government who make a virtue of thrift and acquisition above all other virtues to tell people in their 70s, who hold that virtue dear, that they must run down their savings to nothing.
  Mr. Hamilton: I vibrate to the hon. Lady's theme, but I am sure that she would not be able to be more specific about the level of savings that she would take as the point at which withdrawals would begin and about what the tapers would be. Although she agrees with my general proposition that there should be a point at which benefits should be withdrawn, she has not been candid enough with the House to confess what the figure should be.
  The rent and rate tapers that we are debating today are a significant improvement on what they were before. As the hon. Lady will know, the rent taper has been changed

  293
  from 33 to 65 per cent., and the rate taper from 13 to 20 per cent. The starting point for calculating benefit under the new scheme is 100 per cent. of rents and 80 per cent. of rates, rather than 60 per cent. as it was before. That is a significant improvement for people on low incomes with small amounts of capital.
  Similarly, to answer the hon. Lady's charge that the Government are introducing a disincentive to save, I should say that we are liberalising the capital rules. Previously, any interest that was received over and above the income on a capital sum of £3,000 was subjected to the withdrawals and tapers. We have now introduced a scheme whereby the interest on the first £3,000 is disregarded entirely, and a person does not lose the benefit entirely, until the sum of £8,000 is reached. That is far more reasonable, because the rate of interest that is assumed on a sum of between £3,000 and £3,250 is 1·6 per cent. No one in this country in his right mind is investing his money and receiving only 1·6 per cent. interest on it. Even on the figures that the Government have chosen to take for the withdrawal of benefit, we are being generous to people and taking only a small portion of the income that they receive as the cause of the reduction in their benefit.
  All those are compromises. We can all make claims for different figures, capital limits, tapers and withdrawals. An argument could be constructed for any of them, but it is disingenuous of Opposition Members to criticise the figures that we have chosen, without providing figures of their own in return so that we can subject them to the same criticism that they throw at us. That is the weakness of the Opposition. They will not come clean with us in the way that we, as a Government, have come clean with them.
  I welcome the housing benefit review and the changes that have been announced. I welcome also the transitional arrangements, because it is wrong for significant alterations in people's expectations to occur in too sharp a way. That is why I thought it was wrong when Sir Keith Joseph, now Lord Joseph, introduced changes in student grant entitlements in 1985. People had not been able to build into their expectations the changes that were announced. Although I am in favour of making the changes on a long-term basis, there should be a period when we can work ourselves into the new system. That is only fair and just, and therefore I welcome the Government's desire to make the changes that we are debating.
  Mr. Tony Banks: How long will that period last?
  Mr. Hamilton: We can argue about that. It is much better to take the view that we should monitor how the system works, the take-up levels and how great the need is, and then adjust the system in the light of experience, rather than take a theoretical view at the start and make hard and fast decisions that may turn out to be wrong.
  Mr. Winnick: I echo all the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) about the hardship and misery that has been caused by the change in the housing benefit regulations. Does the hon. Gentleman receive tax relief on his mortgage interest, or has he decided to refund that sum to the Exchequer? Surely on his income, which, as I understand it, is not exclusively parliamentary, he does not require any such financial assistance.
  Mr. Hamilton: I have a mortgage and I claim tax relief on the maximum amount allowed of £30,000. Is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remark that the Labour party is now in favour of the abolition of mortgage interest relief? Again, the hon. Gentleman—whom I would dearly love to see on the Opposition Front Bench; I cannot think why he has not been promoted, nor why I have not been promoted, because we could make a double act of this—makes a disingenuous point. If we were starting from scratch, we would not introduce mortgage interest relief. It is an anomaly in the tax system that has existed for a long time. However, for practical reasons, neither party ——
  Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has taken 17 minutes up to now. He knows that there is not enough time for every hon. Member who wishes to speak. Other hon. Members have been present throughout the debate, but he walked in after it had begun and is making a long speech because no other Conservative Members wish to speak. It is completely unfair.
  Mr. Hamilton: It is undesirable that Opposition Front-Bench Members should attack their Back-Bench colleagues for intervening in my speech and so protracting it. I am always delighted to give way, because that is what true debate is all about, rather than simply moving from Front-Bench spokesman to Back Bencher bawling out views that add nothing to the debate. The exchanges that we have had across the Floor have brought a great deal of light to the debate, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who merely adds heat and noise, which gets us nowhere.
  Mr. Haynes: That is not true. Now sit down.
  Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always keen to support our democratic parliamentary institutions and to debate, calmly and rationally, matters such as this, which are of great importance to our constituents. I only wish that many more Labour Members took the same view. If they did, I am sure that their party would do much better in the country. I am certainly not attempting to filibuster. I have made most of the points that I wanted to make in an orderly way in a somewhat disorderly way as a result of the interventions of Opposition Members.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House wishes to assist you in having a genuine debate. Surely it is unreasonable, as well as unfair, for an hon. Member who has not heard all the debate to keep waiting other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who have heard all the debate and are anxious to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) will have regard to the points of order that have been raised.
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not wish to be unreasonable Nothing is further from my thoughts, and I shall sit down shortly. I have been in a similar situation on many previous occasions when Opposition Members have spoken at inordinate length without adding as much light to the debate as my speech has done. I feel for them, and I shall observe the points that have been made.
  All I would say about the system that we are defending here today is that we are introducing a simplified system

  295
  that will add to the understanding or ordinary people, for whom the system is constructed. It is fairer than the old system. It deals partly with the problems of the poverty trap and it targets more accurately the benefits that are available under our social security system. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the Government's amendment to the Opposition's motion. Conservative Members are prepared honestly to face the problems of the social security system, whereas the Opposition are prepared only to make generalised assertions, without telling us what their proposals would be. They are prepared to attack us without giving us the opportunity to attack them.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. John Battle: Government Back Benchers have expressed confusion about particular points that have been made, and that confusion extends to the Government Front Bench. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman has inherited the post of Under-Secretary of State from the fastest moving Minister, as he has been described in the press today, who has moved on to other things.
  As we have been reminded, we have said goodbye to paragraphs in the manual and we have now said goodbye to the Under-Secretary of State. However, he has left behind the remains of the debate on housing benefit that I attended, as I have attended every minute of this debate, late at night on 19 July. The Under-Secretary of State might like to recall his colleague to answer a point that arises from something that he said during that debate or ask his Department for a clear answer, because people need to know.
  The then Under-Secretary of State was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the transitional arrangements. He said:
  "The transitional protection will run from the beginning of April until 31 July for those who apply after 31 July. The date of 31 July is not a cut-off point for the receipt of applications. I hope that I have made that point clear."
  Some of us were surprised by that remark, and when I pressed the Minister further he said:
  "We have given that undertaking several times. I said in my introductory remarks that the 31 July date is not a deadline for applications. It is a deadline for transitional protection, which can be paid only up to that date, but applications will be welcome beyond that time."—[Official Report, 19 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1051–61.]
  I am advised that if members of the public telephone the DSS to ask about that reply, they are told that it was wrong. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that it was not wrong. I hope that he will clarify that point, because people do not know what the transitional arrangements are. People may not be put off from applying, but will those who apply after 31 July receive transitional protection only from the date of application and not from 1 April? That could make a world of difference, particularly if the transitional payments cannot be processed until months later, because that will mean that such people are applying after the period of transitional protection so they will not be entitled to that relief. If that reference simply disappears from Hansard, it will be a case of Government by Tipp-Ex—rubbing out the
  296
  inconvenient bits rather than putting before us policies that can be clearly explained to the people whom we represent.
  There are only five days to go before the 31 July deadline. Conservative Members do not seem to be aware of the scale of what they simply refer to as anomalies. Leeds has 60,000 council tenants on benefits and 17,000 private tenants, of whom 10,000 receive income support. Originally, the transitional protection did not extend to those who did not receive income support—in other words, 25,000 of those 60,000. Then the Government extended the scheme to those who receive income support, but not to those who receive over 80 per cent. help with their rates, which is the vast majority of that group, nor those who have lost less than £2·50 a week. In other words, they have not lost enough to be cushioned against the changes.
  In effect, only 25,000 in Leeds may receive help. According to anybody's arithmetic, there are clearly many more losers than gainers. As I said last week, elderly people are now arriving at my advice surgeries in tears asking why their benefits have been cut for the first time in their lives. They cannot understand the Government's policies.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he explain why, if things are as bad as he makes out, on an Opposition day only five Labour Back Benchers are in the Chamber? Is that not a disgrace?
  Mr. Battle: I am growing used to the Government's tactics in this Chamber. When Conservative Members do not have an argument to make, they try to slide in a little abuse to keep the debate going.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend was referring to the elderly, but does he accept that the problems he outlines, which are common to most constituencies, suggest that the Government's policies have struck a blow at community care? Is he not surprised that, although the Griffiths report was published the day after the Budget, there has still been no Government statement, no debate, and no understanding of the Government's view of it?
  Mr. Battle: Someone has already commented that it seems as though the Government's social security policy is made up day by day. That may now change because the Department has been divided, but we are still looking for clear policies to help people, rather than accepting the fictitious impression given by the Government, which has been reinforced by Conservative Members restating it, that people are being supported. That still does not explain to my constituents where they stand. Before 1 April, they paid £13·60 rent out of their pensions, but then they found that it had been increased to £22·11. It can be argued that the capital rules have changed and that those pensioners will get their money back. However, those repayments will only be backdated to 30 May, not 1 April, which means that such pensioners will lose two months' money at the rate of £8·51 per week. Where do they stand? Why must they lose as a result of the Government changing their mind over a period of three weeks since the original rent regulations came before Parliament?
  Leeds city council is currently running a programme to identify cases eligible for transitional protection. However, that programme will be ready only at the end of this week, which coincidentally matches the very date of the scheme's

  297
  closure. It seems to many of us that the Government are making up the rules as they fumble along. They produced form RR4, which claimants must obtain and complete before returning it to the Glasgow unit. That unit then sends those details to each local authority, and they in turn fill in form TP3 and return it to Glasgow. Glasgow then sends the claimant a declaration, which must be signed before any payment can be made.
  There are two problems with that process. First, form RR4, having barely been distributed, is already out of date because its first draft did not include those who are on income support, but it does now because the rules have been changed. Secondly—and more disastrous for the people whom we represent—claimants are forced to borrow money at high rates of interest so that they may pay their rent while they wait to learn whether or not they will get their money back. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the scheme certainly hits the erosion factor.
  In a question for written answer, I asked the Minister whether any account had been taken in the calculations of housing benefit for next year of the rent increases that will result from the implementation of the Housing Act in September. His answer was crystal clear—that housing benefit would not be there to match the rent increases accruing as a result of the introduction of the Housing Act this autumn.
  That will mean that in future, the poor in society—I note that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke for so long, does not have the courtesy to listen to the speeches following his, which I assumed was a custom of the House—will have to pay more than one third of their income on housing, which places them in an impossible situation. Those on low incomes will be left with absolutely no margin. There is no question of any problem in implementing increases or extra resources, as has been suggested.
  The housing benefit proposals were crystal clear in the Green Paper, "The Reform of Social Security." When the whole process of reform began, the Labour party and many of my hon. Friends pressed for the figures. It was clear from one figure that housing benefit would have to be cut back. That was presented very much in the terms used by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), who suggested that people ought not to receive housing benefit, and that, if they did not have a job, the need to get the money to pay their rent will provide them with the incentive to obtain one. The cut in housing beneflt—and the Government cannot get out of it now—has come home to roost on the Dispatch Box, and the Minister must answer for that cut, no matter how much he may argue that other changes have made life easier for claimants.
  As one pensioner put it to me, the people who will pay the price of those changes can do the arithmetic. Their question to the Government is, "Why can't you do the arithmetic? Why are you spending more on telling the public about Sid or on advertising the 1992 Euromarket than you are on supporting and informing people who are on benefits?"
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: A diabetic constituent of mine, who is aged 75, and his wife will lose £5 per week. He said to me, "This cannot be right." I had to tell him that it is correct in the Government's terms, but certainly it is not right in moral terms. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Battle: I agree absolutely. The public at large understand that one cannot take money from the poor and give it to the rich, and then claim that one is on the high moral ground. People openly see and acknowledge the injustice of doing so. I would only add this rider to my hon. Friend's observation. Although we present case after case to the Government, they are shrugged off as anomalies or as individual instances, whereas they hallmark a fault in the structure of the changes. It is the structure that is wrong, and we shall continue to challenge and expose it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: A whole group of people will not benefit, and I have many instances of them in my own constituency. I refer, for example, to young single people in low-paid work. I could not elicit an answer from the Minister, but what does my hon. Friend think of a single man of 19, having a gross weekly income of £52·56, losing about £14 per week because of housing benefit changes? What am I to say to such a constituent? Should I tell him, "Don't worry, because someone else will benefit from them."? The Minister would not tell me how I should reply, so perhaps my hon. Friend will give me a clue as to what I should say about this vicious and evil Government.
  Mr. Battle: What strikes me about my hon. Friend's remark is that I remember that in one of the first weeks of this Parliament, nearly one year ago, a Conservative Member suggested that perhaps the whole social security system ought to be reformed. He did not seem to realise that that process had been going on for years and that the Government set out to reform the system to achieve precisely what some Conservative Back Benchers suggest —a cut in the social security budget, regardless of who pays the price. We all know that those who will pay the price are at the bottom of society. Sadly, we are left to explain to our constituents that that reform is not bettering people but is taking money from the worst-off for redistribution not only in the social security system but also through the tax system to ensure that the best-off in our society benefit from it. That is the difficulty.
  I ask the Minister to give a clear and unequivocal statement about the transitional arrangements. Will he assure the House that paragraphs in Hansard of the last housing benefits debate will not be rubbed out as a mistake at the Dispatch Box by the former Minister, who has now moved on to another Department? Will the Minister stand by what was said then, or will he tell the House what is the latest situation? Unless those matters are clarified, of course people will remain anxious about whether or not they will receive transitional payments. It is not simply that people have had money taken away from them, but that the Government's proposals to do something even about the margins of that problem are seriously in question.
  Let me drive home to the Government a point made to me by a pensioner. The people who pay the price can do the arithmetic. I hope that the Minister is getting his Department to do the arithmetic about all the cases that the Opposition have mentioned this afternoon. Conservative Members who refuse to sit and listen to the debate and who write off our examples—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said—as if we had invented fictitious characters, should listen to us rather than go into the Lobby tonight to vote against us ostrich-like with their heads in the sand. If they do that, they will be seen to be

  299
  deliberately and blindly voting down the poor into the margins of our society, and they should be held to account in every constituency in the country.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I have sat and listened to the debate from the start, and I have paid close attention to the argument by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) in his moving address. I acknowledge that he and many of his hon. Friends have considerable knowledge of the subject, and that they have put with passion and care their arguments about the way in which the changes in social security, and particularly in housing benefit, have affected their constituents.
  I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Leeds, West does not think that he and his hon. Friends have a monopoly in their handling of these issues, or that Conservative Members are entirely hard-hearted. The present Government have at least had the courage to get hold of the social security system and to recognise the inescapable underlying fact of a decreasing working base and an increasing number of people who are dependent for part of their lives on some form of state benefit.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about mortgage relief?
  Mr. Jack: Part of the Government's policy has been to reduce the standard rate of income tax, and the value of mortgage relief has been falling over a period. Let us put mortgage relief to one side. It may be a way out—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would like to make a proper intervention, I shall sit down, but sedentary interventions that have not been thought out are not helpful at this stage. The hon. Gentleman has clearly not thought out his intervention, so I shall continue.
  I have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security for his appreciation of some of the problems that followed the changes in social security. I hope that my hon. Friends will not mind my mentioning what happened when a number of us got together with my hon. Friend the Minister and told him how we saw the first stab at the subject of housing benefit. My hon. Friend listened carefully to what was said, moving quickly and arguing his case well in Government to bring forward the transitional arrangements. It is often said that once Government have decided what they want to do there is no way which they can be moved. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend's powers of advocacy that we are here tonight debating the arrangements.
  Let us examine some salient points. According to a Library research note, it is estimated that in the financial year 1988–89 some 3·4 million people will still receive a rebate in connection with rent, and that 5·8 million will receive rate rebates. Despite all that has been said, the Government will be spending some £5·4 billion. That is a good deal of public money. Opposition Members do not often take into account when chastising my hon. Friends on the Front Bench the fact that someone has to pay for it all, and many taxpayers are glad that the Government have had the courage to address the problem.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept—or perhaps advocate—that an
  300
  86-year-old widow in my constituency, who receives £44 a week in pension, £35 a month in National Coal Board pension and £4·50 a week in concessionary coal allowance in lieu of coal, should now find that the Government no longer allow concessionary coal allowance money to be counted in housing benefit? She must now pay £8 a week extra. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that old lady should help to pay for the concessions that the Government have supposedly given, or does he think that she should receive transitional help as well?
  Mr. Jack: In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would monitor carefully the way in which the new arrangements were to be phased in, and it is barely six months since he gave us that assurance. I am sure that he will have noted the technical point about the way in which the regulations operate.
  When people came to my advice bureau, I observed that much of their confusion was due to the effects not only of increased council rents but of large rate increases. People in Lancashire have suffered from an 18·5 per cent. rate increase. Some of the background details explain why people are complaining about the cost of housing. There is a way out of some of the problems put to us by Opposition Members: to run housing more efficiently and to reduce the costs of local government.
  One group has been rather missed out in this debate —the people who bought their own homes and were affected by the £6,000 capital rule. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister decided to change that, because many of those people are now able to gain some benefit. I have been struck by the negative tone of the debate, in which no one has considered whether there are other ways if increasing people's income rather than expecting them to turn to the state for some form of handout. Will my hon. Friend use his Department's considerable powers to see whether there are ways of helping people who have an asset in their homes to unlock it and generate income, so that they can be freed from the dependency culture and given an added impetus?
  Will my hon. Friend talk to his hon. Friends in the Treasury? I asked a parliamentary question about the number of people receiving housing benefit who also happened to be taxpayers. Will my hon. Friend ask the Treasury to tip the balance slightly to help such people to stop being taxpayers? The Conservative party has done much to reduce the standard rate of tax and increase allowances, but a little push from my hon. Friend might remove those people's need for housing benefit, thus freeing resources that could then be applied—through my hon. Friend's skills—to deal with some of the cases put to us with such compassion by Opposition Members.
  Conservative Members too are compassionate; we are concerned about the factors that lead people to need housing benefit. But we also recognise the need for the social security changes, and we shall support them in the Lobby.
  6.38 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It is right that now, before the summer recess, we should look at what is happening and will be happening to many of our constituents during and after that period. It is also right that we should remember—as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said at the outset—that the cut of £650 million from housing benefit payments made in

  301
  April is not a mistake, a miscalculation or a misunderstanding, but, as the Secretary of State courteously informed us, a deliberate act of Government policy.
  The Minister of State gave us a long list of all the things to which the Government said goodbye in April, but I should like to remind him of an item that he omitted. They said goodbye to 1 million people who were no longer entitled to housing benefit of any kind. The act of taking that money from housing benefit was deliberately and specifically supported by the vast majority of Government Back Benchers, with a few honourable exceptions. I am pleased that so many Conservative Members have defended their Government's policy. They put their names, necks and reputations on the line and said that the Government are right to take this money from people who are suffering.
  The Government have alleged that this is a more generous scheme. They say that it costs more now than it did in 1979. There are a number of reasons for that. The number of people who have retired has increased. That is a demographic change. There has been an increase in the number of unemployed people. There have been increases in rents and rates following the cuts in housing support and the rate support grant. For which of those reasons do the Government seek praise in their amendment? They have reiterated that housing benefit is paid too far up the income scale, even though some of the Ministers who have passed before us in dizzy progression at the Dispatch Box knew that the right to housing benefit was lost at far below average earnings, unless rent or rates were exceptionally high.
  The next bit of the script, delivered in hushed tones, was that housing benefit went to one in three households. That always worked. It would be unkind to speculate on whether the Government Whips Office holds training sessions for Back Benchers so that it is sure that there will always be cries of "Shame," or other noises off. They were a little more subdued today than they had been in the past.
  Finally, it has perhaps begun to dawn on Conservative Members that if one household in three is receiving housing benefit, many of them must be in their constituencies. It is notable that those who cried, "Forward," when they heard that magic statistic in the past soon cried, "Back," when they realised how many of the losers live in their own constituencies.
  The Minister of State accused us of scouring the country looking for victims, but they came to us. I am confident that all my hon. Friends and even Conservative Members remember at least one of those who stepped forward—a pensioner who did not understand why the cuts had been made. Nobody had told her. The Prime Minister was utterly shocked and dismayed to discover at her constituency advice bureau that pensioners in her constituency were losing large sums of money.
  The Government say that three years of meticulous planning went into the changes and that they were all carried out under the eagle eye of the woman who misses nothing. It looks as though the Prime Minister suffered from a severe case of unpredictable memory loss. Such memory losses are always triggered by serious Government difficulties. It is a form of anxiety neurosis for which the right hon. Lady should seek medical advice. Either the Prime Minister was incompetent because she did
  302
  not know what the Government were doing, or her staff failed to warn her that this issue would cause her the most difficulty.
  There is another possible explanation. Perhaps the Prime Minister hoped that her constituents would blame the local council in whose name the bad news would be sent forth. It has worked often enough in the past. Up and down the land, councils of all political colours have carried the can for cuts dictated by the Government. As with major crimes, the police nail the small fry but the bigger culprit continues to enjoy unscathed his large house and fat income. That explanation fits the evidence.
  For three years, while the Opposition and a few very honourable Conservative Members, as well as housing and social security experts across the country predicted the losses that people would experience, the Government remained utterly indifferent. Even in the week after the cuts were made, the Government did nothing and said that they would continue to do nothing. It was only when they realised that they were getting stuck with the blame for their actions that they panicked and rushed through the emergency package.
  Ever since, they have loudly congratulated themselves on their wisdom and generosity. Was it wisdom to give back £100 million that they should never have taken in the first place from the most vulnerable groups in the community? The Minister of State said that he thought that the Government ought to be given credit for giving back a bit of what they had taken away. Were the Government generous to keep the other £550 million? Would the Minister be grateful to a mugger who gave him the bus fare home?
  Even with this much vaunted transitional protection, the scheme is still in something of a mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the complicated system that local councils and the transitional payment unit have to follow. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) referred to a recent answer to a parliamentary question about people on income support who had been given transitional protection for some of the losses that they might otherwise have faced. She referred to confusion. My hon. Friend is entirely right: many local authorities are confused. Despite the parliamentary answer, they have not been told officially of these concessions. Confusion also exists at Richmond house. When guidance was sought about the changes, all knowledge of them was denied. We are still experiencing substantial difficulties.
  My hon. Friend referred to the very considerable rent arrears that are already building up in local authorities. They will be a problem for local authorities. They will be a problem for local authorities. But what frightens me about the cases that have been identified is that the people who are building up rent arrears are doing so because they believe and understand, based on Government propaganda, that they will receive transitional protection for all losses of over £2·50. I shudder to think what will happen when they realise that their enormous debts may not be paid.
  It does not seem to have sunk into the minds of Conservative Members who echoed the Minister of State's self-congratulation that even if we take the Government's defence of their package face value it is still, at best, transitional protection. It escaped the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) who chided my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for giving

  303
  various case histories. Even if they are eligible for transitional protection—and it is doubtful whether all of them will be eligible—their losses will be phased in and they will lose that money. It is just a question of how fast they lose it.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will the hon. Lady let us into a secret? Ought there to be a needs assessment for housing benefit purposes? If so, what are the capital limits and the tapers that she would apply to the withdrawal of benefit? Furthermore, what is the estimated cost to public funds of her proposal?
  Mrs. Beckett: As usual, the hon. Gentleman dwells on the capital limit. The capital limit will result in very few losses. In this day and age, a capital limit of £10,000 might be just. Most of the losers lose because of the taper, and the loss is extremely severe.
  Whatever happens, the transitional protection that we are debating will be whittled away as time goes on, as rents and rates rise and as only last year's income is available to meet next year's prices. It is suggested that that process will not be fast enough for the Government. They might decide that next year the so-called acceptable loss should be £3·50 and that the year after that it should be £4·50. That loss, which is acceptable to the Government, will be on top of next year's rent and rates rises. An income of less than this year's income will have to meet next year's price increases.
  Next year's rent increases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, will be substantial, if the Secretary of State for the Environment has his way. They will almost certainly be enough to wipe out the transitional protection that is provided for most of those who receive it. It will leave them, as the Government intended from the first, much worse off than they were in March 1988.
  It may not take as long for the scheme to disappear as many Government Back Benchers fondly hope—that is, not before the villains have left the scene and the public have forgotten the names of the guilty parties. It may be next year or the year after, because the point of transitional protection is not to prevent hardship but to break people more slowly into hardship—and I use the word "break" advisedly.
  Soon, other voices will be heard—the voices of the newly unemployed, the newly disabled, the newly separated and the newly retired, who are expected to manage on incomes below, in some cases far below, those that they would have received if only they had had the forethought to be 65, or jobless, or sick last year rather than this. The Government have not yet abolished the welfare state, but they are steadily eroding its foundations.
  At my weekend advice bureau, I met an extremely intelligent, competent and sensible woman who has worked all her life and is proud of it and who is extremely independent. She has been unlucky. Her marriage failed after many years and she has become afflicted with arthritis. She has only a small occupational pension in addition to the state pension. She receives no other help or support. She is precisely one of those to whom so many Conservative Members have referred in the debate, who are not in sufficient need to deserve help under this Government. She is a sensible person and has no extravagances, but she tells me that she cannot live on her income. She has been fortunate enough to get some
  304
  part-time work but it is not easy for her to do it because of her arthritis. She asks me what she is to do and how she will manage when she is no longer fit to work, and I do not know what to tell her.
  What would the Minister tell her? There is no doubt that her income will drop substantially if she has to cease work. Would the Minister tell her that the country cannot afford any more because we must give priority to those who are already among the wealthiest? Should I tell her that the Government believe that it is wrong to withdraw income from the wealthy at more than 40p in every extra pound, but that it is right to take 80p to 95p from the poor?
  The Government have justified the cuts and praised themselves for phasing them in by saying over and over again that we must not help people who do not need help and that we must liberate them from dependency. The Government define the people who really need help as those who are already wealthy. They define those who do not need help as those who are on low incomes. They use the stick for the poor and the carrot for the wealthy.
  It is not even true that the Government set their face against dependency. Through the regulations and guidelines, they are telling people to depend on friends and relatives and to scrounge from them. The Government demand that people ask for charity—anything, as long as they do not ask for their rights in a fair society. That would be too independent by half.
  The history of the transitional protection scheme is shabby and sordid. The scheme is inadequate, short-term, short-sighted and a sop to public concern. One could call it the figleaf to cover the Government's shame, except that this Government have no shame and show no justice.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Scott: I take the opportunity—the last, I imagine —with the leave of the House, not to reassert the reasons why we introduced the housing benefit scheme in its present form or why we were convinced by rational argument of the need for transitional protection, but to allay some of the anxieties that have been raised during the debate and to answer a number of points that have been made.
  I shall first take the opportunity utterly to refute the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that the Government have in any sense embarked on undermining the welfare state or the social security system. Our budget for social security is now about £50 billion a year. It is the largest single programme of the Government, and it is larger now than it has ever been. I cannot accept the hon. Lady's strictures. If we are to be criticised simply because we want to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible, she has chosen the wrong target.
  It is important to answer some of the points that have been raised, not least because there are people outside the House who may have been made anxious by some of the comments made by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Scott: I shall deal first with the numbers and statistics involved in the introduction of the transitional protection system, because I was criticised for not dealing with them in my opening speech. Opposition Members have had a great deal of fun with the 68 payments made so far.
  Mr. Robin Cook: It is right.
  Mr. Scott: Of course it is right: the hon. Gentleman announced the figure and I did not challenge the assertion that that is the number of payments that have been made.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Scott: Much more significant for the people who are awaiting help from the transitional protection system that we have introduced are the following figures: first, some 4 million application forms have been issued by the Government and the unit; 119,000 and over have been received back; nearly 50,000 have been sent out to local authorities, asking them for information so that the applications can be processed; nearly 8,000 of those have come back; and more than 1,700 people have been told that they will receive payment.
  Those figures show that, whatever fun can be had with the 68 payments, the system of transitional protection is now on stream to provide the help that we intend to provide for those who need it. I understand why there was an element of impatience, but it was right to introduce the system with trained staff and properly thought out arrangements.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Scott: I cannot resist the impatience of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I assure the Minister that I can resist him with no great difficulty. Why can he not give local authorities more resources—at the moment they receive only about £5 per form—so that they make their checks that much more quickly? Demands are being placed on local authorities that many of them are not in a position to meet.
  Mr. Scott: There were negotiations between the Department and the local authorities, and satisfactory arrangements were made to compensate local authorities for their work. I am sure that the vast majority of them will show as much commitment and enthusiasm in helping us to operate the transitional protection as they did in bringing the housing benefits scheme itself into operation.
  We estimate that the scheme that we have introduced will help more than 300,000 people, at a cost of £65 million. Opposition Members had fun with projections about the length of time that it would take to process applications. The information that I obtained on my trip to Glasgow yesterday was that some applications are being dealt with in two to three weeks. The maximum time that the processing takes is about eight weeks, and as the staff become more and more familiar with the operation of the scheme, so we hope that the average time will be consistently reduced.
  We are anxious to provide the help as quickly as possible to those whose claims are successful. I was immensely impressed yesterday to hear staff answering the freephone and analysing claimants' circumstances so as to give quick and clear advice as to whether they qualified and, if so, how they could apply for help.
  Opposition Members were worried about the date of 31 July. I should make it clear that 31 July is the date applying only to those affected by the change in the capital rule from £6,000 to £8,000. Bearing in mind the publicity associated with the introduction of the scheme, I should have thought that three months would have been ample for someone
  306
  discovering that he had capital of between £6,000 and £8,000 to apply for transitional protection. Even if people fail to do that, however, an adjusted form of transitional protection will be available to them. In any case, the 31 July date does not apply to help under transitional protection in general, and no one should worry about his ability to obtain help if he applies beyond that date for ordinary transitional protection.
  The hon. Member for Livingston urged me to make an announcement about the way in which the transitional protection would be eroded, as he put it. The important announcement about transitional protection has already been made. I made it at the Dispatch Box, and other Ministers have reiterated it. Transitional payments will continue as necessary into future years. The exact arrangements will depend on the extent of the loss and the pace at which people's benefits and other income changes in the years ahead. Increasing prosperity in our strong economy may well affect that.
  We will come forward with detailed arrangements before the end of the year, but it is important for us to be able to establish, before announcing those details, a clear idea of the extent of successful claims for transitional protection and the average payments that are being made.
  I welcome back the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and whichever party he is representing this month. I can understand him missing some of our advertising in The Sun or the News of the World, but I cannot understand him missing the advertisements which appeared in the Scottish news-papers. We spent some £265,000 on that advertising campaign, and we are about to spend rather more on the second stage of our advertising. I believe that, when we have completed that, there will be no excuse at all for anyone not being aware of the availability of the scheme, which will bring real help to those who need it. I commend the amendment to the House, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 279.

  Division No. 445]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Buchan, Norman

  Allen, Graham

  Buckley, George J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Caborn, Richard

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clay, Bob

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beggs, Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

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

  Crowther, Stan

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, Bob

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cummings, John

  Blair, Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Dixon, Don

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Frank

  307

  Doran, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Madden, Max

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marek, Dr John

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fisher, Mark

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliott

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Nellist, Dave

  Galloway, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Parry, Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Patchett, Terry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pendry, Tom

  Gould, Bryan

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Prescott, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Radice, Giles

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Richardson, Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Henderson, Doug

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Holland, Stuart

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  John, Brynmor

  Snape, Peter

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Strang, Gavin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Straw, Jack

  Kennedy, Charles

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kilfedder, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Vaz, Keith

  Lambie, David

  Wall, Pat

  Lamond, James

  Wallace, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Leighton, Ron

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Litherland, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Livsey, Richard

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Winnick, David

  McAllion, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Worthington, Tony

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Wray, Jimmy

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McKelvey, William

  McLeish, Henry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

  McTaggart, Bob

  308

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Alexander, Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Amess, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gorst, John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Gow, Ian

  Ashby, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Atkins, Robert

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ground, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grylls, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hannam, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bowis, John

  Harris, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Bright, Graham

  Hayward, Robert

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

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Heddle, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Butler, Chris

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butterfill, John

  Hill, James

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Holt, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

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

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

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irvine, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Irving, Charles

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Jackson, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Janman, Tim

  Curry, David

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Favell, Tony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Latham, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lilley, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fry, Peter

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, George

  McCrindle, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  309

  Maclean, David

  Portillo, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Powell, William (Corby)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Price, Sir David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Redwood, John

  Maples, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Marland, Paul

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Rost, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ryder, Richard

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mills, Iain

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Moate, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Shersby, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sims, Roger

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mudd, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Neubert, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stern, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stevens, Lewis

  Page, Richard

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Paice, James

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Pawsey, James

  Sumberg, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  310

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ward, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watts, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thorne, Neil

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Woodcock, Mike

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Walden, George

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House applauds the Government's recent reforms of social security; notes that these will result in more taxpayers' money being spent this year than if the old system had continued, and spent in a way better targeted towards those in most need; recognises that the coverage of housing benefit had become too broad; notes that after the reforms housing benefit will still be received by more households than in 1979 and at greater real cost to the taxpayer; welcomes the Government's announcement of 27th April that some transitional protection for losses in housing benefit is to be made available to people in vulnerable groups; commends the Government for the speed with which the unit to administer these payments has been set up; and congratulates it on meeting its stated target of making the first payments in July.

  Transport Policies
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's irresponsible transport polices which are careless of the social and economic needs of individuals and communities, have failed the travelling public, put lives at risk and caused great harship and inconvenience; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce transport polices which give proper priority to people's needs for safety and service.
  Hon. Members who are regular attenders of transport debates have a feeling of deja vu. It seems that almost every transport debate is preceded by a ministerial reshuffle. Therefore, my first duty is to congratulate the Secretary of State on having survived this time. My second duty is to pass on my congratultions to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his promotion to Minister of State, Department of Transport.
  There will be general and genuine regret at the departure of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Yesterday was a good news-bad news day for him. The good news was that he was offered a knighthood, and the bad news was that he had to go to the Government Back Benches to get it. Quite frankly, he deserves more than that. He vigorously defended successive policies with successive Secretaries of State. I am glad to see him in his place. All hon. Members look forward to his further contributions to our transport debates—all the more so now that he is free of the shackles of ministerial responsibility.
  One wonders at the unreality of the Government's amendment. They seem to live in a totally different world from that of ordinary mortals. A cursory glance at press headlines over the past few weeks will enable one to see the story of traffic chaos on the roads, and of the Government being under attack for their failure to preserve their road maintenance programme and being behind with their by-pass programme. There is astonishing chaos at airports, and stories of sit-downs in the middle of Luton airport runway because of great dissatisfaction with what has been happening. Yet the Government seem to pretend that everything is all right.
  Our motion sets out the truth. The Government are obsessed with deregulation, privatisation and cost cutting. Quite frankly, that attitude pushes safety and the well-being of the public to the back of the minds of those who run the transport system. One of the most chilling statements to come from the King's Cross disaster inquiry was made by one witness, who said:
  "We thought of fire in relation to damage to property and not as a hazard to passengers."
  That is a most chilling report, and it was made because of the Government's obsession with deregulation, privatisation and cost cutting. It puts a dead hand on the initiative of those who seek to serve public industries. There is no doubt that the people in British Rail who want to plan for a better future find themselves stifled by constant references to bringing in private capital.
  I fully understand why the Government are embarrassed at their philosophical inadequacies and the way in which they have been exposed by recent events. I appreciate that they sought to divert people from the real problems that face them by having a question planted and by giving a response to the North committee report. It was an attempt to divert the attention of the general public
  312
  from what is happening. Having had a copy of the Minister's reply placed on the board at 6.30 this evening, I cannot be expected to comment on it in full or in any great depth. At a quick glance, I see that there is a lot of sense in it. I particularly welcome traffic light monitoring to stop people steaming through intersections long after the lights have changed to red. It is an extremely dangerous practice.
  High technology is mentioned in the North report and in the Minister's response, but there is no mention of who is to pay for it. If it is to be the local authorities, it will be no use asking hard-pressed rate-capped authorities in London—where much of the problem of traffic congestion arises—to find the money to pay for that sort of technology. The Minister must be a lot more positive about where the finance will come from.
  The Minister ducked the controversial issue of random breath testing. Frankly, I support it, and I believe that it is an additional arm of enforcement that the police need —unlike the Under-Secretary, who appears to believe that it is a substitute for current enforcement procedures. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain the difference between random breath testing and discretionary testing. Discretionary testing would appear to be as unconnected as random testing with the commission of an offence. I hope that he is not trying to smuggle in the sus law in another form—"You look a likely candidate for testing" —because that may cause a problem.
  We are concerned about the Government's shortcomings, especially in relation to air traffic control and holiday traffic. We have heard all the old, tired and familiar excuses. It is always someone else's fault. It is the greedy holiday company, the strikes of foreign traffic controllers or the Civil Aviation Authority—anybody or everybody is to blame except the Government. However, the Government have accepted responsibility. A few weeks ago they began to see the writing on the wall, so they asked the Civil Aviation Authority to provide, by September, some plans to prevent the chaos next year. They cannot have it both ways; either they have responsibility or they do not.
  We have been worried about air traffic control and safety for a very long time. There are no Ministers left at the Department of Transport who were in office when the Airports Act, which privatised British airports, was considered, but officials will remember that when that measure was going through its various stages we moved amendments to regulate the hours and the conditions of service of air traffic controllers. We were concerned about fatigue, and the amount of work carried out, but the Government steadfastly refused to have anything to do with it. We argued that if pilots had regulated hours of work, so should air traffic controllers. The Government, however, assured us that everything was all right.
  Flow control has now been introduced because of a spate of near-misses. It was public outcry and concern about what was happening that brought about flow control. The Civil Aviation Authority and the Government between them bungled the whole issue, because none of this was unexpected. The amount of traffic was expected. As late as 14 July, the Under-Secretary told me that in March the Government had been assured by the Civil Aviation Authority that there would be some restriction on the number of planes flying. I am not quite sure what the sentence means, but it says that the National Air Traffic Services

  313
  "anticipated an increase compared to the average delay of 10 to 15 minutes experienced in 1987."—[Official Report, 18 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 339.]
  I am not sure whether the Minister was saying that the average was 10 to 15 minutes in 1987 or whether he was expecting an increase of 10 to 15 minutes this year. If it was the latter, it was clearly a misprint, because it should be 10 to 15 hours, which is what has been happening.
  The problem has not been caused by an increase in traffic. The amount of charter traffic has gone up only by 2 to 3 per cent. That figure is confirmed in a brief which I am sure many hon. Members will have received from Britannia Airways. Britannia Airways claims that its experience is that by using bigger aircraft, it is running 25 to 30 fewer flights weekly than it was in 1987. There has not been a failure in terms of air traffic control and there has certainly not been insufficient runway capacity. There is plenty of that. It is not inefficient management of the current air space; it is simply that, with the equipment available, the best efficiency will not allow any more traffic to fly.
  There are two sorts of solutions to the problem of the long-suffering public whose holidays are being ruined by long waits at terminals and the whole experience of flying. In the short term, we must look for solutions other than those so far proposed by the Secretary of State.
  I reject night flights. They are an imposition; they transfer the agony from inside the airport terminals to those people living under the flight path. I venture to suggest that the short-term relaxation on night flights will result in permanent night flights next year. The best solution is to transfer some of the existing air space——
  Mr. Toby Jessel: It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman does not know that, since the relaxation on night flights, only two extra flights have gone through Heathrow instead of through Gatwick, neither of which was at night. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listened to the representations made on behalf of the people living around Heathrow.
  Mr. Hughes: I have heard extravagant claims in my life, but that takes the biscuit. The hon. Gentleman knows that night flights have not so far expanded because airlines claim that, if they fly at night, they cannot get in at the other end. It has nothing to do with his representations; it is a fact of life. I suggest that once airlines get used to the idea of flying at night, changes will be made.
  We should transfer some of the space permanently reserved for military aircraft to civilian use. I believe that will provide the space needed greatly to ease the problem. That is not a novel suggestion. In West Germany, they have opened up five new air corridors because of demand. I do not see any reason why that cannot be done as a temporary measure here.
  In the longer term, the tragedy is that the CAA is way behind with its investment programme. It became infected by the Government's drive for cost-cutting and it now admits that it should have asked for more money some time ago. At least it has now been converted and is willing to ask for more money. Much more money is needed, and quickly, to speed up the present computer strategy.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I think not, because time is moving on very fast.
  314
  The CAA must start to bring forward its plans for expansion of the system, which it does not envisage coming into operation until the year 2000. Much must be done also to train new air traffic controllers by the use of radar simulators. I am horrified to discover that those simulators were called for as long ago as 1964, but there is still none in place.
  The Government must move away from the impression that it is said they have given to the charter and airline companies: "Just take the customers' money. It does not matter what you do once you have it. Take it and expand the business, and who cares what happens after that."
  I want to refer briefly—perhaps too briefly because of the importance that it warrants—to P and O's safety record. During the whole period of the P and O dispute we vigorously expressed our anxiety about the potential damage to safety because of the company's proposals. Regrettably, since P and O has been sailing its vessels again, our concern has been justified. There have been far too numerous reports about safety codes being breached and, although the Minister has said that those breaches will be examined, many people believe that they will not be examined properly.
  Is the Minister aware that on 17 July there was a report in The Observer about a fire on the P and O vessel European Clearway? Is he further aware that Mr. John Douglas Ball has sought the permission of the Attorney-General to take out a private prosecution because he is so dissatisfied with the Department of Transport's lack of action? As further information is coming forward every day, would the Minister be prepared to meet seafarers with direct recent experience of P and O to ensure that all complaints are thoroughly investigated? That has to be done to allay the fears.
  The prime example of the dead hand of Marsham street stifling initiative is the report by British Rail on the Channel tunnel rail services south of London.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my hon. Friend read the full report about John Ball and the European Clearway, which stated that the breaches of safety were so numerous that John Ball referred to them as a horrifying catalogue of breaches of safety by P and O? When there was an oil leak on the ship five weeks ago, which he reported, the people in charge said, "Stick a bucket underneath and catch the oil." A similar incident resulted in a fire. When he reported the problem, he was so disgusted that no action was taken—although a serious fire had occurred, it was dowsed—that he rejoined the strike. Is it not time that the Government wrenched themselves clear from Jeffrey Sterling and P and O, even though he handed over £100,000 for the general election campaign, and sorted out some British justice for once?
  Mr. Hughes: I hear clearly what my hon. Friend says. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is rubbish."] Well, I did hear it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt mention P and O in more detail.
  I found the British Rail report on the possibility of dedicated lines south of London to the tunnel apathetic and timid in the extreme. The report illustrates the true extent of British Rail's demoralisation. There is no sense of urgency or initiative, and no projection that increased business can be obtained by aggressive marketing. It is all passive and reactive. It mentions the Martin Vorhiees

  315
  Associates report and the SETEC report—SETC being a French group of consultants for Eurotunnel. The report says that, in certain circumstances, this will happen and that, in others, something else will happen. There is no decision about which set of forecasts it believes to be true. It ignores Eurotunnel's forecasts.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is showing me his pamphlet, but he will do his own puff on it when the time comes. BR's report ignores the Eurotunnel statistics on the grounds that they are not sufficiently detailed for reliable use. It forecasts that there might be additional growth in traffic as a result of the tunnel. The other reports say that there may be some change in business, depending on economic growth.
  Having looked at all the figures, British Rail decides that it will provide for only 80 per cent. of capacity. That means that there will be 55 days when the first choice train will not be available and 28 days when there will be unsatisfied demand. That period just happens to be when we would be trying to get traffic. British Rail is already planning for overcrowding. That makes no sense, and it ought to do something about it.
  If British Rail cannot bring itself to consider the matter with some inspiration, what hope is there for the future? Under the heading "Financial Evaluations," at paragraph 13.3 of its report British Rail says:
  "The results of the financial evaluations indicate that:—

  (a) There is no financial case for providing extra route or terminal capacity in association with the MVA forecasts until well into the twenty-first century."

  If BR does not have the initiative, gumption and go to see what is happening south of London, what hope is there for those of us who saw the Channel tunnel as an engine for regeneration of economies in the north of England and Scotland? None at all. On the same day as the report is published, we are blandly told in a press release that there will be another 18 months of consultation with local authorities to see what might be done for services to the north.
  It is time that BR stopped being so negative and acquiescent to Government policies without so much as a whimper of protest. Of course, the Secretary of State will say that the picture is not all bad. I can see forming in his mind the words "Heathrow rail link", because he thinks that that is a good one to bring out. The Secretary of State may be preening himself on approving BR's participation in a joint venture with the British Airports Authority for a fast, direct link and glorying in the attraction of private capital.
  The press release gives the impression that it is all the result of an independent study by consultants and that the right hon. Gentleman is accepting proposals, but that impression is not the whole truth. The report—the "Heathrow Access Study"—by Howard Humphreys and Partners in association with others, gives the game away, on page 64, when it says:
  "The most favourable option of those considered during the final stage of this Study ultimately depends on the Government's objectives. If the sole objective were financial viability, it is fair that any of the schemes considered could be chosen, at a suitable fare level. If the object were to improve travelling times and conditions for all users of public rail transport to the airport, the LUL solution is the only one that meets that condition … But the analysis we have performed … demonstrates clearly that, if what is required is a scheme which:
  316

  —is financially viable;

  —is attractive to providers of private capital;

  —increases consumer choice;

  —benefits the maximum number of people and attracts passengers off the roads"

  But there is a contradiction. The report states clearly that the best solution to the general travelling public is that of London Underground Ltd. The report continues:
  "then the option which seems substantially the best"—
  not the best—
  "is the proposal which BR/BAA have developed. On the basis of our own understanding of the Government's objectives we would therefore recommend that this proposal is the one that should be taken forward."
  It is not the best. The recommendation is made on the basis of what the consultants think the Government want. That is the problem—the Government are not interested in service or objective criteria. They are interested in sheer dogma. The only solution is that which attracts private capital. Nothing else matters. As long as that is what determines the service that is provided, the public will suffer delays and hardship and, ultimately, I believe that their safety will be imperilled as well.
  7.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'congratulates the Government on its success in developing and implementing policies to provide the public and industry with an efficient transport system, giving both value for money and an improved quality of service; welcomes the increased investment in transport infrastructure which is accompanying a reduction in the burden on the taxpayer; applauds the increasing involvement of the private sector in transport projects; and reaffirms the Government's overriding commitment to the safety of travellers.'.
  Although there was not much with which I agreed in the speech made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), there were two things. The first is that I also would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir. D. Mitchell) for his magnificent services to the Department of Transport and to the Government. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for his comments at the beginning of his speech. The only thing about which I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman is that my hon. Friend left for private reasons. We would have loved to keep him for a great deal longer. He will be sorely missed.
  The second respect in which I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North is that I also would like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) as Minister of State. Since I have been in the House, all hon. Members from Southgate have been close personal friends. I think that my hon. Friend will make a magnificent contribution to the Department.
  Mr. Skinner: Watch him-he will stab the right hon. Gentleman in the back.
  Mr. Channon: This concern for me is very kind.
  In our previous debate, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that I would last 173 days. I have lasted a little more than that, but we shall see how we get on.
  The motion asks us to condemn what it calls

  317
  "the Government's irresponsible transport policies".
  I do not think that it is irresponsible to start, as the Government do, with a clear understanding of what constitutes a good transport system—one which is affordable, reliable, efficient and convenient. It must be designed, built and operated with proper respect for the environment, and, above all, it must be safe.
  Nor is it irresponsible to draw a clear distinction between those features of a good transport system which are the proper concern of the Government and those which are not. I think that it is the job of Government to set standards of matters of safety and the environment. It is our job to ensure that the nation has a proper transport infrastructure, but that does not mean that every new project has to be funded by the taxpayer and approved in Whitehall. It is our job to ensure that there is free and fair competition between transport operators. After that, it is up to operators to provide the service that the public want, at a price that the public are prepared to pay.
  I understand that Opposition Members may not like such an approach to transport policy. They hanker after the old days of interventionism, central planning, state finance, monopolies, and regulation of this and that—in fact, all the old stuff that we had in the past.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Nigel Spearing rose——
  Mr. Channon: Here they are: regulators every one, subsidisers the lot. I cannot give way to both hon. Gentlemen, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
  Mr. Banks: Will the Secretary of State accept that where transport operators are competing for finite
  Mr. Channon: I shall deal with roads in a moment. Before I finish, I want to deal also with rail investment and with investment in the Underground which, when the hon. Gentleman was one of the leaders of the Greater London council, he was so scandalously incapable of providing —[Laughter.]
  Mr. Banks: Come outside and I will take you all on.
  Mr. Channon: You may have to regulate the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend has laid down as the criteria for public transport, what the public want and what they are prepared to pay. Does he agree that there is another factor in the equation— provided that that transport does not have detrimental effects on other members of the public?
  Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will recall that I said earlier that environment was a crucial factor. I agree with my hon. Friend and I suspect that I know what he is getting at. I strongly recommend the House to read my hon. Friend's booklet, which should be required reading for every hon. Member. We may have an exam later.
  I turn first to the Opposition motion. At least the part relating to maintaining safety standards will be common ground between us. The House must face up to the fact that the most serious safety problem that we have to tackle is road transport. Let us consider the facts. Over 5,000 people were killed on Britain's roads last year. Compared with air travel, motorists run 16 times the risk of being killed; cyclists run 170 times the risk; and motor cyclists
  318
  about 440 times the risk. It is true that Britain's roads are among the safest in Europe, but I do not derive all that much comfort from that. There are far too many avoidable accidents on our roads and their economic cost and cost in terms of human suffering is unacceptable.
  Therefore, we have set ourselves the firm target of reducing the number of deaths and injuries on Britain's roads from 300,000 per year to 200,000 per year by the end of the century. We are taking action on several fronts to achieve that. We are putting emphasis on bypasses and orbital routes to divert traffic around towns which are where 70 per cent. of all road accidents take place. We are working with local authorities to improve road layouts in towns and are diverting more effort into research into the causes of accidents and how to prevent them.
  Mr. Richard Holt rose——
  Mr. Channon: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this is the last time, because I must get on.
  Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the most dangerous roads in this country is the A1 north from Doncaster? There is no major motorway to the north-east of England. If my right hon. Friend is seriously interested in cutting deaths, he should give us the motorway for which every political party and every local authority in the north of England is asking.
  Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which he has often expressed to me. Naturally, we shall consider any representations that he makes and we certainly wish to improve the roads in his part of England. I take note of his representations on that important matter.
  We have been accused today of being irresponsible about safety. At this very moment, our current motorway safety campaign is in operation. The police are dealing severely with motorway accidents caused by bad driving and are deeply concerned about their prevention. Our main task must be to ensure that we have the right laws and that they are being obeyed. Today we published our interim response to the 137 recommendations of the North report on road traffic law. We accept the conclusion that the offence of reckless driving should be redefined. We agree that drinking drivers who cause fatal accidents must be punished appropriately. We agree that the penalty points system needs rethinking and we agree in principle to the use of video cameras to detect speeding and traffic light offences. We are pursuing the question of insurance policies against disqualification. We shall now consult the police and other interested parties, and I shall publish our final conclusions as soon as I can.
  I turn now to a point which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) specifically raised—the question of ferry safety. Mr. Justice Sheen's report made a number of recommendations which we are putting into effect——
  Mr. John Prescott: As regulations?
  Mr. Channon: Yes, as regulations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to support us—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. I am most grateful, and I am glad to hear it.
  Regulations are already in place, dealing with some of the key issues raised in the Sheen report—including the

  319
  procedures to be followed to ensure that ferries do not sail with loading doors open. Other regulations have been drafted and will be brought forward. I am determined that the regulations should be right and I am sure that the House will agree that ill-thought-out regulations will benefit no one——
  Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State is in Sterling's pocket.
  Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman always says that. I shall ask him who the treasurer of the Labour party is. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is in the pocket of the treasurer of the Labour party—[Interruption.]—and not only in the pocket, but in the flat of the treasurer of the Labour party——
  Mr. Skinner: In case the Secretary of State wants reasonable, proper and precise information, I can inform him that I am one of the people who has nominated somebody to oppose the treasurer of the Labour party —namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang).
  Mr. Channon: I never thought that gratitude was the hon. Gentleman's most conspicuous quality.
  Opposition Members have repeated various allegations that the ferries are being operated unsafely. That is simply not so.
  Mr. Terry Fields: It is true.
  Mr. Channon: It is not. Marine surveyors have inspected each P and O ferry before its return to service and have made random spot checks thereafter. They have always found the vessels to be carrying a full complement of properly qualified seafarers. Opposition Members are themselves guilty of irresponsibility in this. During our last debate, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made numerous allegations about safety matters. None of them has been followed up.
  Our approach is the responsible one. Where necessary, we will certainly prosecute if offences are committed. I am already prosecuting in the case of the Horsa. I am not prepared to join the Opposition in a mud-slinging session in furtherance of an industrial dispute with people who pretend to be impartial, but are fresh from their triumphs, campaigning on the picket lines as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was this morning. If offences are committed, we shall certainly prosecute. If there are not—[Interruption.] Yes, I am prosecuting the Horsa at present.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: What about the Herald of Free Enterprise?
  Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands the situation, and I believe that he does so wilfully. It is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide.
  Mr. Lloyd: Ah.
  Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman can go on saying, "Ah", until he is blue—or should I say red?—in the face.
  I repeat what I have told the House on many occasions. We shall not hesitate to tackle any offences that are brought to our attention, and reasonable Opposition Members know that to be the case.
  320
  I turn now to air safety, which is a major issue, which I want to put in its proper perspective [Interruption.] Surely the House is interested in air safety. I want to quote some statistics—[Interruption.] Well, not as quick as the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.
  Over the 10 years from 1978 to 1987, there was one death for every 3·6 billion passenger kilometres flown on British aircraft. That record compares favourably with any other form of transport. I want to quote the statistics, although they are bound to be taken by some as evidence of complacency, which they are not. Complacency would be a sign of real irresponsibility, but it is just as irresponsible to sow unnecessary alarm among the travelling public. Therefore, I want to give the exact facts.
  Reports of risk-bearing air misses have dropped from 45 in 1977 to 13 in 1987. Of course there is an element of subjective judgment, but the. reporting criteria have not changed and the trend is clear. It is not only a British experience but a worldwide one. I am sure that the House would want to reassure the travelling public, and our main task is to ensure that the air safety trend is sustained. Improvements in aircraft design will probably be the major contributing factor, but the European Community harmonisation of airworthiness certificates will be a significant step forward.
  The Civil Aviation Authority plans to introduce a ground-based "conflict alert" system by next summer covering all aircraft flying above 25,000 ft, and it is starting trials on airborne collision avoidance systems this year. In all of that, the CAA has the support of my Department and I am determined to support its efforts to improve air safety. For that reason, last year the CAA introduced the system of flow control in response to growing demands on air space. It is extremely important that the House appreciates that demand.
  I see no reason why air safety should not continue to improve, but we must not cut corners on safety to relieve congestion at airports.
  Mr. Spearing rose——
  Mr. Channon: I am sorry, but I must press on.
  The House will be aware that air transport has increased in recent years by an enormous amount. Increases in demand were anticipated and catered for by Governments and operators. However, the rapid growth on some routes, especially to Greece and Spain, took every European aviation authority by surprise.
  There is no overall shortage of capacity at airports or among airlines. Europe's air traffic control system can accommodate normal traffic levels easily enough. They can even handle the abnormally high traffic levels that are experienced on the most popular routes at peak periods. However, there is little capacity to spare if something goes wrong.
  European countries are dependent on each other's air traffic control systems. A problem in one system, whether caused by an industrial dispute or a technical hitch, has an immediate impact on other systems. In recent weeks, we have seen the consequences of that all too clearly.
  Everyone understands the frustrations caused by long delays at airports. No one saves up to spend their holidays at Gatwick or Luton; they want to get off to Greece, Spain or wherever. We shall do all we can to help, but there are a number of things that we cannot do. We cannot sort out other countries' strikes, nor must we subject people living

  321
  near airports to a night flights free-for-all. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for his remarks about that. Above all, we cannot compromise on safety. Within those constraints, we are doing everything possible to alleviate congestion.
  As a first step—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to this a moment ago —I have changed the traffic distribution rules so that charter operators can take advantage of spare capacity at Heathrow, on a temporary basis, to help holidaymakers who face hardship. That has already happened.
  I have also asked the CAA to report to me on various matters relating to airport use and capacity. I have asked for an interim report in the autumn, when the Select Committee's report should also be available, followed by a full report later. Among the issues on which the CAA will have to report to me are sectorisation, discrimination against general aviation and the priority given to larger aircraft. They are difficult issues.
  In the long term, we must increase our air traffic control capacity. The CAA plans to implement its new central control system by the mid-1990s, as part of its £250 million investment programme. It has the Government's full support in that—we have never yet blocked any CAA investment. However, it takes time to phase in a new system, while maintaining a 24-hour service that must be perfect all the time.
  Air congestion is not a purely, or even primarily, a British problem. It is a European problem, to which we must find European solutions. The CAA took the lead in establishing a "hotline" that will help Europe's air traffic controllers to improve traffic flows. We have made British equipment available to our German colleagues to help them to participate. We have used our presidency of the Commission to move Eurocontrol into more effective action. To be truly effective, however, Eurocontrol needs to bring together all the nations concerned. Greece has just taken the decision to join Eurocontrol and last week I wrote to Transport Ministers in Denmark, Italy and Spain urging them to do likewise. I have also spoken this morning to my German counterpart about ways of improving co-operation between us.
  The Government and the CAA are working together to find practical solutions to the problem of congestion. Airspace is, in the last analysis, a finite resource, but I am convinced that we could make much better use of it than we do at present. We must get much better co-ordination between the air traffic control authorities of Europe. In the next few weeks, I shall devote a great deal of attention to that.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with Defence Ministers, and possibly his European colleagues, whether there is a possibility of European military using rather less space and making more available for civilian purposes?
  Mr. Channon: I have discussed that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the advantages of our system is that it is a joint one operating between military and civilian aircraft for the control of air traffic space. That gives us certain advantages that are not available to some other countries.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has criticised us for having an irresponsible transport policy, but we have
  322
  done more for transport infrastructure than any other Government in our history. Since 1979, we have added nearly 800 miles of new trunk roads and motorways.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Why not repair the ones that we have?
  Mr. Channon: We are going to do that too. When the Labour party left office, it left a terrible legacy of backlogs in road repairs and Underground repairs and improvements. That was the "Banks legacy".
  The schemes that we have undertaken cover the whole range of improvement, from short stretches of bypass to the construction of motorways. We have increased expenditure on road building by 30 per cent. in real terms and expenditure on road maintenance has doubled.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, in an extravagant turn of phrase, said that British Rail morale was low, but British Rail has never done better than under this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] That certainly is true. British Rail has undertaken major projects such as the electrification of the east coast main line. It has carried forward its programme of modernising rolling stock and, since 1983, it has opened or reopened some 80 stations. British Rail has invested nearly £2 billion since 1983 and it plans to spend about £4 billion more in the next five years. We have undertaken a far larger programme of investment in real terms in British Rail than that carried out by the Labour party when it was in office. It pays lip service to the railways when it is in office, but its investment programme in BR was negligible.
  Mr. Peter Snape: The same old story.
  Mr. Channon: It is a jolly good story, and it is true and accurate.
  We have secured the increase in capital investment by keeping a tight rein on current expenditure. We insist on value for money, particularly in the roads programme. Nowadays, contractors complete their work within budget and ahead of time—something that was virtually unheard of in the bad old days. We are no longer in the business of doling out grants for this and subsidies for that. Privatisation, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has laughed at, has led to enormous savings. Industries that used to be dependent on the taxpayer are now paying their own way—and prospering, as the employee shareholders of Associated British Ports and the National Freight Consortium can testify.
  In recent years, we have seen imaginative new solutions to long-standing transport problems. Within a few miles of this House is London's flourishing docklands community, represented by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It is served by the Docklands light railway, by the Thamesline riverbus and by the City airport.
  Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State will be aware that the City airport had some problems with the CAA. Is he also aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and myself regarded the tests that were conducted at the weekend as invalid? The loads involved were not the same as those that would pertain when the aircraft are operating. That airport was imposed upon us by the unelected London Docklands development corporation. In the cause of safety, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a public

  323
  inquiry into all aspects of safety, particularly as the runway is close to large centres of population and projected shopping centres?
  Mr. Channon: I have no application before me for any change in the present procedures. If there were any they would have to follow the normal planning procedures as the hon. Gentleman is well aware.
  All the examples that I have given illustrate another important point—coming up with solutions to transport problems is no longer the exclusive preserve of the public sector. The private sector is playing a much more active role than it has done for many years. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has already referred to the largest example of private sector finance, the Channel tunnel. That is the most significant transport project in Europe and it is being funded by £6 billion of private capital. There are other examples, and there will be more to come.
  Last week I announced the new rail link to Heathrow —unlike the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I believe that that is the right solution. It will be largely privately financed and will provide an excellent service for those who wish to travel to the airport. Next week I shall be attending the Dartford tunnel handover, paving the way for another major private sector transport project. When such projects are brought into the reckoning, alongside Government-funded schemes, it is clear that we are seeing an unprecedented regeneration of the nation's transport infrastructure.
  What a contrast there is between the picture painted by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and Conservative party policy. The Opposition do not have a transport policy—at any rate none has been published yet——
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Yes, we do.
  Mr. Channon: Where is it? I looked at the Labour policy review—I spent a weary hour reading it—but there was not a word about transport policy. Transport and defence are too difficult for the Opposition to handle. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have lunch with the Independent; then we will know his transport policy.
  The Government have a clear policy based on clear principles: value for money, efficiency, investment and, above ail, safety. We are taking the decisions to put that policy into practice and developing a transport network fit for the next century. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and his hon. Friends are living in the past. They have nothing to do with their time but criticise. They have nothing constructive to say. I hope that the House will support our amendment.
  8.1 pm
  Mrs. Gwynneth Dunwoody: I always enjoy watching Conservative Ministers sliding out from under the burden of their transport policies. They bear a strong resemblance to break dancers. The trouble is that their facility, always worth looking at, is not always terribly admirable.
  Conservative party transport policy has resulted in making it difficult to get from anywhere to anywhere. That does not apply only to people sitting in airports, but to those who try to use the motorways and the train services. Tonight I shall speak briefly about two important results of Conservative policy of the past nine years. No matter
  324
  how often they reel off vast numbers of statistics, the Government have no basic transport policy. They have made it clear over a number of years that they have no airport policy, either. In due course the Select Committee will report on that lack of policy. It was clear even from the Minister's speech tonight that the Conservatives are not prepared to plan to make radical plans for the numbers of people using the airports. They are even prepared to try to ignore the immediate results of their inability to face the facts.
  There is a real problem with air traffic control. The Minister spoke of flow control and the difficulties at Maastricht. He spoke about the inability of all the other European nations to work together. He did not mention the inability of the Conservative Government to support European control policies, even if that was what they wanted to do. He did not point out that flow policies can at best be only a form of crisis management and were never intended to be the usual day-to-day way of organising traffic into and out of important airports. They were intended as temporary measures and, like a great many other such measures, they are turning out to be all too permanent. When the Select Committee reports, I know that it will have a great deal to say about those aspects of Government policy.
  I shall deal first with the deregulation of the buses. My constituency provides a classic case of what happens when basic transport services are entered in a haphazard game of chance. When the National Bus Company was divided up, members of Cheshire county council went to the Secretary of State for Transport and told him that they had evidence that one of the main bidders—indeed, the one most likely to be selected—for Crossville Motor Vehicles Co. had a bad record of managing previous companies. The council members did not make up that information. It was based on decisions taken by the north-west traffic commissioners. When the company had operated in other parts of the north-west it had frequently had its licence to operate reduced in considerable numbers. The Minister listened to all that and said that it was not a matter for him but was the responsibility of the National Bus Company.
  It became clear from answers to questions that I asked subsequently, when ATL holdings bought Crossville Motor Vehicles Co., that any problems with the reliability of that company were regarded as the responsibility of the NBC. That is the marvellous double bind. Assets can be sold in any way that people like, and if there is a problem the Minister will say it is not his fault but that of the National Bus Company, which by then no longer exists. So when we want to argue about the quality of ministerial decisions that allow such sales to go ahead, we are told that everything is the National Bus Company's responsibility.
  What happened in Crewe was simple and uncomplicated. The company is doing there exactly what it has done before. First, it ran down the number of maintenance engineers. Then it sold off the maintenance garage. Thirdly, it decided to get rid of the central bus station and offer an alternative somewhere outside the centre of town. In other words, that was a classic example of asset-stripping, and that was what we said it would be before these people were allowed to bid for the assets. We predicted what would happen when the legislation went through the House—and that sort of thing has happened again and again.
  The safety of passengers is of no concern to the company. If it were, it would not have been before the

  325
  traffic commissioners and had its licences reduced as often as it has done. The interests of the people of Crewe and Nantwich are of no concern to the company, either, or it would not have sold off the only town centre bus station that was capable of handling the constituency's needs. Furthermore, the relationship between bus transport and other forms of transport is of no interest to the company. It is not prepared to discuss interlinking or the planning of joint services. The company is one of those that move in, buy up assets, take away as much as they can carry in both hands and then apologise for being unable to comply with the undertakings that were asked for originally, because they cannot—a classic case of the results of Conservative transport policy.
  Such problems are not restricted to the buses. The other important employer in Crewe is the railway industry. Time and again we have witnessed the effects of Government policy on the railways. The railways are not important to the Government. The Secretary of State gave us statistics to prove that he had offered the railways whatever investment they wanted, but he never points out that, because the railway services must comply with wholly unrealistic financial targets, basic services are deteriorating at such a speed that most passengers experience difficulties every day——
  Mr. Michael Jack: Does the hon. Lady agree that the introduction of new electric locomotives on the west coast main line will enhance the service to her constituency?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I have no difficulty in encouraging the building of new locomotives. I trust that the jobs that are involved will not be handed to foreign companies—such as the Americans—or to any other companies that submit interesting but not necessarily 100 per cent. accurate estimates of cost.
  When asked to examine what is happening to rail traffic in this country, an independent consultant made it clear that British Rail is planning to turn away 3 per cent. of its customers and that it is running its services in a way that is grossly unacceptable to its customers. The independent consultant NERA, working for the Rail Federation, found numerous examples of overloading and suggested, for example, that between Carlisle and Crewe the overloading factor was 200 per cent. That means expensive seats for passengers—if they are lucky. More often than not they find it impossible to travel in comfort, and they are constantly faced with rising fares and falling standards. Yet we are told not to worry because British Rail is prepared to invest a great deal.
  The Channel tunnel shows the quality of planning under the Government. I went to the chairman of British Rail and pointed out that in the Crewe and Nantwich area we have an ideal site for a Customs and Excise facility and for the transhipment of goods. We were told that BR was prepared to look enthusiastically at any plans put before it. There has been no real response by British Rail to the immediate difficulties that will arise when the Channel tunnel is in operation. No decisions have been made. As far as British Rail can see, running times between London and the coast seem to be all right as long as the whole journey is within three hours.
  French railways have put an enormous amount of money and effort into providing a first-class service between Paris and the coast. It will be possible to run
  326
  trains through the tunnel at great speed, but when those trains reach the British coast they will have to slow down to little more than 26 or 28 mph. It seems to be difficult for British Rail to understand that passengers might not be too delighted at that. Even the plans now being suggested by British Rail do not make it clear that it is prepared to move at the speed and with the urgency that will make the difference.
  I have heard that the amount of money that the French railways are prepared to invest would ensure that French trains could run as far as Ashford, at which point French railways expect that freight and people would be put on the road. That is not an unrealistic assessment, and it will begin to happen if British Rail is not prepared to improve facilities and to update running times and the provision of rolling stock and locomotives on this line. I see no signs from British Rail that it even understands the implications of this measure.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Having looked at the corporate plan for British Rail I see that it is spending £180 million on new traction and rolling stock on the east coast line. It is also spending money on the west coast main line. To say that it is not spending money is twisting the facts.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said, he may understand the point. We know that no matter what British Rail says, it intends to balance the books by getting rid of thousands of railwaymen. That can hardly contribute to the safety and comfort of passengers. it also intends to balance the books in such a way that even the improvement of rolling stock will not be carried out in British Rail workshops, but will be used as a means of offering support and jobs to other countries.
  To the Government, transport is way down the line in terms of investment and policies. The passenger is the last person that they are prepared to think about. Whether one travels from Manchester on the Shuttle that cannot get into London airport, or on a train that goes through Crewe and on which first-class passengers, let alone standard passengers, are not able to find seats, the reality of Conservative transport policy is less for more and under more difficult circumstances. It is not a policy of which the Government can be proud.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Fry: I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who said that she could not get to where she wanted to go. Much is now clear to me. She is obviously emulating the lady in the music hall song:
  "Oh, Mr. Porter, what shall I do?
  I want to go to Birmingham,
  But I ended up in Crewe."
  That is a slight digression. I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Lady. This is a short debate and it can cover everything from air misses to the quality of tea on British Rail. All that any of us can do is pick one or two subjects and try to air them. I shall restrict myself to the subject of air congestion and the need of the traveling public for an adequate transport infrastructure.
  The Select Committee on Transport, of which I have been a member since its inception, is currently investigating air safety and runway capacity, especially in the south-east. I cannot anticipate our report, nor can I reveal any of the information because it is not generally

  327
  made public at this stage. However, I must comment on the debate that is now raging on who is to be blamed for the congestion and delays experienced by so many people, particularly those who want to go on holiday.
  I should make it quite clear that the blame is most definitely not to be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is his duty to respond to the advice given to him by the Civil Aviation Authority and it is the duty of the CAA so to advise. As he said, he recently requested an early response from the CAA on its suggestions about how the present situation may be eased. He had to ask for that response, and that is significant. Clearly, before the crisis that built up this summer, he did not have the advice that he needs, and that is why he had to ask for it.
  Secondly, and perhaps surprisingly to some people, the problems are not the sole fault of the present chairman of the CAA—[Interruption.] I said, not the sole fault of the chairman of the CAA. Mistakes have been made in the past, and as he is the current front man he has to take the criticism. In due course the Select Committee may pronounce on the CAA's share of the responsibility. However, it is worth quoting to the House at least two of its defences. First, the CAA is not responsible for the actions of foreign air traffic controllers and, secondly, it does not arrange the schedules of the various airlines.
  It is also untrue to say that no responsibility at all should be attached to any airline for the present congestion. The schedule set by some operators of four or five return flights per day by one plane would be testing enough at any time of the year. Given the kind of congestion that occurs in the summer peaks, some airline scheduling has been more than optimistic and on the verge of being foolhardy. This problem has not been uniformly shared because delays have arisen with some companies far more than with others. When the CAA and the Government come to consider solutions to alleviate problems that may arise next year and in the ensuing years, tight scheduling must be investigated.
  The main reason for congestion at our airports is simply the increase in demand about which my right hon. Friend spoke. It is not true to say that the rise in demand was clearly seen by all the airlines even last year. We must ask why the increase has taken place. It is simply because more of our people are better off and more of them can afford to fly, often more than once a year. Therefore, the problem is of economic success and widespread affluence —not the kind of picture of the United Kingdom in 1988 that the Opposition try to paint. This picture of affluence applies throughout transport. That is why 2·3 million new vehicles took to the roads in 1987 and why projections show that by the year 2000 car ownership will increase by about 20 per cent. to 25 million. Traffic could increase even more as people use their vehicles more regularly.
  Congestion on our roads raises the question of road safety. I shall insert a caveat here, because, while it is absolutely legitimate for us to be anxious about this matter, we must put it in perspective. Road deaths today are only 13 per cent. higher than they were in 1926 and we have 10 times the number of vehicles on our roads. Even in the past 12 years road deaths have been reduced by 20 per cent., while vehicles have increased by 22 per cent. One
  328
  reason for the improved record on our roads is that we have a far better motorway network than for many years. That brings me to my main point.
  The increased demand for transport that we are experiencing will mean that a better and more sophisticated infrastructure is needed. An inadequate infrastructure will only lead to more accidents. Accidents on our roads are often due to the sheer frustration that many motorists experience after being in long traffic jams or to being unable to overtake on inadequate roads.
  Mr. Skinner: Give us some infrastructure.
  Mr. Fry: Of course, there will be those who say that the road safety measures that we have at the moment still need tightening up. Perhaps they are right,; such measures are an inadequate answer to the congestion that we are facing and to the frustration being experienced by some road users.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who I understand will reply to the debate—I hope he will take my remarks as well-intentioned—that sometimes, when he is quoted in the media, his comments suggest that road safety measures can, perhaps achieve rather more than they can, and the main obligation to provide more roads sometimes tends to be lost. That is why some people perhaps criticise him rather unfairly.
  Greater road safety alone cannot be a sufficient answer. Of course we can say that lower speeds will reduce accidents. We can produce statistics to show that a speed limit of 50 miles per hour will produce fewer accidents than a speed limit of 70 miles per hour, but we could reduce that argument to an absurd level. A traffic speed of one mile per hour would produce very few accidents. On the other hand, the effect upon our economy would undoubtedly be disastrous. We cannot all go by train, because the trains do not always go where we want to go. That is sometimes forgotten by protagonists in this area.
  Our journeys today are becoming increasingly diverse and sophisticated. The sheer congestion on the roads is opening up great opportunities for rail, and light rail, and that challenge is to be met by British Rail and local authorities in the immediate future.
  I am not convinced that random breath testing will be approved by those who experience it, quite apart from the people who answer opinion polls on the subject.
  Mr. Skinner: Said he, with first-hand experience.
  Mr. Fry: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been breath-tested on the motorway and was found to be totally clear; but it is not a pleasant experience to go through, and many innocent motorists will reject random testing on the ground that it is an intrusion into their personal liberties.
  If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to make a speech, perhaps he can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the normal way. I am sure that if I sat and spoke to him while he was speaking, the House would not think that that was the way to conduct its affairs.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fry: I would not give the hon. Gentleman anything, even the time of the day.
  Mr. Skinner: Very droll.
  Mr. Fry: I hope that the Government, despite the pressure from some sources of the media and other lobbies, will not allow completely random testing.
  The traveller's safety does not depend on road safety measures alone. Much depends, whether we travel by road, rail or air, on an adequate infrastructure. Our people will travel more, and more often. They can afford it, and it is the Government's responsibility to assist them. I praise the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he has clearly seen the need for the better service that is being demanded. To his great credit, he has clearly seen that it is unlikely that the Treasury will provide sufficient public funds to provide that infrastructure in full. That is why I applaud his efforts to encourage people to talk and to become involved in the private funding of various transport projects. The Channel tunnel, the Dartford bridge, the City airport and the new Heathrow railroad are all excellent, but we must regard them only as a start.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents and many people living in Leicestershire hope that private funding can be found to electrify the midland main line to Sheffield?
  Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend knows that I am a joint Chairman of the all-party Committee concerned with that subject, and that the Committee shares his view.
  Mr. Skinner: Speak for the midland main line electrification.
  Mr. Fry: We shall try to avoid the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  The public are demanding a higher standard of service and the Government are finding it increasingly difficult to finance it entirely from state funds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has my full support in examining every possible scheme for the involvement of private money and private risk-taking. We should look beyond just building new bridges or new airports by private finance, because we must consider how we shall obtain better public transport in our cities, better through communications and more motorways, by-passes and access roads.
  Not all the schemes put forward will be financially viable, but many urban roads will give much better access and open up areas of redevelopment, which will be highly profitable to developers. Surely those same developers who will make the profit should therefore be expected to make a greater contribution to new road building. Similarly, it is essential that the Treasury's Ryrie rules, which reduce the Department of Transport's spending budget by the amount of the mixed public-private investment, must be revised and probably changed.
  My right hon. Friend is entirely right to think the unthinkable in terms of transport provision, whether it be toll roads or privately funded rail extensions. He, at least, is a man of strong vision and energy, as well as being a realist. It is the Opposition's thinking on transport which appears to be stuck in a 1950s time warp, where subsidy is the sole answer. The Secretary of State is prepared to look to the future and to find any means to secure greater safety and services for the travelling public. I shall have no hesitation in supporting him in the Lobby tonight.
  8.27 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on joining the Department of Transport. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on his recent honour. I am sorry to see him leave the Department of Transport. In my short time in the House I found him to be a Minister who was prepared to listen. He was always kind, courteous and helpful. I wish him well on the Back Benches.
  I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate. It is right that we should consider safety and the service to the travelling public. The condition of the urban environment has worsened during the past decade. There is greater traffic congestion—none more so than in the City of London—more air pollution and a poorer, but more expensive public transport system. Many of the deficiencies have been catalogued, such as the sight of holidaymakers stuck for hours at airports or on a motorway for two hours negotiating a three-mile contraflow. Traffic is increasing by 13 per cent. every year and the roads and motorways can no longer cope.
  It is a costly and dangerous situation. We have suffered from a lack of planning, vision, foresight and political will, and successive Governments must share the blame. [Interruption.] Fundamental errors were made by cutting road maintenance programmes—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am having some difficulty in hearing the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Michie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Fundamental errors were made by cutting road maintenance programmes in the 1970s, slashing the railway network from 17,000 to 10,000 miles, and even withdrawing the trams from our cities. What complete folly that was.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with the hon. Lady. Trams were one of London's great transport boons. She may not have heard, but a Conservative Member said from a sedentary position that the withdrawal of trams was a Socialist policy. The last tram journey, on which I had the great honour to travel as a babe in arms, was in 1953, when we had a Conservative Government. I just remind the hon. Lady of that because she is obviously too young to remember herself.
  Mrs. Michie: I wonder who was the younger travelling on the trams. Trams were also withdrawn from Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that was a terrible mistake.
  City transport is a focus for employment, education, retailing, leisure and health care. Cities must depend on transport to function, for the movement of goods and people. This vital service has a considerable impact on the quality of life of those living in the cities. Surely the challenge is to find a compromise between competing demands for mobility and a decent environment. There is no doubt that the urban environment has worsened during the last decade. As I said, there is greater traffic congestion, more air pollution and a poorer, but more expensive, public transport system. Pedestrians in particular have had a raw deal. Abused by motorists and intoxicated by exhaust fumes, they need standards of Olympian fitness, or the mentality of moles, if they are to use some of the pedestrian bridges or subways.

  331
  The result is that our environment has deteriorated and our standard of living has suffered accordingly. Nowhere is that more true than on the streets where we live. It is our children who have suffered most as a consequence. Because of the dangers of excessive traffic, which is often allowed to travel far to fast, children no longer have the freedom to visit their neighbours without being escorted by an adult, let alone the freedom to play in the streets or cycle to school, and it is often only the street that they can play in because of the lack of playground facilities.
  Let me say a quick word about the railways. We have never made the best use of our railways. The cuts and the colossal lack of investment have been a huge mistake. Financially British Rail may say that it is doing better, but at what cost? There is surely room now in which to improve the service to the public. The great mistake that was made was the lack of co-ordination between rail and road transport. There was no co-ordination of freight, and that was one of the failures of nationalisation. It is terrible that freight is carried up and down our roads on huge juggernauts. It should be taken by rail to freight depots spotted all over the country, and thereafter the containers taken to wherever they are required. If containers can be taken on and off ferries, they can be taken on and off trains. That is not a problem.
  We have referred to the loss of trams. I hope that the Minister will encourage the expansion of the light rail transit system, to improve safety and reduce congestion —we are looking for that in the midland metro light rail transit system—to relieve pollution, to allow motorists to park and ride and to allow people to shop in a traffic-free environment. The Government talk about privatisation and the private money that must accompany it, but I want to hear how that will help the integration of our transport services.
  Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Lady may be aware that Tyne and Wear did have such integration between the light railway system and the buses, but that that has been destroyed by the Governments privatisation policy. The Government have destroyed integration and the promotion of co-ordination. Their privatisation policies led, first, to duplication, and eventually to the elimination of transport systems for the general public.
  Mrs. Michie: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government must not turn their back on integration. That means planning a variety of public transport services to meet identified transport needs in such a way that passenger transfer between services is helped. Passengers should not have to wait a long time between buses, between a bus and a train or between trains. Such changes should be convenient and the ticket should be valid on both services.
  However, integration alone is not a panacea. Considerable investment is required to make up for years of neglect of the public transport system. The numbers of maintenance and running staff employed need to be increased if service reliability, cleanliness and passenger safety are to be restored to acceptable levels. We are looking for a better quality service.
  We have talked about holidaymakers, but I hope that Ministers and others involved will also think about the ordinary domestic travellers. I should like to see much
  332
  more traffic going out of airports in the regions of England and the nation of Scotland—from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick. I hope that the Minister understands that the Scots hate having to travel to London before going on to——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: So do the Mancunians.
  Mrs. Michie: I am talking about the Scots, not about the Mancunians.
  In order to understand what the general public have to put up with, Ministers, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, should give up their ministerial cars for three weeks and move 400 or 500 miles away from the House and then travel here and back twice a week. They should see how they get on with trains that leave and arrive an hour late, and aeroplanes that leave Glasgow half an hour late and circle over Heathrow for 25 minutes. The situation is diabolical. My goodness, no wonder we want a Scottish Parliament, so that we do not have to do that twice a week. I believe that the Government's amendment is very bland.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is a terrible amendment, not bland.
  Mrs. Michie: I hope that the Government will answer many of the points that have been raised, particularly that about integrating the transport services.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Terence Higgins: This motion takes no account of the tremendous success of the Government's transport policy in allocating massive amounts to additional infrastructure in every form of transport and in using resources more efficiently by eliminating wasteful subsidies. It is important to start from that point. I join the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and other hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his new appointment. We certainly wish him well.
  I also join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who has every reason to be pleased with and proud of his ministerial career. We have known each other for a long time. We were both selected as parliamentary candidates in the same week, and whereas I failed to get on the short list for his constituency, he got on the short list for mine. Ever since, I have noted with great interest the tremendous contribution that he has made to the House both from the Back Benches and as a Minister. I feel sure that he will continue to make a very important contribution.
  I wish to concentrate on road and air transport. I begin by stressing the importance of the Government's commitment that through traffic should be taken away from towns, and I do so for important constituency reasons. The Government recently appointed a firm of consultants to look into the future route of the A27 in the Worthing area, and their proposals would effectively cut the town in two. What we need is a real bypass. At constituency meetings in recent days attended by 400, 900 and well over 1,000 people, there have been strong protests against the consultants' proposals. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that feeling into account and ensure that Worthing is given a real bypass, in the same way that every town and almost every village of any

  333
  size on the south coast has been provided with a bypass along what will clearly be, in view of the Channel tunnel, the main east-west route for the south.
  Other aspects of road transport that require particular attention concern both London and the inner cities, and motorways. The Government are doing far less then they could to facilitate road transport both in the cities and on the motorways. The present policy in London in particular needs to be carefully reviewed in respect of coaches and bus lanes. I am convinced that in many places, if not all, bus lanes seriously slow down traffic flow, and as my right hon. Friend will know, the way in which coaches are allowed to park all over the place and to interfere with traffic flow—not least disgorging passengers in the centre of Westminster bridge, with great risk of loss of life— should be carefully examined. Other proposals for improving traffic flow have proved to be disastrous—such as the Aldwych, which was the GLC's final kick before it——
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Higgins: No, I shall not give way.
  The GLC, in its final kick, introduced a system at Aldwych that has totally fouled up the traffic every day ever since. I hope that the Government will reinstate the original arrangement at the Aldwych, which was much better than the present one. It is important that the Government take action. I feel sure that London's traffic flow can be improved, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is establishing a specific study to examine the matter.
  As to motorway traffic, I welcome the acceptance of the idea that 70 mph signs, rather than signs taking the form only of white circles with a black diagonal, should be erected on motorways, to remind motorists using them of the real speed limit. I hope that that experiment will be successful and helpful in ensuring that the speed regulations, which I believe are set at the right limits, are observed more rigorously than they are at present.
  What really concerns me are the appalling hold-ups that occur on motorways because steps have not been taken to divert traffic away from a blockage. A few weeks ago, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will know, I suffered an appalling experience when I had to wait about 50 minutes at the junction of the M25 and the M23. That was because a machine was apparently being used to test the road surface at a time when there was a massive amount of traffic on the motorway. All that was needed was one sign at the junction warning of the blockage and directing traffic to another route. I do not believe that the delegation of authority from the Department to county councils takes any account of the need to improve motorway traffic flow, when just a little advanced planning and concentration of thought could make a tremendous difference.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will seriously consider setting up a small unit within the Department of Transport that will be notified of all likely major hold-ups and then make sure that action is taken to divert traffic. The waste of resources that currently results from such confusion is often wholly avoidable. That is something on which the Government could reasonably take effective action. Having said that, it
  334
  must also be recognised that the Government's road building programme is making considerable progress, and I trust that it will continue.
  The other point I wish to stress concerns air traffic control. The chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has been most unfairly criticised over situations that developed as the combined result of several industrial disputes in other countries and the extremely tight schedules set by charter operators, whereby any minor disruption of their programme results in considerable disruption. That combination was the crux of many recent problems and there was nothing that either the CAA or the Government could reasonably have done, given the situation that had been created before the present difficulties arose.
  However, it is important that we should not give way to those pressure groups that argue that there should be more night flights. It would be wrong for huge numbers of people to be seriously inconvenienced by an extension of night flight schedules. We tend to express too much concern about aircraft take-offs while ignoring landings. In my constituency, I constantly receive complaints about the level of night noise. The Government have done something to divert certain routes to less populous areas, with the result that there has been an improvement.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will stand firm against those who argue for an extension of night take-offs and will also look carefully at what appear to be completely unnecessary landings at, for example, Heathrow. They disturb many people at something like 5.20 in the morning. There is no need for large numbers of people to be inconvenienced for the sake of a few hundreds' convenience.
  The Government have constantly claimed—I believe this is true—that it is not lack of resources that has resulted in air traffic control problems. However, we must carefully consider whether the Government's proposals for central control functions, which are designed to help in the future, cannot be brought forward from 1995. That time horizon surely ought to be shortened, and I cannot believe that the changes envisaged are such that they need to be introduced over that length of time. We are all aware of the considerable difficulties being experienced with that part of the programme, but everything possible must be done to ensure its implementation without the kind of delay that is envisaged.
  There are many other subjects on which I might be tempted to speak; in particular, in declaring my interest as a council member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists —totally unpaid, I might add. It is important that we should encourage people to engage in better training after they have passed the present test, which is not sufficiently thorough to ensure that drivers are capable of driving safely in all conditions.
  I am tempted also to discuss trams, which were referred to a moment ago. I once had the pleasure of successfully moving an amendment that secured the perpetuation of trams in Blackpool. The main advantage of London trams seemed to me that they were operated by members of a different union from those who operated the buses, which meant that they did not both strike at the same time.
  The Government are putting in vastly more resources than before, and many aspects of their policy are now extremely successful. I hope very much that the House will reject the Opposition motion, which is superficial and partisan and the sort of thing that we might expect at this time of year.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: One of the fundamental factors in any consideration of the state of transport must involve the public's view. The public appear to have little say in what happens, yet by any reasonable test of the conditions of our present transport system the number of public complaints is higher than ever, and the House should take serious account of that.
  I think that for our present purpose we can ignore the transport experts, many of whom have been indifferent to public opinion. They know best. Members of Parliament are often frustrated when presenting a case involving their reaction to a legitimate public complaint. What we get is an exciting stir of indifference in the Department of Transport. When the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) talks of more resources being spent on transport than ever before, I cannot disagree, except to suggest that after eight years of Conservative government, the Secretary of State's excuse that he has been dealing with conditions inherited by the present Administration is beginning to wear a little thin. The public are not convinced by that kind of political observation, and it wastes time in the House. While we have perhaps improved the allocation of resources, the concern of the public about the inconvenience caused to them suggests that we have done too little, often too late.
  Towards the end of his speech, the Secretary of State said that this was an excellent story. He presented the House with an excessive degree of heavy breathing. It is not an excellent story at all. Let us look at one of the four considerations in his approach to transport—safety. It is a remarkable habit of the House and indeed the country to become more keenly concerned about safety after an accident. We organise inquiries promptly, without hesitation; we wait for some months for their reports; then, as time passes, we seem to wait for the next accident.
  Is the Secretary of State really satisfied with safety levels? Will he not admit that the Department has not once taken on board a semblance of responsibility for the conditions that led up to the ferry accident at Zeebrugge? We know where the real culprit is, but the Department has procrastinated. It has been lethargic about pinpointing responsibility. As I recall, most of the blame was placed on two individuals, but where does the real responsibility lie? Despite assurances in the House that something would be done about the conditions that led to the accident, we hear reports from the crews of other ferries that the same laxity prevails. One ferry went about its business, albeit within the port, with the doors open at the front where vehicles are loaded.
  Is it enough to say that safety is one of our main considerations? What about the responsible reports of people who have spent a lifetime on the airways? Are the pilots wrong about near misses, or are the official reports wrong? Of whom should we take notice—the pilots who experienced a near-mishap, or the reports churned out by a tiresome bureaucracy with no personal involvement? The country is becoming involved, entirely unprofessionally, in passing the buck.
  How does the House feel about roads? Last year I travelled in Europe for some 4,000 miles and never saw a single roadworks. I returned to this country and was soon sick and tired of being stopped. We want large sums to be spent on roadworks, but we have built road systems to be unable to deal with the developing traffic circumstances.
  336
  When travelling to my constituency—if I travel within the law, as I suppose I must—I can get pretty far up the road to the north-east until I come across those wonderful inhuman things called cones, or Daleks. I am stuck there until I am fed up to the back teeth. Such conditions can promote accidents, and a good deal needs to be spent to put them right.
  If, however, I decide to travel by rail, what happens? I get to Darlington—as I may tomorrow evening if sensible people on both sides of the House ensure that the vote is before 7 o'clock—but I then cannot get a train to take me the 21 miles to my constituency. I can afford to pay for a taxi, but what about the dear old lady or the young wife with her bairns? Taxis are costly. They have to catch a bus. To reach the bus stop they have to walk for over a mile and when they catch the bus it goes in and out of little villages and they have a very long ride.
  This country has lost a great opportunity to integrate its transport system to meet the requirements of the public—not the requirements of politicians who have allowances and who can ride in their cars. We are not meeting the requirements of the public, because we have never measured up to the great economic benefits that an integrated transport system would provide. We had such a system in Tynemouth. We could get on and off the metro, using the same ticket. Because the bus system was integrated, people could move quickly within the area and, better still, get home quickly. That was stopped. Obeying the orders of the House, I had to chair the Committee on the Bill that led to the deregulation of transport. The result is that even in the smallest towns, six or seven buses are now fighting for customers.
  Mr. Clelland: When I put that point to the Secretary f State for the Environment, he replied that deregulation had led to buses queuing for people instead of people queuing for buses. If that is the Secretary of State's view of efficiency, it is no wonder that our transport system is in such a mess.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I can think of no better way to round off my contribution than with my hon. Friend's intervention. I had decided to speak only for a short while. I look at the clock and, out of respect for other hon. Members, both before me and behind me, I shall sit down.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I agree with the point that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made about safety. Concern about safety should always be at the forefront of our minds. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that no Secretary of State for Transport, or his Ministers, could operate a successful transport policy without having the needs of the public at the forefront of their minds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is disappointing that safety matters are not aired in this House as often as they should be and that they are always aired after a sad and tragic event. We have had our bellyful of such events this year.
  I join in the paean of praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). He always took the trouble to listen to what hon. Members on both sides of the House had to say about transport matters. He dealt with us all with great courtesy and

  337
  effectiveness. The Government will be the poorer without him. However, the Department of Transport will be greatly enriched by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). Within a short period he brought a unique distinction to his ministerial office. We congratulate him and wish him success in his new office.
  The quite exceptional growth in the economy and the real earnings that have gone with it have enabled more people to travel—and a very good thing, too. However, considering the history of economic growth in this country, it is hardly surprising that the Department of Transport and other Departments with responsibility for forecasting traffic growth have not got their sums right. Because of the very heavy burdens that he has recently had to bear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Transport will be more aware than anybody else of the fact that the forecasting errors that have been made in the past of traffic on the roads and in the air are unacceptable and must never be allowed to happen again, in so far as it is possible to prevent them.
  I intend to deal with two separate transport matters —aviation and roads. The British aviation industry is one of our great economic success stories. The transformation of British Airways under the exceptional leadership of Lord King and Sir Colin Marshall, the remarkable efforts of people such as Michael Bishop of British Midland Airways Ltd., of Harry Goodman of Air Europe, of Peter Villa of British Island Airways and of Britannia, Dan-Air and many others, has resulted in an explosion of activity. It has provided much employment and prosperity for people all over the country. Long may it continue, and broader may it spread.
  The people who run the airlines and the people who work in them must realise that the great, substantial and happy successes must be balanced with crucial environ-mental considerations, which are of the greatest importance to people who live near airports. The British Airports Authority, under Sir Norman Payne, has made a brilliant start in the private sector and has confounded all the horror stories that those of us who served—I shall not say, had the fun of serving—on the Standing Committee that considered the Airports Bill heard forecast for it. The BAA has gone from strength to strength. Heathrow and Gatwick are now the two busiest international airports in the world and the BAA team runs a successful and splendid enterprise, which is expanding its interests handsomely and successfully overseas.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues have more than done their bit. They have done a remarkable job in liberating air transport, both domestically and internationally, and they have done an excellent job in trying to achieve that important balance between environmental concerns and commercial success.
  We are now in substantial and considerable difficulties. The problems of growth in this area, as in so many others dealt with by the Government today, are proving even harder and more intractable to manage than were the problems of decline before 1979. There is very serious congestion at airports and there are unsatisfactory delays for passengers, which are quite unacceptable. Many of the reasons for those delays are entirely unconnected with this country. The Greeks, Spaniards and French have all done their best to ruin holiday travel for our people. It is a Europewide problem, as my right hon. Friend the
  338
  Secretary of State has said. The problem must be addressed on a European scale because it is not simply a British problem.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must ensure that the directors of each international air traffic control system have their heads collectively banged together until there is a unified system over western Europe. As sure as eggs are eggs, 1992 will bring a greater demand for travel and that must be dealt with before the impact of the open market.
  The remarks made by some hon. Members about the Civil Aviation Authority and its chairman and management two weeks ago were, frankly, disgraceful. I am ashamed to say that the rent-a-crowd on the Conservative Benches were largely responsible. I want to place on record my unreserved admiration for the way in which the chairman of the CAA and Keith Mack, the head of air traffic control, are coping with particularly intransigent and difficult problems. I visited the air traffic controllers in my constituency the other day and I was exhausted by watching them. They do a brilliant and highly complex job under very demanding conditions, and the most onerous and appalling responsibilities rest on their shoulders. A great deal needs to be done to improve working practices in that organisation, but huge investments have been, are being and will continue to be made in air traffic control equipment, as I am assured by the Government.
  All that is happening after the horse is almost out of the box. What can be done? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already dealing with the problem in the European dimension. I suggest that he gets hold of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and that he shakes from that appalling sink of waste every inch of military air space that he can prise from it. It is ridiculous that in 1988, when the most modern facilities for controlling air traffic exist, the military should insist on retaining in so many areas of this country vast acres of air space that are completely unnecessary for their own requirements and would greatly assist my right hon. Friend's problems.
  Decisions in respect of future licences, runways, terminals and technical investments must be made, as they have been in the past, but particularly from now on, in the context of a national and international strategy for air transport.
  I now turn briefly to roads. No one can deny the Government's right to claim credit for a very handsome increase in spending on the roads programme since 1979. But that is self-evidently not enough. My constituents and millions of others are daily deeply frustrated and greatly angered by road chaos. On this, as on so many matters in relation to infrastructure spending, we can and must do better.
  Finally, I wish to make two key points. The public transport services require, first and foremost, far more effective direction and use of those who work in them and the resources for which they are trustees. Services must adapt to the requirements of the travelling public. My final point to my right hon. Friend is that efficiency is about doing what is right, but effectiveness, which is the true management task, is about doing the right things, as Peter Drucker said.
  We must continue to invest at ever-increasing levels in the transport infrastructure of this nation if we are to begin to keep up with our continental neighbours.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. David Marshall: The question that has to be posed is: do the Government have an overall policy for adequate transportation systems to meet the present and future needs of the nation, taking into account convenience, cost, safety and service? It is patently obvious that they do not. I wonder whether it is the Government's desire to encourage everyone to stay at home, as it is becoming very difficult to travel anywhere without experiencing considerable discomfort, frustration, strain, stress and worry travelling by road, rail, sea or air.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing the debate as half of the Opposition Supply day debate today. Were it left to the Government, we would never have a transport debate in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) boasted about travelling as a baby on the last London tram in 1953. I believe that I can go one better, having worked for two years as a tram conductor in Glasgow until the last tram ran there in 1962.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on securing his knighthood, and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his appointment to the Ministry of Transport. I sincerely hope that he will prove to be a good Minister, particularly in relation to public transport.
  I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and also as the Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport. As the House is aware, at present the Select Committee is in the middle of an inquiry into air traffic control safety and runway capacity. Therefore, I feel that it would be most improper for me to make any comment on those matters. Suffice it to say that I hope our report will be published in December, or very early in 1989. I sincerely hope that, as usual, it will contain a number of helpful and meaningful recommendations and possible solutions that the Government may see fit to accept.
  As an individual hon. Member, I believe that the Select Committee was perfectly right to conduct such an inquiry, and it would have been failing in its duty had it not done so. The concern of hon. Members and of the general public is very well known, and we must always guard against complacency whenever and wherever it arises, especially in matters of safety.
  There is a very strong link between congestion and safety, whether it be in the skies, on a crowded ferry boat, in a train, an underground train or on the roads and motorways of our country. Motorways are grossly overcrowded, yet astonishingly, as far as I am aware, the Government have no plans for a new motorway network to meet the expected increase in traffic on our roads in years to come. They should be ashamed of themselves, and even more ashamed that they opened the M25 with no service area facilities for motorists. They seem also to be unwilling to provide, or to encourage someone else to provide, proper facilities for HGV lorries, and long-distance coaches. Drivers and passengers need sufficient, decent places to stop for rest and refreshment.
  Facilities for the disabled traveller are also a disgrace. For example, a recent Automobile Association survey found that, at six service areas, disabled people could not rely on getting access to any facilities. Perhaps not enough profit can be made out of the disabled traveller.
  340
  I make no apology for again referring to the A74 and to the Government's repeated failure to honour their election pledge to upgrade that road to motorway status along its entire length from Carlisle to Glasgow. It has a horrific accident record and is well known as a killer road. How many lives must be lost on the A74 before the Government do something about it?
  Drunk driving is one of the most serious problems facing us today. When will the Government finally get their act together and do something about it? Call it random breath testing, discretionary testing, unrestricted testing—call it what one likes—but the public want action, and they want action now. In making the case against random breath testing, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that, in other countries, only one in 200 drivers stopped is over the limit. That is a powerful argument for random tests. It suggests that people are unlikely to take a chance if they fear that there is a real risk that they will be caught.
  One matter that greatly concerns me relates to motor cyclists and the terrible toll of deaths and serious injuries suffered by young bikers. Has the Secretary of State seen the admirable campaign that was recently waged by the Scottish Daily Record, which called for compulsory training before riders are even allowed on to our roads? The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), supports the campaign. Will the Secretary of State do the same, and do the sensible thing and introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible?
  The Secretary of State should also consider a publicity campaign along the "clunk-click" campaign lines, to get all drivers to use their indicators properly. He should again consider making motorway driving a part of the driving test, and providing more resources to ensure a high-profile, marked police presence on our roads. Nothing is more effective in making us better drivers than to see a police car on the same road. He should also provide much more of the £14 billion that is derived from road users than the £3 billion provided at present. Research, maintenance and construction are all in need of substantially increased funding. The wonder is not the number of accidents that take place on our roads, but that the figures are not substantially greater.
  Despite the Secretary of State's claim about investment, there are no signs of any new railway lines being built, yet the present network is greatly overcrowded in many areas and could not meet an increased demand. No serious efforts have been made to transfer traffic or passengers from road to rail. Staff shortages in the south-east mean constant gaps in services and a lack of service. Overcrowding, especially on underground trains in London, must be a safety hazard and make commuting unbearable.
  Why do the Government not give British Rail all the necessary resources to tackle the problems in a proper, responsible manner, thereby benefiting the nation, industry, the travelling public and employees? The Government put profits before people. One of the saddest features of all is the short-sightedness of a Government who are not prepared to invest in long-term safety. They will long stand condemned for that fact alone.
  9.18 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: In the short time available I should like to deal with air and road travel. I declare an interest as president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists and as an adviser to the Guild of Business Travel Agents, which is responsible for four out of five business flights out of the United Kingdom.
  A top priority for both means of travel is safety. The difference between the two methods of travel is stark. There is almost hysterical excitement and anxiety when a jumbo jet has a near miss—there is wide coverage in the press and great terror—but the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing, with total loss of life, takes place every month of every year on our roads and receives nothing like the same publicity. There are 35 road casualties every hour. There have been 100 road casualties in the time that we have been debating this matter. It is no consolation to people who have suffered the misery and horror of a road accident to be told that the statistics are better than those for France or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, because there are so many cars on the road, the proportion of accidents is smaller.
  It is essential to concentrate on road safety, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his work and his attention to this matter. He has emphasised the number of deaths and misery caused by drunken driving. He always states that one in five road accidents are caused by drink, but we should not forget that four out of five are not caused by drink. So what are they caused by? In that respect I welcome the Government's support for the North report, which reviewed road traffic law.
  It is right to emphasise the need for more and better roads. As my hon. Friend always says, one is safer on a motorway than on the small urban roads. I know that that is true of my constituency, where ghastly accidents occur, not on the motorways, but on the smaller roads in rural areas. The call for roads to be built is interesting. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State accused the Opposition of being big spenders, of wanting to spend big money and to subsidise, but what did they do when they were in office? They halved the road programme. Therefore, we can dismiss their view. Indeed, the whole of the motion is party political claptrap. The subject deserves much more serious debate.
  There are many items in the North report that are important. First, the report is right to emphasise the distinction between major and minor road offences, which at present is somewhat blurred. The offence of recklessness is always difficult to prove in court. The muddles and the wheeler deals, in which I used to be involved when I was involved in the law, were in many ways bringing the law into disrepute. The police would throw in two charges, dangerous and careless driving, and a deal would be struck: "All right, I will plead guilty to careless driving if the dangerous driving charge is withdrawn." I am glad that the North report recommends changes that will differentiate between those two offences, because a diminution of the respect shown for the police has been encouraged by our traffic laws.
  I hope that in future, the police will be able to make greater use of warnings and explanations to motorists of what has gone wrong. That would be good public relations and would be helpful to the motorist. I understand that the
  342
  police can have videos in their cars, and it would be valuable if an offender could be shown on the video what he did wrong, in the hope that he would not do it again.
  I am glad that there is to be greater use of technological advances, which I know my hon. Friend is studying. In Japan, heavy goods vehicles have lights that illuminate when they are travelling too fast, and that makes them easily identifiable. The greatest curse of our motorways is the wretched practice of driving too close to the vehicle in front for the conditions on the road. I am advised that it is possible to have a technological gadget—for example a light—that will show clearly that one is driving too close behind the other vehicle for the speed at which one is travelling. The Opposition have asked who will pay for that. The answer is simple. If we are sensible we will ensure, as we did with seat belts, that such gadgets are fitted to vehicles before they are put on the road. That is what must happen if we are to deal with the mayhem.
  The magistrates bench is often feeble about disqualification for very bad driving, and I should like greater use to be made of the power to order the forfeiture of the vehicle. I know that it is said that most people do not drive their own vehicles, but I do not believe that that matters. There are many companies which are irresponsible about who they give a car to. They do not check whether the person to whom they are giving the keys is a good driver or sensible. It would be a salutary experience for companies if their vehicles were forfeited and they had to pay a substantial sum to get them back. They might then ensure that their drivers drove more carefully. It is, after all, commercial travellers belting about in other people's cars who are a major cause of mayhem on the roads.
  I hope that appropriate measures will be applied strictly to heavy goods vehicles and coaches.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Especially coaches.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Particularly when they are in the outside lane.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I entirely agree with my hon. Friends. There are excellent drivers of HGVs and coaches, but, as those vehicles are much more dangerous than anything else, the drivers of them must maintain higher standards.
  I entirely support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said about the Civil Aviation Authority. Its chairman, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, is an old friend and a former colleague of ours. He is a man of great integrity and ability. It is wrong to blame him for what has happened with our air traffic control. There is no doubt that we were all caught out badly in our estimate of the increase in the amount of air travel. It is rather like the M25. It is an excellent concept, but the number of users has far outstripped the number anticipated when the wretched thing was built. For air traffic, we are stuck with a problem that will be with us for a long time.
  The CAA is to spend £250 million during the next five years. My view, which I am told is shared by some airlines, is that that is inadequate. I also believe that resolution of the problem, which is predicted for 1995, is likely to slip to 1997. There will be more temporary measures, such as moving charters to Heathrow. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, I think it is unavoidable that some extra night flights will be used. That is regrettable.

  343
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley about the use of military airspace. I am told that the regulations that affect military airspace were laid down a long time ago, and in different circumstances. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who may be able to raise the subject in NATO circles, to see whether some military airspace can be released. That would make a big difference.
  Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend explain how the release of military airspace will solve congestion on civilian airways?
  Sir Anthony Grant: The point was put to me powerfully at a meeting that I had with British Airways air traffic people. They think that if military airspace in Europe were reduced, much more would be available for civilian aeroplanes. Their view is shared by some of their European counterparts.
  We are all sorry for the holidaymakers, because it is wretched for them to have their holidays ruined. However, we must remember the other important travellers who have to travel by air all year round, not just at holiday times. I am referring to the business traveller, the person who is concerned with trade for Britain and about our exports as a trading nation. He does not travel for pleasure. He has to travel day in, day out, in all circumstances to trade for Britain. Such travellers should not be inconvenienced or suffer in any way because of the failure to arrange our affairs in such a manner that scheduled flights can take priority over charters. I ask my right hon. Friends to have careful regard to maintaining the scheduled services at all costs, because they are important for the business traveller and the British economy.
  The Department of Transport is often regarded as a Cinderella, but I believe that it does a first-class job. It is in the front line when there are difficulties and what it does touches on the activities of all our citizens. It has done a first-class job and I wish it well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who is to reply to the debate, will have close dealings with the Department of the Environment and that there will not be any conflict with the new Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I should like to join the assembled welcome for the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and to add my commiserations to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who I shall miss because of the way in which he took part in the debates that we shared, with me doing the talking and him doing the listening. He did that well for the most part.
  If I could give some advice to the hon. Member for Southgate, it would be to read carefully the Governments amendment to our motion and then ignore every single word in it because it is absolute nonsense, as has been borne out by speeches of hon. Members of all parties.
  If things are so good, why are they so bad? Why, for example, has the road system in the City of London almost
  344
  collapsed, so that the London ambulance service has now had to reduce from 95 per cent. to as low as 90 per cent. the number of calls that it expects to make within 14 minutes? That is a terrible indictment of the congestion on London's roads and of the Government's total inability to get to grips with the situation.
  I remind the House that it is not that long ago that London Regional Transport was striving to attract traffic off the roads—and succeeding—that the number of accidents on London's roads fell by 3,000 per year, and that the number of cars on London's roads also decreased. That was because at that time London Regional Transport was receiving that terrible thing, a subsidy from the Greater London council and from the Treasury. Because of that subsidy, it could offer the unusual combination of a decent fare structure and passengers attracted back to public transport.
  If everything is so good, why did the Audit Commission state in its recent report that since 1980 roads throughout the country have been deteriorating and that their condition is now worse than in 1977? If things are so good under this Government, why are the travelling public throughout the country totally fed up with the motorways being coned off and with being unable to travel from one part of the country to another, and why have those who used to travel on public transport deserted it? Following the great emphasis on deregulation, fewer people use public transport after deregulation than used it before.
  The most important item in the Opposition motion is the part that concentrates on safety and the most damning indictment of this Government's record is their record on safety. Although this has been a wide-ranging debate, I believe that it is important to consider safety.
  London Regional Transport enjoyed phenomenal success under the Greater London council when, partly in co-operation with the Labour Government and even with the Conservative Government in their early years, low fares made a real change to the fortunes of transport in London. The Government have now withdrawn the subsidy to LRT, and the 1988–89 LRT business plan admits that the London Underground and the London transport system are seriously overloaded.
  In April of this year, LRT also announced that new investment, far from coming from the public to satisfy the needs of the public through taxation and other mechanisms, would lead inevitably and inexorably towards higher fares. The inevitable result will be fewer passengers travelling on the transport system—except for those forced off by the congestion on our roads.
  Although the Government boast in their amendment to the motion of
  "the increased investment in transport",
  there are now fewer railway cars on LRT railways than there were in 1979. There is less seating capacity on the Underground than there was in 1979. Basically, the public are being given a shabby deal as a result of lack of Government investment.
  The Secretary of State always makes great play of the "caring Government" and of what they have done to improve safety. However, the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have neglected safety on London Underground since the day they took it over from the GLC.

  345
  One of the first tasks of the new Minister for Public Transport—poor sucker—was to answer a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). My hon. Friend asked
  "on what date his Department received London fire brigade inspection reports on the London Underground deep underground stations in 1987, and in each of the preceding five years."
  The answer that came back said:
  "None were received in 1987."—
  or in 1986, 1985 or 1984—
  "The last report received from the London fire brigade … was dated 10 May 1983".
  Surely the Department of Transport and the Secretary of State, or his predecessors, must have realised, when those reports from the fire brigade did not come through, that something had gone wrong. Surely, having nationalised London Underground, the Government appreciated that they had responsibility for safety. Once that transport system had been nationalised, the Government took away any adequate safety regime. The sure and inexorable result has been that the management, pressed to deliver cost savings and profit achievements, has ended up with poor safety conditions. That has led directly to the King's Cross fire and that is a charge that the Government will not be allowed to evade.
  There have been previous fires on London Underground, at Oxford Circus and at Green Park. The reports on the inquiries into those fires were available, yet, despite its importance, no steps were taken to ensure the safety of the travelling public in London. That should have been the Government's prime concern and that is a charge that I am levelling against the Government. It is the greatest hypocrisy for the Government to argue that safety is at the forefront of their decision-making.
  The most important concern relates to the safety of the ferries that ply between our coastal ports and France— that is a growing sore. The charge that such ferries are unacceptably vulnerable to capsize has been made by people with professional competence and of the highest international repute. That warning has come from the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, from those who suffered a bereavement as a result of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, and from the Herald Families Association. On each occasion, the Government's response has been that they have taken all kinds of measures to introduce regulations for ferries. They have at no time addressed the basic problem—the ability of such ferries to capsize.
  During the passage of the Merchant Shipping Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I pointed out the problems of fatigue. In every comparable industry, whether the air service or road haulage industry, there are specific limits on the hours of work that can be undertaken by or allowed for any operative. We pointed out that navigation at sea was an exception in that respect and that the Government had already committed themselves to bringing in legislation on fatigue.
  We were told by the then Minister of State, and again on Report, that the Government intended to do nothing about bringing in maximum permitted hours of work for the merchant marine. We did not twig why—that it was a prelude to the introduction of new working conditions by P and O and that if the Government had brought in those acceptable hours of work they would have ruled out the
  346
  introduction of the new blue book regime which was brought in by P and O and which has done so much damage to the ferry industry——
  Mr. David Shaw: The final terms were red book, not blue book, terms.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman stood before the House some months ago and described how P and O had listened to people like him and had brought in the red book to amend the blue book—but it has ratted on that agreement and brought in the blue book. There are people on its ferries who operate under blue book conditions.
  I want to quote some interesting comments made by personnel of P and O, the kind-hearted company whose only aim is to make an honest buck and to ensure the safety of it passengers. The company was described by Lord Justice Sheen thus:
  "From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of sloppiness."
  So much has changed that the Dover personnel manager of P and O European Ferries, a Mr. Chaston, was observed by members of NUMAST in negotiation with him to say:
  "P and O cannot be seen as putting forward any reduction in manning. Any such changes must come from the union as the company cannot afford to be held responsible for accidents."
  He was not saying that the company did not want reductions in manning; he was happy to have them. But he was saying P and O would not accept responsibility for any more accidents caused by what he knew—so much is implicit in his comments—were unsafe manning levels. That is what P and O is up to.
  This is the same P and O which, as we have already heard this evening in the case of the vessel European Clearway, allowed operating conditions that defy categorisation as acceptable. P and O has denied none of these charges yet. The Secretary of State told us that he was prepared to prosecute in the event of unacceptable conditions at sea, but that the Herald of Free Enterprise is unfortunately out of his hands. Will he give a guarantee that, if the charges about the European Clearway made by motorman John Ball are proven, rather than allowing him to pursue a private prosecution, he will take all possible steps to ensure that Jeffrey Sterling and his company are brought before the courts to answer for the unacceptable safety standards on their vessels?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of the European Trader? I have already raised this matter with him. On the night when there was a fire on board the European Trader, an exchange took place between the vessel and the coastguard, who said:
  "Please listen to me on Channel 80 and Channel 16."
  The vessel's radio operator replied:
  "We do not have enough men to monitor on both channels."
  The Secretary of State is not an able seaman—no more am I—but we both know that it is vital in such an emergency that monitoring should take place on both channels. On that occasion it did not, because there were not enough men on board. The right hon. Gentleman's departmental inspectors allowed that to happen. I can provide—I have provided—the Secretary of State with the names of witnesses; will he guarantee that if the charge is proven he will prosecute P and O for that?
  Will the Secretary of State, through the Under-Secretary, tell us about the charge that surfaced this

  347
  morning about the European Trader? On the night when the fire was raging and the crew went in to put it out, they were issued with gear to prevent them from being burned, and with breathing masks. They found that the oxygen cylinders for the breathing masks were empty, so they had to depart and find substitutes before going back to fight the blaze. Any observer would recognise that that delay might have caused a major tragedy which fortunately—no thanks to P and O or the Government—did not take place. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that charges will be laid against P and O if that incident is proven? I invite the Under-Secretary of State to respond to that, because clearly the Secretary of State does not intend to move.
  The Government often claim that they are the victims of the success of their policies. That success is reflected in airports that have people lying all over the place and in traffic queued up for miles on our motorways and in the streets of London. The real victims of the Government's success are those who died on the Herald of Free Enterprise and at King's Cross. The Opposition will not allow the Government, who claim that they care for safety standards, to escape responsibility for those victims.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley):
  "Every day people lose husbands, wives, parents, children and friends they have loved, whose loss reduces every perspective to dullness, misery and pain. In many cases they carry the pain around with them for the rest of their lives. At moments like this, one realises that under the surface of polite society there is a great well of sadness and bereavement, an aspect of the human condition which is as inescapable as it is seldom remarked, yet looming larger in many people's lives than any of the things they pretend to think important. The only excuse for allowing my own howl of anguish to be heard is to give those yet unbereaved a glimpse into the hellish blackness lying under the surface of their lives before they sensibly turn away and think of something else."
  These words are Auberon Waugh's from the Spectator of 15 February 1986.
  The House will acknowledge that this is an important debate with many aspects. It is regrettable that it draws about as much press attention as our most boring debates. The House knows that for a debate about capital punishment, which might affect the lives of about six or 60 people a year, the Press and Strangers' Galleries would have been full and there would have been newspaper attention throughout the debate. I am not criticising the press; and I shall later deal with what it has achieved.
  While not in any way obscuring some of the terrible tragedies that have occurred, I can tell the House that in every category of transport the accident rate for the last available year is lower than it was in 1979. Of course, it should be. We should be able to get rid of avoidable crashes and to reduce the risk of disaster—[Interruption.] When disasters occur we should learn the lessons. One of the important things to recognise is that if we spent more time listening rather than speaking, we could work together to reduce the number of crashes.
  Some hon. Members spoke about the King's Cross fire. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were two of the few Members of Parliament who were there. I pay tribute to those who at that disaster and
  348
  in other disasters clear up the consequences of human error. On the roads, 95 per cent. of deaths and injuries are caused in part or in full by human error.
  While we wait for the report of the Fennell inquiry, let us recognise that, because of the increased number of passengers who used the London Underground this year, between 25 and 30 lives have been saved. Seventy per cent. more people now use London Underground than in 1982, when it came away from the GLC. Without that increase in passengers, we would have expected at least 250 serious casualties and 1,000 slight casualties extra on the roads. If the underground passenger miles had been travelled in cars, on motor cycles and pedal cycles the saving would not have been so great.
  Those who have managed to promote London Regional Transport so that it is more attractive to passengers have saved lives. By holding fares roughly steady, London Regional Transport has got so many extra passengers that it can proceed to an investment programme of £1 million a day. Capital investment in London Regional Transport is over three times the rate of investment on national roads in London. That should be welcomed rather than criticised by the Opposition if they believe their own rhetoric. People should have a choice about how they move around. They should make their own decisions rather than have them made by the Government or by the Opposition.
  I also wish to mention one of the more vulnerable groups—motor cyclists. The House will be aware that over 40 per cent. of injuries to motor cyclists occur to those who are very young. In 1982, which is a useful comparative year —let us not bring party politics into the matter by taking 1979—a motor cyclist between the ages of 16 and 19 was 20 times more likely to be involved in a crash or collision for every mile travelled than a motor cyclist aged 25 or over. That ratio of 20:1 is horrifying, and the House rightly acted in a number of ways.
  I am also glad that many people in motor cycling, including the British Motorcyclists Federation and many retailers, have promoted training. The ratio of danger for a young motor cyclist compared with that of a 25-year-old or older motor cyclist has fallen to 13:1. That is a significant improvement, especially when we reckon that between 600 and 700 motor cyclists die each year.
  We intend to continue working with people in the motor cycling industry. When they have their rally on Saturday or Sunday, I hope that they will recognise the value of their approval of comprehensive training for young motor cyclists. At present, only 30 per cent. of motor cyclists receive any training before they take to the road.
  Mr. David Marshall: If voluntary training has achieved such a substantial reduction in the number of accidents, why not make it compulsory and achieve an even greater reduction?
  Mr. Bottomley: We will. We announced our intention to do so, with the approval of the motor cycling world, a few months ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, who, in a broad speech, covered a number of areas to which the House will want to return.
  This has been one of our better debates. We were reminded that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who said that she could not move

  349
  around the country, managed to move from Exeter to Crewe while a Tory Government were in power. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) for reminding us of that and for pointing out that, when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that he was a babe in arms in 1953, his mother must have been quite some person because he was aged 10 at the time, having been born in 1943.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I was a child who loved my mother.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) told us how the urban environment has worsened. I am not sure that she is right. As I go round the country, meeting the 107 highway authorities in England —my road responsibilities stop at the border—I find that the urban environment is improving and that there are more through roads for through traffic. The bypass programme carried forward by the Government allows more people to move around their local roads and allows traffic-calming measures to be introduced. It is interesting to note that, although the hon. Lady's party supports bypasses, there are many areas where local supporters of her party spend their time complaining about road schemes. We recognise the difficulty. We had the same problem with the Channel tunnel when the Liberal spokesman supported the Channel tunnel and the Liberals in Folkestone were spending all their time saying that they opposed it.
  The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) are well known to me. I hope to send him a letter in response to those that he has sent me. Perhaps he can then distribute copies of the letter to his constituents who are keenly interested in the road that we cannot call the Worthing bypass, but must call the Worthing relief road. It is controversial. That is why I delayed putting forward what appeared to be the most realistic view of where the road could go. I recognise that this is a disappointment. As one of my ex-constituents now lives on the proposed route for the new road, I realise how strongly my right hon. Friend's other constituents feel about it. My right hon. Friend also made some points about air travel. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with those very effectively.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend quoted a figure for deaths of motor cyclists of 600. Did he mean in a year?
  Mr. Bottomley: Yes.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made a discursive speech. He talked about travel within the law. It is important to realise how schizophrenic we are about road casualties. On Friday I was looking at red-light jumping with a television crew. That is one of the habits that is getting worse—[Interruption.] Forty per cent. of the traffic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) referred to being a Member sponsored by the TGWU; I stand here as a Member not sponsored by the TGWU—[Interruption.] Three years ago on "Any Questions" the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that he would give up insulting for the new year.
  Mr. John Prescott: I did not.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is now denying it, but it is true. If he cannot be consistent from one year to the next, I would not vote for him as Deputy Leader.
  Going across traffic lights which the car should not do —[Interruption.]—red-light jumping, as I described it— was watched by a television camera. The producer asked how to obscure the registration plates of those cars that broke the law. We would not try to obscure the faces of people filmed breaking out of a building society with all the money. No other form of crime kills so many people as driving offences. Driving too close to another vehicle, drinking and driving and many other things that people do are somehow looked on—or used to be—as a game, in which one should have a chance to avoid detection. Would we not tell a good friend not to drink and drive?
  It is important to recognise what happens when people drink and drive—one of the biggest single killers on the road. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir Anthony Grant), the president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists, was speaking for many when he reminded us that two thirds of deaths on the road come from sober road users. The one third caused by motorists and road users who have been drinking have the biggest single cause.
  It has been reported in no more than one newspaper that the crime of driving over the legal limit, when people are two, five or 20 times more likely to be involved in a crash or collision, appears to have been halved in the last year and a half. The rate of the crime that has led to 1,000 people a year dying—that is probably an underestimate —has been halved. That is a matter of which the House should be aware and we should recognise how it has happened.
  That has not happened as a result of a change in law, although the Government do not rule out change of law in future. It has not happened as a result of a change in sentencing. As has been said, there has not been a change in sentencing, and some people regret that. I can offer no view because I do not comment on the courts' decisions. It has not happened as a result of a change in the amount of money that has been spent. It has changed because the media have treated drinking and driving as news and current affairs. That has helped. It has come about because the brewers have promoted non-alcoholic drinks. Now, 95 per cent. of pubs and clubs have non-alcoholic or low-alcohol beer available. Drink-driving has been 90 per cent. a pub problem, 90 per cent. a beer problem.
  It is also worth recognising that the only change that would come with full discretionary testing would be that the police would be able to test people whom they believed had not been drinking. We look forward to receiving a detailed submission from the police on what change they would like in addition to a restatement of the existing law.
  I make a plea to people inside and outside the House. Instead of debating random breath testing, they should make it plain that to cut transport casualties people should not drink and drive, offer alcohol to drivers or accept lifts from drinking drivers.
  If we reduce those figures as fast as we have reduced those for crashes and risks in the air, on the underground and on the railways, we shall be able to move around Britain more safely. The figures for air misses are going down and the situation on the railways and the roads is improving. We have much of which to be proud. I ask the House to reject the Opposition's motion and to support the Government's amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 262.

  Division No. 446]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Allen, Graham

  George, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Gould, Bryan

  Ashton, Joe

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Battle, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Haynes, Frank

  Beggs, Roy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Henderson, Doug

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hinchliffe, David

  Blair, Tony

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boateng, Paul

  Holland, Stuart

  Boyes, Roland

  Home Robertson, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Illsley, Eric

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ingram, Adam

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  John, Brynmor

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clay, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clelland, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Kennedy, Charles

  Coleman, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lambie, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Lamond, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cryer, Bob

  Leighton, Ron

  Cummings, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Litherland, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Livsey, Richard

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  McAllion, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKelvey, William

  Eadie, Alexander

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McWilliam, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marek, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Galloway, George

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  352

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliott

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

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Snape, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Nellist, Dave

  Strang, Gavin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Parry, Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Patchett, Terry

  Wall, Pat

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prescott, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Richardson, Jo

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Brian

  Rogers, Allan

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Ray Powell.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Farr, Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Favell, Tony

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  French, Douglas

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fry, Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gardiner, George

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

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Gorst, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Gow, Ian

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

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Gregory, Conal

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Couchman, James

  Grylls, Michael

  Cran, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Critchley, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Curry, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Hannam, John

  Day, Stephen

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

  Devlin, Tim

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Harris, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Dover, Den

  Hayward, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Heddle, John

  353

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Hill, James

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Mans, Keith

  Holt, Richard

  Maples, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Howard, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

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

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Mills, Iain

  Irvine, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Jack, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Jackson, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Janman, Tim

  Moate, Roger

  Jessel, Toby

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Key, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Kilfedder, James

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Neubert, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Knowles, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Knox, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Page, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Paice, James

  Latham, Michael

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Portillo, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Price, Sir David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lord, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Redwood, John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Riddick, Graham

  McCrindle, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Maclean, David

  Rost, Peter

  354

  Ryder, Richard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Trippier, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Walden, George

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Summerson, Hugo

  Woodcock, Mike

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That this House congratulates the Government on its success in developing and implementing policies to provide the public and industry with an efficient transport system, giving both value for money and an improved quality of servicc; welcomes the increased investment in transport infrastructure which is accompanying a reduction in the burden on the taxpayer; applaudes the increasing involvement of the private sector in transport projects; and reaffirms the Government's overriding commitment to the safety of travellers,".

Orders of the Day

  Education Reform Bill
  Lords amendment in lieu of a Lords amendment disagreed to by the Commons considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I draw attention to a misprint in the Lords amendment. In the bold cross-heading, the reference should be to clause 117, not to clause 115. I have selected the amendment to the Lords amendment in lieu, in the names of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others.

Clause 117

  THE FUNDING COUNCILS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Lords amendment: In page 115, line 34, at end insert—
  "(3A) Before exercising their discretion under section 115(6) or (as the case may be) section 116(7)(a) of this Act with respect to the terms and conditions to be imposed in relation to any grants each of the Funding Councils shall consult such of the following bodies as it appears to the Council to be appropriate to consult in the circumstances, that is to say—

  (a) such bodies representing the interests of relevant institutions as appear to the Council to be concerned; and

  (b) the governing body of any particular relevant institution which appears to the Council to be concerned.

  (3B) References in subsection (3A) above to relevant institutions are references—

  (a) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Universities Funding Council, to universities; and

  (b) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, to institutions within the PCFC funding sector."

  Read a Second time.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment in lieu, at end of subsection (3A) insert—
  '(c) such organisations representing staff as appear to the Council to be concerned, and
  (d) in relation to consultations to be carricd out by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, such local authorities or their associations, as appear to the Council to be concerned.'.
  We all thought that we had had our last debate on the Education Reform Bill last Tuesday, but some of us at least are happy to be back again.
  I was very sorry—as, I am sure, many other hon. Members were—to learn yesterday evening of the departure of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) from the post of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I should like to place on record our tribute to his unfailing courtesy and good humour throughout the passage of the Bill.
  I offer the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues my commiserations for having had wished on them—without consultation or agreement, I understand —the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). I only hope that his strike record in offering advice to his senior Ministers is slightly better in future than it was at the Department of Trade and Industry. I
  356
  have a cutting from The Times in which, only a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman was reported as having promised:
  "Extra cash may be made available for the HOTOL space plane project."
  One can be wrong sometimes. In the case of the hon. Gentleman, one can be wrong most of the time. He wrote in The Times on one occasion:
  "I'm no deadbeat, and you can quote me."
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. I should like to echo his words, because my hon. Friend has made a signal contribution to the work of the Department and to the formation of the Bill and its passage through the House.
  The hon. Gentleman's comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West are absurd. I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend aboard. He worked for me some years ago at the Department of Trade and Industry on improving technological education. If one thinks of the rather lacklustre and humdrum performance of the Opposition team during the passage of the Education Reform Bill, it seems that it is not only the Government Benches "that need a reshuffle" but the Opposition Benches as well.
  Mr. Straw: That was poor, even by the standards of the Secretary of State. I was going on to say that part of the problem of the hon. Member for Dartford was that he mocked the excessive bureaucracy in the Secretary of State's Bill. He mocked the national curriculum and called it a three-wheeled bicycle and a fairy tricycle, and he paid the price for that. His departure serves to remind the House of something which is central to the issues raised by the amendment—the transient nature of Ministers.
  Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, when we have suggested the powers of the Bill could be misused, the Secretary of State has stood up and said, "Trust us." Some of us may be willing to take the Secretary of State, or even the Under-Secretary of State, at his word, but the problem that we all face is that Ministers are transient.
  That point was made by Lord Swann in the other place, when he explained the importance of amendments that have now been accepted in the other place requiring consultation. He said that the Secretary of State
  "is to be congratulated on those promises; they have gone down very well. But—and we believe it is a serious 'but'— Secretaries of State do not last forever; far from it. Their words are not binding on their successors. Therefore, while higher education can feel more confident about the immediate future, there can be no certainty whatever about what will happen as the years go by. Ministers, Governments and financial crises will no doubt come and go. Bureaucracy has an alarming tendency of escalating without anyone realising what is going on except its victims."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1988; Vol. 500, c. 36.]
  Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman note that the Education Reform Bill has gone through, after nine months or so, virtually unamended? Does he put that down either to the inspiring quality of the legislation or his uninspiring leadership of the Opposition?
  Mr. Straw: In so far as the legislation is unamended, I put that down to the bone-headedness of Conservative Members, and I express my commiseration to the hon.

  357
  Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) for the fact that he was not offered preferment in the reshuffle yesterday.
  Mr. Pawsey: At least I do not wear white jackets.
  Mr. Straw: At least mine is clean, unlike that of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: While we are on the subject of amendments, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that, far from the Bill being unamended, as the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) suggested, I believe that 500 amendments were tabled by the Government alone.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. There were 569 amendments made in the House of Lords, and, as we all recall, hundreds were made in the House of Commons because, as I have explained, the Secretary of State fails to think things through or to think ahead. There are a whole series of time bombs within the Bill. Again, we commiserate with the Secretary of State that he was not offered a chance to escape in the reshuffle.
  The importance of the amendment is to tie down the Secretary of State and the funding councils to ensure that there is proper consultation. Paragraphs (a) and (b) require that the consultation should take place with
  "such bodies representing the interests of relevant institutions as appear to the Council to be concerned; and … the governing body of any particular relevant institutions which appear to the Council to be concerned."
  Obviously, that can include the council and the senate of the university or the governing body of the polytechnic and their representative national bodies, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics.
  The amendment is unexceptionally worded, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it. It seeks to add a requirement that the trade unions or other staff organisations be consulted. I make it clear to the House and to the Under-Secretary that that is at the discretion of the council. It is to ensure that there is a clear limit, obviously to the extent of consultation as is relevant, and, in relation to consultations carried out by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, to such local authorities or their associations as appear to the council to be concerned.
  The consultations take place in circumstances in which terms and conditions are imposed upon the award of grant by the relevant funding councils. Such terms and conditions have not before been imposed within a statutory framework. Local authorities do and will continue to have an interest in what polytechnics are doing, even though polytechnics may no longer be part of their estate. There is a clear relationship between the courses that will be offered in many local authority colleges, the way in which local authorities have been planning provision at further and higher education level, and what polytechnics are doing. Therefore, it is important that there should be laid down a requirement for consultation with local authorities and their associations, but only in respect of polytechnics.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): This debate represents what will be the last work in the parliamentary debate about the Education Reform Bill. It is entirely in keeping with the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the debates that Opposition
  358
  Members should have made their last word the whimsical persiflage of personalities of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I do not bear the hon. Gentleman any ill will. We are all grateful to him for the way in which he and his colleagues have let us off so lightly. It is entirely in keeping with the whole tenor of the Opposition's policy, or lack of it, that the hon. Gentleman's words should have fallen so far below the level of the issue.
  The issue is whether the new higher education funding councils, in consulting as they think appropriate, should be obliged to consider consultation not only with institutions in their respective sectors and their representative bodies but with trade unions and, in the case of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, local education authorities.
  I have two observations to make about the proposals. First, as a matter of course, there will be widespread consultation between funding councils and all relevant bodies. Indeed, one could say that consultation is inscribed by definition in the idea of contract funding, which is necessarily reciprocal in character. To meet the concerns that were expressed in another place, the Government have amended the Bill to give explicit recognition to the inevitable necessity of consultation. To do so, we must define the bodies with which consultation must necessarily be considered, but to include some bodies by mentioning them in the Bill does not mean the exclusion of others by failing to mention them.
  Therefore, the Opposition's amendments are unnecessary, and are based on a logical fallacy. Moreover, it could be said that they are not only unnecessary but damaging to the interests that Opposition Members have at heart. The longer the list of bodies that the list specifies must be considered, the greater is any presumption that bodies that are not mentioned should not be consulted.
  Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary of State must know that that argument simply cannot wash in circumstances in which he and the Secretary of State have already agreed to two categories of bodies. His observation is nonsense. Does he agree with the purpose of the amendment, which is to ensure that it is clear that the two bodies should be under an obligation to consult, among others, trade union staff associations and, in the case of the PCFC, such local authorities or their associations as appear to the relevant councils to be concerned?
  Mr. Jackson: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and I am about to explain why. The proposition and the amendment are typically ill-conceived and backward-looking. Hon. Members should note how ill-conceived is the idea of an obligation on funding councils to consider consulting unions. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered, even for a moment, the implications for the autonomy and self-direction of our higher education institutions if funding councils consider themselves obliged to intervene directly in their internal affairs and to establish direct contacts, bypassing the constitutional structure of the institutions, with selected interests inside that institution. That is the problem raised by the first branch of the Opposition amendment. It is a thoroughly ill-considered proposal. The only excuse for it is that we know from the Opposition's form throughout the debates on the Bill that it was probably hardly considered at all.

  359
  10.30 pm
  Then there is the backward-looking flavour of the Opposition proposal to oblige the PCFC to consider consultations with the local authorities and their associations. This shows that Opposition Members have not come to terms with the reality of what is happening in the polytechnics and colleges. These institutions have outgrown the tutelage of the local education authorities.
  We owe a debt of gratitude to the local authorities for what they have done to bring the polytechnics and colleges to maturity, but they have grown up now, and the Opposition's emphasis on local authority interest in this matter is thoroughly out of date.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the Minister acknowledge that the local education authorities will continue to have an important role to play in adult education, that the polytechnics will be a crucial part of that, and that consultation, if only at that level, will be essential to achieve the flexible arrangements that we discussed at length in Committee?
  Mr. Jackson: There is no need to make extra provision for that, because consultation is specified in the legislation at various points in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: In the past, local authorities have had to sanction even the smallest appointments—for example, for colleges of higher education. We need a clean break from that system, which tied the colleges absurdly closely to the local authorities. The Bill will provide that change, and that is to be welcomed.
  Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend describes accurately the sort of world Opposition Members hanker after. It is the world they wish to restore. It is the world from which we are breaking by this Bill.
  As this is almost the Government's last word in the parliamentary debates on the measure, I will make a few comments which try to aspire to the level which is appropriate to this historic piece of legislation.
  Mr. Pawsey: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Bill can truly be called great and that it will take its place——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Waiker): Order. We are debating a narrow amendment about consultation. Let us stick to that.
  Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right, in that the philosophy of this measure has throughout been to release new energies and a new dynamism in our public education by devolving power and by calling in interests to which not enough weight has been attached in the past.
  Whether in our schools or in our institutions of higher education, the philosophy is the same—to strengthen choice and competition and enhance institutional self-determination on the basis of wider accountability. History will recognise, as have both Houses, the seriousness and significance of these commitments on the part of the Government and embodied in the Bill.
  Mr. George Walden: My hon. Friend the Minister has left me little to say, but there is something to add—in a way to contradict him—because the tone of the
  360
  hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was appropriate to the subject, so I would not upbraid him as my hon. Friend did. I detected a tone of levity in the hon. Gentleman's speech which spilled over into the amendment. It is not entirely serious of him to introduce such an amendment now.
  It is inconceivable, although the hon. Member for Blackburn may contradict me, that he has consulted the directors of polytechnics or that he has gained a majority of their support for the proposal that local authorities should be consulted according to statute. I say that not out of primitive hostility to local authorities but because polytechnic directors to whom I have spoken realise that their institutions will remain in the middle of local communities. We all know what that implies commercially.
  Directors will continue to be rational men and women and to have such contact as is necessary with local authorities to ensure that their policies coincide with local interests. It is indeed rather backward-looking to try to force the PCFC into a duty which directors of newly freed polytechnics will carry out of their own accord.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn is wearing a white jacket. He is appropriately attired to take himself, and the amendment, away.
  Mr. Ashdown: I had not intended to speak, but——
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: But the hon. Gentleman just could not resist it.
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman may be right—or perhaps the sheer bankruptcy of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and the Minister have induced me to speak.
  As has been the case throughout——
  Mr. Walden: Where was the hon. Gentleman last week?
  Mr. Ashdown: The record will show that I was here last week. The hon. Gentleman's absence and his ignorance on these matters are betrayed by his comment.
  Mr. Walden: I wish to pick the hon. Gentleman up on a substantive point. He says that he was here last week. If he had been here last week, he would have heard his colleague contradict him on an absolutely fundamental matter in this Bill—tenure. I wonder what the hon.Gentleman has to say about that——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will not respond to that point, but will confine his remarks to the amendment.
  Mr. Ashdown: The record shows that I was here during that debate.
  The Minister and, to an excessive extent, the hon. Member for Buckingham have followed the classic Government technique, which has been employed throughout our proceedings on the Bill. They do not argue the case of the amendment but set up straw men the better to knock them down.
  I hold no brief for the amendment, but it suggests nothing more than that reasonable consultation might take place. It does not provide, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, that consultation must take place. The

  361
  Minister suggested that the amendment would impose a duty to consult, but it would merely give discretion to consult.
  We have had ample evidence of the fact that the Government have no concern for, or any belief in, consultation. They have shown that from the moment the Bill was introduced. All they are concerned to do is to ram through their ill-thought-out proposals, using the procedures of the House as undemocratically as possible.
  The amendment is perfectly reasonable. It suggests merely that, if grants affect staff or the local community, both might be consulted. What an outrageous proposal. The Government have turned their face against reasonable consultation and have sought to introduce a huge structure of compulsion.
  In this small and perhaps insignificant debate, the Government's arguments have not been untypical of their approach to the Bill, which has been inappropriate, muddle-headed and wrong.
  Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffleld, Hillsborough): The essence of democracy is consultation with the appropriate organisations, so that democracy rules rather than dictatorship. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) tabled the amendment, he was not giving voice to an isolated argument late at night. It was the continuation of a huge debate that had occupied the House of Commons for nearly 250 hours in the Chamber and in Committee. That debate has focused on a vast Bill, the contents of which are sufficient for five major Bills. It reflects the haste with which the Prime Minister has forced the Secretary of State to bulldoze the Bill through the House. This short debate reflects the continuation of democracy and consultation.
  The Government are feeling slightly drunk with power. They are feeling dizzy with success. That is the result of the Bill being pushed through Parliament against the wishes of many Conservative Members. We are all fearful of what the Bill will mean when it becomes an Act after it receives Royal Assent on Friday. We are worried about the effect that it will have on an education system that took well over 100 years to build in a democratic manner. The system is now to be violated by an elected dictatorship.
  The Government's majority is huge, for reasons that will be set out in future history books. An ex-Foreign Secretary—Lord Pym—once referred to the danger of misusing such a huge majority. He was promptly sacked by the Prime Minister. Lord Pym was merely referring to the very dangers to which we are now exposed by the enactment of the Bill. We wish to ensure that the teachers, their unions and the local education authorities—the authorities represent a democratic system that was carefully constructed over a long period—are consulted.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Science, but he rarely attended its meetings. He then became a Minister and showed himself to be a failure, as he was as a member of the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman was kicked out of the Department of Education and Science, and let him face that. He should stop lecturing us about democracy, of which he knows nothing. We, the Opposition, are democrats, and we are struggling for democracy against this appalling Bill.
  Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery: I am still on my feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Walden: I do not normally fuss about these trivial incidents, but I wish to introduce a small matter of fact. I was not kicked out of the Government; I resigned.
  Mr. Flannery: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman is a trivial incident.
  That for which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn is asking is surely entirely reasonable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham and the hon. Lady, who has just entered the Chamber, will allow us to have it.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Mr. Flannery: I apologise to the hon. Lady, who has been in her place throughout the debate. I was referring to the Minister of State.
  In the interests of democracy, I hope that Conservative Members will accept the gentle amendment that we have introduced. It merely asks for the proper democratic process to be completed. Surely the Government can easily concede that.
  All that we are asking is that those organisations that represent teachers who have spent their lives in the education system should be allowed to participate in a proper democratic consultation process. If there is something wrong with that suggestion, the Secretary of State should say so and explain why. He should also explain why he would not agree to proper consultation with the long-established local education authorities, which are elected.
  10.45 pm
  When the Secretary of State destroyed the negotiating rights of the teachers—we shall debate that again tomorrow night—his action was condemned by the International Labour Organisation, which is an agency of the United Nations.
  The Minister is aware that we are struggling against anti-democratic processes. We want the democratic process of consultation to be undertaken with the proper democratic organisations. The Minister must explain why we are wrong to ask for that. If he does not, we shall be forced to believe that he is not interested in democracy and that neither his party nor the Prime Minister, who kicks Ministers from pillar to post and sacks them if they disagree with her, is interested in democracy.
  Ms. Armstrong: We are here again to discuss the Education Reform Bill, having thought that we had finished with it. Why?
  We are discussing yet another amendment that has been forced on the Government by the Lords. It is clear that the Lords insisted upon that amendment yesterday because they do not trust the Secretary of State. All his smooth words to the vice-chancellors have not reassured them.
  The Lords thought that they would simply have to ratify what we agreed last week, but they have pressed yet: another amendment, which insists on consultation. They do not trust the process that the Secretary of State has set in train regarding the arrangements between the Universities Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the universities and polytechnics.

  363
  The right hon. Gentleman appears to be much more frightened of vice-chancellors and bishops than he is of any Member of the House.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: He is frightened of the Prime Minister.
  Ms. Armstrong: Yes; I suspect that he is aware of the Prime Minister's influence.
  The Lords were not happy with the consultation process and felt it necessary to identify particular groups that should be consulted. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) extends that argument.
  In uncharacteristic form, the Minister dealt with my hon. Friend's amendment in a cavalier manner and he re-emphasised the impression held by many of us, namely, that the Government hold teachers and their staff organisations in contempt and that they also have contempt for democratically elected local education authorities.
  That is the tragedy of the Government's response tonight. If the Minister had been his normal self when replying to my hon. Friend we would not have been so suspicious. However, because of the manner in which he rejected our amendment, I am concerned that, once more, the message from the Government to teachers and to LEAs is that the Government are sick to death of them and would like them to disappear. We cannot continue an education service without the enthusiastic support of staff at schools and institutions of higher and further education. Our amendment, meek and mild as it is, would reassure them that the Government were not contemptuous of them and were prepared to consult them when appropriate.
  We raised the issue of education authorities several times in Committee. We told the Government that the message going out from them was that they had no faith in local education authorities. The Government kept telling us that we had things wrong and that they saw a major role for the authorities in the future of education. But the Government are destroying any attempt to give local education authorities a role in the Bill.
  I was surprised by the Minister. I know that he has been seeking ways of providing wider access to higher education. We agreed in Committee that a flexible intermingling of local education authorities, voluntary organisations and the institutions of higher education was essential to opening up access. But again the Government reject the opportunity to provide such co-operation. We can ensure that consultation takes place, if we have a good group of people who continue to be concerned. But, with the last breath of this Bill, the Government are sending out signals yet again to teachers and local education authorities, telling them they are not prepared to write their role into the Bill. That is sad, but is probably a true reflection of the mood of the Government.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The ship is almost in harbour. This is the last little bit with which we have to deal. Tonight's debate has been typical of others that we have had on the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) got hold of the NUT brief yet again and read it right through. The only original part of his speech was his
  364
  calling me drunk with power and dizzy with success: very original. There is much to be proud of in the Bill, and there has been a great deal of success. As the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) said, we are in the final minutes of debating the Bill in the House. Now it will be discussed, debated and implemented in the country over the coming months and years.
  I suppose that this is positively the last appearance by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) as education spokesman for the Liberal party. In Committee and on Report we discovered that he was the master of the passing brief. He immediately mastered and spoke to any brief that passed across his desk——
  Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman has said that three times now.
  Mr. Baker: This is like the Bellman:
  "What I tell you three times is true."
  Mr. Ashdown: I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting that little speech well laid off. This is the third time that he has repeated it almost word for word. I am interested in hearing whether there is any variation by the end.
  Mr. Baker: I shall add to it. The one thing that the hon. Gentleman showed in Committee was that he had no profound philosophical view on education, or any ideas.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will have regard to what I said earlier, and address himself to the amendment. We have had Second and Third Reading debates. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the amendment.
  Mr. Baker: I stand chastened. I was trying to reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for Yeovil and show that it was superficial and characteristic of the hon. Gentleman. The shallowness of the hon. Gentleman runs very deep.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) supported the views expressed by our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who handled the higher education part of the Bill outstandingly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said that these amendments are inappropriate. I am staggered that the Labour party has suddenly stumbled upon consultation with the unions, because, when the other place debated the amendment yesterday, the Labour party was very content with the amendment as it came back. The Opposition are engaged in last-minute thinking, dredging around to have a little three-quarter-hour debate late at night. The Opposition did not move the amendment and the Labour spokesman, Lord Peston, expressed complete contentment with the amendment moved by the Government.
  The first of the two proposals is that the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council should consult the unions. That would be inappropriate, because the right process of consultation is between the UFC and the PCFC with the universities and the polytechnics.
  Mr. Straw: Once again the Secretary of State has not done his homework. Lord Peston did not express complete satisfaction with the amendment, but said only that it was an improvement and better than his worst fears. That is a very different way of putting things. Lord Peston helped me draft these amendments, as did other

  365
  peers who had been concerned with the matter. Why are the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary so resistant to the "dangerous" idea of consulting trade unions or local authorities, when in each case the council—the PCFC or the UFC—is given a discretion about whether to hold such consultation? It will take place only when they feel it is appropriate. What is the Secretary of State scared of?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should read Lord Peston's speech more carefully.
  Mr. Straw: I have.
  Mr. Baker: So have I. Lord Peston clearly said that he did not have any of these ideas. This was debated yesterday in the House of Lords. He may well have consulted the hon. Gentleman this morning about these amendments, but why did he not put them down in the House of Lords? He did not table them yesterday, so clearly they were a matter of no great concern to him less than 24 hours ago.
  Mr. Straw: That is the fault of the Secretary of State, who gave the House of Lords no time whatever to put down any amendments. He knows that the amendment was moved as a manuscript amendment in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Baker: The amendment was tabled yesterday morning in the House of Lords, and if Lord Peston had wanted to put down the amendment he had plenty of time to do so. Plainly, he had not thought of it.
  I shall now answer the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about consultation with trade unions. At present the UGC does not consult the different unions where it is determining the grants given to universities. That is right. [Interruption.] It is the terms and conditions of the grant. It does not do that now and it would be entirely inappropriate for it to do so. The right relationship is that the UFC, replacing the UGC, should consult the university concerned. That is right, because the university is the employer of the people represented by the unions and it would be constitutionally improper for it to consult the unions behind the backs of their employers.
  We have already committed ourselves to setting up a consultative committee for local authorities and the PCFC, and it will deal particularly with the divide in those institutions inside and outside the PCFC. The proposal, like many of the proposals put forward by the Opposition about the Bill, is badly thought out, inappropriate and unnecessary. I invite the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We have just had an amazing performance by the Secretary of State. He congratulated the Under-Secretary of State, his hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), on the way in which he dealt with the higher education part of the Bill, but did not trust him with a little winding-up speech. Five minutes before the Secretary of State started, he whispered to the Under-Secretary of State that he could do the winding-up speech, by leave of the House. He then snatched the brief away and dealt with it himself. We saw that happen time after time in Committee. We remember how he sat through the account of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of the national curriculum and then insisted that he had to jump in and save the ship on that occasion.
  366
  I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dartford for his long service in the Department and for enlivening the Committee proceedings. It is a little sad that he should get his cards before the Bill is finished and without any holiday pay. I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) will deal as effectively with school closures as did the hon. Gentleman. It is a difficult task and any hon. Member who had to deal with the hon. Gentleman on the subject would pay tribute to the thoroughness with which he tackled the matter. It is interesting to note that the Secretary of State, in his knockabout performance, did not confirm or deny the fact that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West had been imposed upon him, rather than chosen by him.
  However, what is most interesting is why we have had such an ill-tempered debate, in which the Government have protested so much about what they claim to be our incompetence. I assume that, if we were really incompetent, they would not have to draw attention to the fact. Their claims that we are incompetent are an attempt to cover up the real problem, that the Secretary of State has once again had an amendment forced on him that he does not want. As I understand it, there was pressure in the House of Lords for further concessions, and the Lord Chancellor told him that he would have to come up with the amendment. The amendment was produced and he is now pretty peeved about it, and he has shown his peevishness tonight. Instead of setting out to the House clearly how the Secretary of State envisaged the consultation process taking place, he has tried to criticise us for suggesting some of the people who should be included in the consultation process.
  This would have been a last opportunity for the Government to clear up how they will co-ordinate funding between the universities body and the public sector body and how far the consultation process will go. It would also have been an opportunity for the Government to throw in the missing part of the equation; they have still not said what they will do about student fees, which are clearly fundamental to those institutions. We realise that the Government have got themselves into a further muddle and have had to delay that matter, but anyone who wants to see a rational process for the funding of those bodies must know what will happen to the fee process.
  If the contracts are to be developed, it is important that the proper consultation takes place. Will the Secretary of State tell us now who should be involved in the consultation process? What will be the position of students? Will they be involved in the consultation process? They will be one of the groups most affected. Will the Government talk to the unions representing the employees, whether the professional academics or the non-academics, as they will be considerably affected by any contracts undertaken? It is all right for the Secretary of State to say that it is up to the institutions, but he knows perfectly well that, in all those areas, there are national negotiating bodies, and that any contracts negotiated between the funding bodies and the individual institutions will have to take into account those national contracts that apply in terms of conditions of service.
  It seems absolutely logical that the Government should include in their consultation both the academic and the non-academic unions on the campuses. Why on earth should the Government attack the idea of consultation with local education authorities? As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has

  367
  pointed out, access courses are important. If we are to have co-ordination between further education and higher education, as has happened in many of our polytechnics and colleges of higher education over recent years, it is important that there is a link between the access course and the course that students will pursue later. If the course that they go on to is being funded by the funding body on a contract basis, that must be properly established. It is fundamental that the two funding bodies should carry out consultation.
  We must also remember, when the Government so readily denigrate local authorities, just how substantial local authorities are as employers. Many qualified planners, architects and so on go directly into local authority employment. Again, it is logical that in working out contracts for developing courses in such areas there should be consultation with the local authorities.
  As so often, the Government have missed the opportunity to use time in the House of Commons to inform people outside how they see the consultation process going along. The Government do not believe in trying to obtain consensus as a result of consultation; they believe in dictatorship. Time after time, in the other place and as a result of all the pressure groups outside, the Government have been persuaded—almost forced—to change their mind and put consultation into the legjslation.
  The Opposition believe that the Government should not only have consultation in legislation, but should carry out its spirit and aim for consensus in higher education rather than operate by Government diktat. I ask the House to support the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendment in lieu, put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  Social Security
  11.6 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Child Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 1227), dated 15thJuly 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be annulled.
  It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I make it clear at the outset that as the regulations that we are debating represent a degree of concession from the harsh legislation inflicted on young people by the Government, we shall not be voting against them. However, we do want to take the opportunity to express not just our reservations, but those of the many groups and organisations who seek to help the vulnerable young, about the implications of what the Government are doing to save, as I recall, some £97 million. I recognise that the Government argue that there are some commensurate costs. However, there is no argument but that a substantial net saving is expected from the legislative cuts that the regulations reflect.
  Let us first put on record that the Government have removed the rights to benefit from all 16 and 17-year-olds —not from those who refuse youth training scheme places, not from those who refuse jobs, or any of the other glib excuses that the Government have trotted out over a period of time. Not one 16 or 17-year-old in the country will enjoy the right to benefit when the regulations are approved, as I presume they will be, this evening. But the Government will allow some exceptions to that general deprivation, exceptions which, although welcome, are inadequate in their scope and degree.
  We do not query the exemptions that the Government are allowing, but we question how they will work, who will not benefit and how the regulations fit into the general scope of the new social security scheme—a point with which I should like to begin.
  Although the age of majority is now 18, not 21, the Government are setting a new age of majority for those forced by circumstances to depend on benefit and setting it at 25. The imposition of a junior rate of benefit below that age, and, still more, its consequential effects on an aligned scheme of housing benefit, has saved the Government, again from memory, £150 million to £200 million.
  The attitude that sets that as a new age of majority permeates a wide range of social security law. The assumption seems now to be that all under-25s live at home in a happy and supportive family who welcome their presence and, with the financial and other resources, accept without any serious difficulty their continuing, indeed their permanent, presence up to the age of 25 in their childhood home.
  It seems to be only with the utmost reluctance that the Government concede that there are any exceptions to that rosy picture and, with still more reluctance, accept any responsibility to help those for whom that picture is outside their experience—a particularly dangerous assumption when dealing with those aged 16 or 17.
  The Government seem to be saying—in this I am following their advice and former slogan of looking at the action and not the words—that if those are not the family circumstances of the young, they should be, and it is no concern of the Government that they are not. It is easy to

  369
  say that there ought not to be young people who are homeless, jobless and destitute wandering the streets—we could all agree with that—but there are, and the Government's policies and lack of recognition of the wider scope of the regulations make matters worse.
  During the debates earlier this year on the Social Security Bill, of which these are consequential regulations, we asked what would happen to young people receiving income support but who had to wait two weeks. We asked how they were to make £150 bed-and-breakfast payments in London, for example, not because that represented the best type of lodgings for young people, but because it offered the only chance of a bed without strings that most of them would have. The administrative convenience of paying income support in that way alone causes problems for 16 and 17-year-olds in particular.
  Recently, the Minister suggested to concerned organisations that payment could be made on a daily basis, enabling people to book into a hotel. However, experience shows that that arrangement is not acceptable to the people running such establishments, and it is not accepted. The Minister also suggested that those starting to receive income support normally already have a regular income, so the payment of income support in arrears does not matter and is simply part of the general pattern of payment in arrears. Again, that is not likely to apply to 16 and 17-year-olds in particular, who may have just left home.
  The relationship between benefit and the YTS makes matters even worse. Those organisations which in the past have sought, with some difficulty, to help the young homeless must try to find them not just a bed but a job or a training place if they are to enjoy any income at all. Without the one, they probably will not get the other, and they may be caught in a vicious spiral of despair and homelessness. Now that such young people have no right to income support, and none to an urgent needs payment —which, basically, does not exist anyway—all that they could possibly be offered, as has been suggested, is a crisis loan. However, the people with whom these regulations deal will not be offered a crisis loan because the young, homeless or not, have a low priority need under the Government's guidelines for crisis or any other loans.
  Even if the young were not rated as having a low priority need, in the case of the Westminster office, for example, officers took one look at the needs payments made to the young homeless last year and realised that if crisis loans were made to the same people this year, there would be no social funds left for any other claimants.
  When one considers the framing of the regulations and the exceptions they embody, one returns again and again to the basic theme that the Government appear to be adopting towards the young—that they should not be homeless or jobless. If they are, what then? To hell with them? That may be an all-too-accurate description of the fate that will befall the most vulnerable. How can suitable or any YTS places be found, and how fast? If they can be found at all, it will take time. Meanwhile, how are those young people to live and eat? How are they to keep clean so that they may impress a prospective employer?
  The Government's rules are not merely unjust; they are impracticable. During our debates on the Social Security Bill, we asked Ministers what would happen if it proved impossible to find enough YTS places for all 16 and 17-year-olds who might need them by September. The Minister of State said that that was a matter for the
  370
  Department of Employment, and it had assured him that everything would be all right. The Under-Secretary of State, who, mercifully for him, has now left that slot, was not so wise. He kept saying that it would not happen. Over and over again, the hon. Gentleman, who now occupies high office in the Ministry of Transport, assured the House that it would not happen.
  I have been asked to bring to the Minister of State's attention the situation in Cleveland, using figures from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who, sadly, is unable to be present. In Cleveland, there are currently on the books 750 pre-1988 school leavers for whom one YTS place is available; there are a further 250 Easter school leavers for whom no YTS place is available; and there are, of course, this summer's school leavers still to come. How are all those extra YTS places to be magicked out of thin air between now and September? If they are magicked out of thin air, we are still confronted by the anxiety that was most forcibly expressed in Committee—that the number of places, not in any sense the quality, will take precedence. That is likely to lead to a mismatch that is even greater than usual between the opportunities that should be available and are right for the individuals involved and those into which they are being forced because otherwise they will not receive benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has asked me to seek confirmation from the Minister that if our fears turn out to be justified—if, by September, there are not enough places, whether it be in Cleveland or elsewhere—he will make a commitment to consider extending the bridging allowance beyond the eight weeks for which it could now be on offer.
  The regulations offer a possible entitlement to income support for a young person who has left home because of abuse. I suppose we should say, "Thank God for small mercies." But how is that to be judged? Will there be specially trained officers, skilled at dealing with an emotionally explosive situation? Or will the poor DSS counter clerk be told to demand proof—and what kind of proof—or simply to reject most such claims? Those problems, too, arise directly from the decision to remove all right to benefit.
  There seem to be anomalies of timing. The framing of the regulations suggests that even young people whom the Government accept cannot live at home—because they have no home, have been kicked out of the home or have been abused in it—will have the limited protection that is offered withdrawn after the child benefit extension period. In other words, those identified by the Government as being at risk will get three to four months' grace to find a YTS place, and after that they will have no rights.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulations carry a risk of making the problem of homelessness in London even greater, particularly for young people who are attracted to London from the north and other places where unemployment is high because they think that there is a chance of a job, but who will find it almost impossible to get accommodation or to survive because of the lack of benefit? The Government do not seem to have taken that problem into account.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. The problem is causing great anxiety, and the more pressure that the Government put on young people, as they are doing in the

  371
  legislation and the regulations that flow from it, to be in a job or a YTS place, the more likely it is that those who see little chance of such a prospect in their own area will travel to places where they have been told there is a better opportunity and render themselves vulnerable.
  The regulations seem to make no allowance for those who, having had the right to benefit in the family from the child benefit extension period, become homeless after that time. They may crack after years of abuse in February rather than in October. The regulations seem to have been framed for the administrative convenience of the Department rather than to take account of those whose life experience does not fit precisely within the dates for which they allow.
  I suspect that the Minister's answer will be that such cases could be met by the provision that the Secretary of State is able to recognise cases of severe hardship. The difficulty that we see is that that provision has existed in the board and lodging regulations, and we have noted—as have those who deal with these matters—that the Secretary of State, like every Secretary of State, seems to have extreme difficulty in recognising such cases. Few cases which most of us would think should qualify get past the Secretary of State. In any event, there is no proper appeal procedure for cases put to headquarters—to the Secretary of State—to decide whether there is severe hardship. Only the Secretary of State or his departmental officers have the right to exercise discretion. There is no scope for the judicial consideration of decisions. That is arbitrary in the extreme.
  The problem of young people who are abused at home is an emotional and difficult one, but what about another judgment that is less emotionally fraught—whether somebody who is caught by the regulations is over 18? That is likely to occur in the kind of cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) identified, when young people leave home and seek jobs or training opportunities elsewhere.
  Will the Department accept birth certificates? They have sometimes refused to accept that evidence. Is the ludicrous guidance that has been used in the past still to apply: that other proof should be sought, such as the family Bible? The people who write this sort of stuff live in another world. How many families ever had a family Bible? How many families have a family Bible now? Is it likely that when young people aged 18 leave home they will think to shove the family Bible into their case? Even if they had, would it survive the sleeping rough, which is the only option that the Government offer, until they can prove that they qualify for benefit?
  The Minister knows that the Department is coming under heavy pressure to look afresh at the implications for the homeless of all these questions, including the payment of income support in arrears and the possible extension of benefit to young people who are estranged from their parents and involved in resettlement programmes. The long experience of organisations that have tried to help this most vulnerable group of young people leads them to believe that this further additional burden will create considerable problems. Young people will be required to find a job or a YTS place before they can qualify for a legitimate income. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the case that is being put to him.
  372
  I suspect that in this debate we shall concentrate most on vulnerable young people who are being placed seriously at risk by the harshness of the Government's policies. We ought to put on record the concern that is felt by all who know about and understand what the Government are doing and the danger of their approach to this problem. I have no doubt that the Minister of State will refer to the need to offer proper choices to the young, but when we consider the changes that the Government are making to the rights to benefit and to benefit entitlement we have to conclude that in their heart they know that they are not offering proper choices to young people. They are seeking to corral and coerce the young into fitting into an unsuitable system.
  Sixteen and 17-year-olds sometimes come to the conclusion that the world is against them. It is a great pity that the Government seem to be working hard to confirm that view. The removal of starter credits is regarded as a levelling down, as this Government always do. There is a real difference between the encouragement and support of young people to exercise sensible choices that will provide them with good opportunities and compulsion, which is all that the Government seem to be prepared to offer.
  The Opposition fear that the Government are creating a great deal of resentment and that they are increasing the lack of a sense of responsibility and of a place in society, as well as removing the last life-line from the young, who are in the most desperate need. I beg the Government to monitor carefully the development of their policies for young people and, most urgently, to heed the advice that is being given to them from the organisations that deal, especially in the big cities, with the vulnerable young. They must not wait until well publicised, personal tragedies occur among the young homeless before they take action.
  11.23 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) of the fact that the application of the regulations will be largely beneficial, although they are part of the implementation of a policy with which the Opposition profoundly disagree. Therefore, the Opposition will not seek to divide the House.
  The point of principle that forms the background to the debate was settled in Committee and during the other stages of debate on the Social Security Act 1988. We took the view that able-bodied young people capable of work and/or training should not be given the option of moving from full-time education to benefit. Whatever doubts the Opposition may have about the detailed application of the provisions, the vast majority of people in this country will agree with that fundamental principle. I can think of nothing more corrupting than offering young people generally the option of moving straight from full-time education to benefit.
  Earl's Court is in my constituency, in the centre of London. I know of some of the problems that have arisen because young people have had the option of coming to London and claiming benefit. They have been subjected to all the temptations and problems of living in the area. I do not want to see——
  Mrs. Beckett: With great respect, the Minister has used a very dangerous word. He said that he could think of nothing more "corrupting" than young people being

  373
  tempted to come to London and claim benefit straight away. I recognise the case that he is putting, although I know of no evidence to support the argument that young people come to London because they can get benefit. They tend to come to London either because of the bright lights syndrome or because they hope that they will get a job or training place.
  I can think of something more corrupting than being drawn to London by the promise, thought or offer of benefit; young people may come to London in the hope of finding better prospects here but then find that they have no income at all because the Government have withdrawn their right. That is the most corrupting option of all.
  Mr. Scott: I had intended to deal with that rather later. We need to strike a balance in this matter. Of course, I want to ensure that young people who are in genuine need have proper protection through the social security system and I shall go on to explain why I believe that the regulations will meet that requirement. But the hon. Member for Derby, South, for whom I have considerable respect, does not seem to understand the temptations for those who believe that they can come to London and establish themselves, with semi-independent status, on the benefit system and without the prospect of a job.
  I know that many young people come here wanting a job or a training place which may not be available to them elsewhere, but many come on spec, thinking that when they get to London everything will be all right and that they can sustain themselves through the benefit system. Almost always that dream ends in tears, and I have known many tragic circumstances to arise from that in my own constituency of Chelsea.
  Ms. Quin: Does not the Minister recognise the contradiction in the Government's policy? They urge young people to show initiative and to move from one area of the country to another to find work, yet when young people reach the place where the work is available, they do not have the financial wherewithal to become established. They have to wait until their first pay packet comes in, and it is difficult for them to find accommodation that they can afford.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady's point centres on the problem of the payment of benefit in arrears when young people come to London. Again, we need to strike a balance. People may be encouraged to up sticks, leave their own homes and come to London on a speculative basis in the hope that they will get jobs and that they can live on benefit if they do not, and I have talked about all the dangers inherent in that.
  Having said that, although we hear much about young people coming to London and failing to find accommodation, we still have a considerable number of vacant spaces in the resettlement units in central London each night. I am told that many voluntary organisations in central London also have vacant beds at night, and young people could go there if they wished to do so. Our local offices in central London, which deal mainly with the transient population here, have reported not an increase but a decrease in the numbers of those seeking help since the implementation of the reforms on 11 April.
  Mr. John McWilliant: That is not our information; our information is that many young people are coming to London, and that they seek help from those
  374
  organisations that can give them help in the short term. In the long term, however, finding permanent accommoda-tion—somewhere that they can describe as their abode —is a real problem now that the two weeks' benefit is being denied them until they get here.
  Mr. Scott: I understand that, but at the moment the evidence is that there is a decrease rather than an increase in demand. There is also evidence that, as those who provide accommodation for young people realise that they will be paid in arrears and as those young people give them a piece of paper which states that the benefit will be payable, albeit in arrears, landlords are adjusting to that situation.
  Having said that, I want to find out the truth. Therefore, I have asked officials in my Department to meet the organisations concerned, and to discuss with them the evidence that they have, which may conflict with that which the Department is receiving. As an hon. Member representing a constituency in central London, as well as bearing my ministerial responsibilities, I am concerned to find out the facts. I have asked for that survey and those discussions to take place, and when I have the results, I shall review the situation and consider what, if anything, needs to be done. I believe in my heart that we should be wary of encouraging young people to come to London on the speculative chance that they may be able to obtain accommodation and jobs.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South mentioned YTS opportunities. At the end of June, there were 162,000 unfilled places on that scheme. I cannot deal specifically with Cleveland tonight, but it is quite clear that throughout the country there are a considerable number of unfilled places on the scheme. Therefore, I see no difficulty about us being able to fulfil the commitment given by my hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State when we discussed these matters in Committee.
  Whatever the hon. Lady says, the net expenditure— that is, the withdrawal of benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds unless they are prepared to take a place on YTS and the cost of providing places on YTS programmes—means that there will be a net cost, not a net saving, to the Exchequer. Therefore, we are investing in young people, not making overall savings at their expense.
  In simple terms, we believe that it is neither necessary nor healthy for young people to see dependence on state benefits as the natural step to take after leaving school. I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members agree with that. I shall not repeat the manifesto commitment, except to say that the withdrawal of benefit is closely linked to the guarantee of a high-quality training place for every school leaver under 18 who wants one. I believe that, as the scheme develops, we shall convince even the sceptics on the Opposition Benches of the merits of the training for young people that we shall provide. We all know that the training allowance that they will receive will be substantially in excess of anything that they could get on income support.
  However, we appreciate that the burden of the regulations centres on the particular aspect that there are some young people who do not fit into the general pattern and who require special protection. The regulations deal primarily with the situation in which benefits will remain available to young people over the age of 16 when the new arrangements take effect on 12 September.
  We have sought to identify two groups for whom income support will remain available. There are those who

  375
  are not required to be available for work or training, such as lone parents, the severely disabled and the registered blind. They will still be able to claim income support at all times. Then there are those who are required to be available for work or training, but may have to leave home because of physical or sexual abuse, broken homes, and so on. They will be entitled to benefit for a short period while they are considering the work or YTS opportunities that are available to them.
  The categories of young people who are entitled to support can be found in the schedule to the regulations. All hon. Members will agree that we have gone to not inconsiderable lengths to try to identify as precisely as we can the categories of young people who are most in need. I am sure that, if we trawl through, it will be possible to identify smaller groups who do not fit tidily into the categories. My answer to that is that we have always recognised that it would not be possible to regulate for every conceivable circumstance.
  Therefore, we have expressly taken power under the Social Security Act 1988 so that, when a person under 18 is not entitled to income support and it appears that he or she would suffer severe hardship unless benefit is paid, the Secretary of State may direct that the young person should be so entitled. That is an important and significant fallback to protect any who may fall outside the regulations, however much we have tried to identify categories that may need that help.
  In short, the vast majority of people in this country will applaud our initiative in seeking to deprive 16 and 17-year-old, able-bodied people who are capable of work or of taking a training place of the opportunity to go directly on to state benefits. At the same time, we shall guarantee a place on the YTS for those who can take their part. We shall have the protection for the most vulnerable groups in the way that I have described. I commend the regulations to the House.
  Question put and negatived.

PETITIONS

  Gipsy Site (South Woodham Ferrers)
  11.36 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I present a petition
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of the residents of South Woodham Ferrers and the surrounding area.
  The petitioners state that they are opposed to the creation of a gipsy encampment on the old concrete batching plant in South Woodham Ferrers. They point out that, in 1974, Essex county council promised that the site would be public open space. In 1984, it was designated as within the coastal protection belt, with the most stringent development restrictions placed upon it. Developments that adversely affect the character of that rural and open area are not permitted.
  The residents of South Woodham Ferrers are, and have been since the new town was developed, prevented by restrictive covenants from parking caravans on their own property, yet there is now a proposal to bring in caravans belonging to strangers from outside the area and allow them to park legally in the town where other caravans are prohibited.
  The petitioners point out that the new town, which is built on a riverside and advertised as a rural country town with a riverside nature and a rural environment, will be spoilt by bringing a gipsy site into the town.
  The petition is signed by 315 residents of the town. It is backed up by another substantial petition, with over 5,000 signatures on it, being more than half the adult population of the town of South Woodham Ferrers. The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the … Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene in the proposal by Essex County Council, to locate a gypsy site within or within proximity to South Woodham Ferrers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Maternity Unit (Moray)
  11.40pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is with pride in my constituents and in humility as their elected representative that I tonight present to the House a petition of 12,888 signatures collected in just a fortnight supporting the call for a specialist maternity unit in Moray. The petition reads as follows:
  That the decision of Grampian Health Board taken on 7 April 1988 is against the interests and welfare of our residents and that there are clear medical, social and economic reasons for the establishment of a full obstetric and gynaecological unit in Moray. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will use its influence to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to instruct Grampian Health Board to reopen discussions on a specialist obstetric and gynaecological unit in Moray and further to carry out a feasibility study on the provision of such a unit. We further petition that the Secretary of State investigate the possibility of financial provision to enable the unit to be established.
  To emphasise the importance of this matter, I shall mention briefly a case that occurred in my constituency

  377
  last weekend. A young mother who went into early labour in Elgin had to undergo a caesarean section by a doctor who had no delivery experience. The flying squad in Aberdeen, about 70 miles distant, said the emergency was too acute for transfer, which would require several hours. As a result, my constituent was delivered of twin girls without the mandatory attendance of an obstetrician or paediatrician.
  Fortunately, the skills of the doctor in attendance prevented a tragedy from occurring, but it can only be a matter of time before a tragedy does occur, a point emphasised by the surgeon. We in Moray do not want such tragedies to happen and we seek the basic right of access to a specialist unit.
  The petition concludes:
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  We ask the House to give serious consideration to this matter.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Opencast Mineworkers (Gateshead)
  11.42pm
  Ms. Joyce Quin: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of opencast workers employed at the Swalwell disposal point in Gateshead. These workers are to be relocated and many will, as a result, lose their jobs.
  The petition states that the workers feel unfairly discriminated against, as they do not receive retraining or redundancy payments at anything like the levels of their colleagues who are classified as deep miners and who work for British Coal, even though the same levy is imposed on the coal with which both sector workers deal.
  They feel that their situation is unique, as, unlike many opencast sites, theirs has been closed not because there is no longer a market for their coal but because the site has been acquired for another purpose.
  The petition concludes:
  Wherefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House will be sympathetic to our unique situation and press Her Majesty's Government to invoke the Treaty of Paris to enable us to be fairly and justly compensated.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  11.43pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: I present on behalf of my constituents a petition in exactly the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) will shortly initiate an important Adjournment debate on the subject of opencast mines, I will not detain the House by reading the terms of the petition.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I present a petition against the closure of the Settle-Carlisle railway on a date which is before the closure date when the TUCC can hear objections on the grounds of hardship. I hope and believe that this will be the first of many more petitions on this subject.
  I and the petitioners believe that closure would be an act of organised vandalism. The signatures include people on a train hauled by the "Sir Nigel Gresley", which you will vividly recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was built in Doncaster and is a fine engine named after the chief mechanical engineer of the London and North Eastern Railway.
  The petition is also signed by people on the train on the Worth valley railway, who know how to run railways and know that a private preservation scheme for the Settle-Carlisle line is, to say the least, unworkable and unlikely. It is also signed by ordinary people from all over the country who treasure the railway, people who live near the line who would face grave hardship if it was closed, and people who love the line and the access that it provides to the Yorkshire Dales.
  The petition reads:
  The humble petition of the supporters of the Settle-Carlisle railway sheweth that the outstandingly beautiful and historic Settle-Carlisle railway provides an essential transport system for people who live in the area, for people wishing to visit the area, for people travelling betvveen the midlands, Yorkshire and Scotland, for British Rail to use as a diversionary route, for British Rail to use as a potentially important freight route and for hundreds of thousands of people who wish to enjoy the scenery near the line, and the engineering heritage of the line itself. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Opencast Mines
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The subject of this debate will be familiar to the Minister as it has for at least a decade been the subject of correspondence and debate in the House and the European Parliament. It relates to the application by successive Governments of article 56.2(b) of the treaty of Paris.
  The budget of the European Coal and Steel Community is derived almost entirely from production levies on coal and steel. Every year since 1981 more than £1 million has been levied from opencast coal production, culminating last year in £1,902,000 out of £13,008,000 being paid by the Government in coal levies.
  One of the purposes of the money is to contribute to eventualities described in article 56.2(b) thus:
  "If fundamental changes, not directly connected with the establishment of the common market, in market conditions for the coal or the steel industry should compel some undertakings permanently to discontinue, curtail or change their activities, the High Authority, on application by the Governments concerned:…

  (b) may provide non-repayable aid towards:

  —the payment of tideover allowances …

  —the payment of resettlement allowances to workers;

  —the financing of vocational retraining for workers having to change their employment."

  Because of the failure of successive Governments to apply article 56.2(b), opencast workers have been excluded from the possibility of the Commission deciding whether any redundancy meets the requirements of article 56.2(b) and is eligible for some or all of the aids in it.
  I first became involved in the quest for justice for redundant opencast workers at the beginning of 1981 as the Member of the European Parliament for South Wales. In response to my inquiry, the Director-General of Employment and Social Affairs, Mr. J. Degimbe, wrote on 9Marchl981:
  "The Commission will participate financially in the aids for all redundant coal miners, whether they be from Deep-mines or Open-cast mines, whenever article 56.2(b) of the ECSC Treaty is applicable."
  After unsatisfactory correspondence with the Department of Energy over several years, I tabled a question in November 1983 to the Commission. My purpose was to get on the record the view expressed earlier by Director-General Degimbe. My question read:
  "As far as the Commission is concerned, would there be any objection if the British Government brought opencast workers—on whose production the ECSC levy is paid—into the scheme of benefits that can be claimed by the UK Government, under the Treaty of Paris, when coal workers are made redundant?"
  The Commission's reply, by Commissioner Ivor Richard, on 27 February 1984, read:
  "If the United Kingdom Government revised their policy towards redundancies in the opencast mining sector, the Commission would have no objection in principle to granting aid under Article 562(b) of the ECSC Treaty for the workers concerned. The manner in which this could be done would be a matter for discussion with the United Kingdom authorities. In order for the workers to qualify, however, redundancy would need to arise from fundamental changes in market conditions for the coal-mining industry which compelled the undertaking concerned permanently to discontinue, curtail or
  380
  change its activities. In practice, the Commission believes that this Treaty requirement is unlikely to be met in the majority of cases arising in opencast coal mining."
  The Commission's position is clear: it will consider any application put forward by the British Government for redundant opencast workers. The British Government, however, are not disposed to do so.
  To test further the powers of the Commission to act on the Government's failure to implement in full the provisions of article 56.2(b) for all workers involved in the production of coal, on which the levy was paid, two redundant opencast workers, Mr. V. E. Williams and Mr. P. Shepherd, petitioned the European Parliament in December 1984 to request the Commission
  "to set in train the steps needed for Opencast Coal Production Workers to have the opportunity of claiming benefits under Article 562(b) of the Treaty of Paris when redundancies arise in the industry."
  The Commission's reply was discouraging. Part of it read:
  "There is indeed no provision of the Treaty which requires a Member State to grant special aid to workers affected by discontinuance or curtailment of activities in an ECSC undertaking or to apply for non-payable aid in respect of these workers under 562(b).
  There is, therefore, no basis on which the Commission could unilaterally grant readaptation aids to opencast coal miners neither could it begin infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom Government for not granting such benefits."
  However, the Commission reiterated its previous position. It stated:
  "In principle it makes no distinction between opencast coal workers and deep mine (including face) workers for the purposes of Article 562(b) of the ECSC Treaty."
  The reply continued:
  "In order to verify whether in specific cases this basic eligibility condition is fulfilled, the Commission must rely on information presented by the Member State which under the Treaty is the only entity empowered to submit an application for aid … Until now the United Kingdom Government has not submitted to the Commission any such case concerning opencast coal workers."
  That leaves us with the important principle that all workers involved in the production of coal which is levied for the ECSC budget should have the right, if made redundant, to receive ECSC benefits under article 56.2(b) if eligible. The plain truth is that the Government have arbitrarily barred opencast workers who have been made redundant from any possibility of access to ECSC benefits. In the past the Government have argued that opencast work is akin to civil engineering, has nothing in common with deep mining, and that opencast workers are, according to a former Secretary of State for Energy, who is now the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—I quote from his letter to me on 8 October 1983—
  "accustomed to the need to move to another site, or find alternative employment, at fairly frequent intervals."
  They are not specified in the treaty of Paris as criteria for non-eligibility. The decision to exclude opencast workers is morally and legally unacceptable.
  Given that provision has been made in British legislation for deep miners, whose coal production is levied to be eligible for ECSC benefit—when the conditions of their redundancy meet the requirement of article 56.2(b) —there should also be provision for opencast workers whose coal production is levied to be eligible when the conditions of their redundancy meet the criteria of article 56.2(b).
  In the past the Government have argued that opencast mine redundancies do not meet the requirement of article

  381
  56.2(b) that an undertaking must have had to discontinue permanently, curtail or change its activities as a result of fundamental changes in market conditions in the coal industry. What may have been true in the 1970s is not true of the 1980s. In 1983 workers in my constituency at the Parc Slip site, Cefn Cribwr—incidentally, that is but a field away from my back garden—were given redundancy notices on which the reason for their redundancies was declared to be a reduction in the demand for coal. Those redundancies were permanent, as has been the drop in demand for coal.
  More recently, in October 1986, the Llanilid east site, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), was closed with the loss of 240 jobs. British Coal also failed to extend the site to Llanilid west. Although the inspector appointed to hear the planning appeal for that site stated:
  "On the balance of probabilities, the proposed operations would be profitable,"
  in paragraph 265 he also said:
  "There is evidence to support a reduced consumption of coking coal by BSC."
  In paragraph 266 he said:
  "I can see no justification for working Llanilid west on the basis of its coking coal content either in terms of the need to satisfy a particular market requirement or its economic value in the context of its intended purpose."
  Plainly, the planning appeal inspector felt that the state of the market did not justify the continuation of work at the Llanilid site, which would have enabled 240 men to continue in employment. Despite satisfying ECSC criteria, those men cannot be eligible for ECSC benefits because the Government have not enacted a scheme to enable application to be made under the provisons of article 56.2(b) of the treaty of Paris.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) have already told us how opencast workers in their constituencies have been similarly affected by unforeseen changes. The Government's failure to provide such a scheme discriminates against opencast workers, whose coal production is levied in exactly the same way as deep miners.
  The Secretary of State for Energy has the power to rectify that anomaly by establishing a scheme that is specifically designed for opencast workers. I hope that tonight the Minister will declare himself to be on the side of justice and that he will end the unjustifiable, illegal and immoral discrimination against redundant opencast mineworkers.
  11.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on raising an issue which he has pursued with my Department on several occasions over at least eight years. I congratulate him on his persistence. He will not, I suspect, be surprised if, similarly, my response tonight has a familiar ring to him.
  Article 56.2(b) of the treaty of Paris, which he quoted, which established the European Coal and Steel Community, states that
  "if fundamental changes … in market conditions for the coal or steel industry should compel some undertakings permanently to discontinue, curtail or change their activities, the High Authority,"
  —which is now the European Commission—
  382
  "on application by the Governments concerned … may provide non-repayable aid."
  Certain costs associated with a reduction in labour requirements towards which this aid may be given are then listed. The treaty goes on to say that
  "the High Authority shall make the provision of non-repayable aid conditional upon payment by the State concerned of a special contribution of not less than the amount of that aid".
  As part of the coal industry, opencast mining is in principle covered by article 56.2(b), and if the conditions set out in the article were met it would be possible for the Commission to grant readaptation aid. However, it is clear that these conditions are not met, for two main reasons, one of which the hon. Member touched on.
  First, the Government have no special scheme for redundancy or associated payments to workers at opencast sites. Such a scheme would have to be introduced, requiring legislation, before the Commission could make a contribution under article 56.2(b). Such a scheme, were it introduced, would of course be anomalous. It would single out for exceptional treatment a particular group of employees the nature of whose work was similar to that of many others employed in civil engineering and aggregate extraction industries. That is a perfectly fair comparison.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that, in other member states, opencast iron ore miners are eligible for ECSC benefits, and that the manner of their operations is exactly the same as that of opencast workers in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Spicer: I am not familiar with iron ore extraction in other countries; but I am familiar with the opencast industry. One of its characteristics—this may or may not be true of the iron ore industry in other countries—is that it is a productive, efficient and thriving industry. That comes into consideration of this matter.
  To return to my point about comparable industries, employees in those industries typically need to move from site to site, or to find alternative employment, at fairly frequent intervals, as the jobs that they are doing come to completion. Redundancy payments to all these workers must, of course, conform to the requirements of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978; but there is no justification for incurring the substantial extra public expenditure that a special publicly funded scheme for opencast workers would involve.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that opencast workers, who may work alongside other workers employed by British Coal—that was the case in my constituency—are in an anomalous position? A levy is paid on the coal on which they work, yet, oddly, only one of those two groups receives any advantage from that levy. In the case I mentioned when I read out my petition, the opencast site had not come to the end of its useful life. It was closed for a completely different reason, which would meet the criteria that the Minister talked about before.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Lady raises the matter of the levy, and I shall deal with that in a moment. On the question of conditions that might apply, I must stick to the point that this is a thriving industry and we cannot see any specific reason for singling it out for the public funding that would be required to make it conform to ECSC requirements.

  383
  The possibility of funds from the ECSC to offset part of the expenditure is no justification, even supposing that opencast workers met the other conditions for aid that are set out in article 56.2(b).
  It is highly unlikely that those further conditions would be met in the large majority of opencast sites. Perhaps that addresses the specific points raised. Closure of opencast sites is usually necessary because there are overriding environmental or planning objections to further extraction. Opposition Members are proposing, on the basis of what I suspect they might agree are limited cases, the introduction of a substantial and anomalous public subsidy for an industry that, by and large, is thriving.
  Given the present state of the opencast industry, it would be hard to establish that there had been fundamental changes in market conditions requiring permanent discontinuation, curtailment, or changes of activities. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said that it was inequitable that ECSC funds were raised by a levy on coal production, including opencast coal, but that the benefits of readaptation aid did not extend to opencast coal workers. This point is based on at least three misconceptions.
  First, no levy is paid by the contractors operating at opencast sites. They provide the vast majority of the work force and are responsible for redundancy payments. The levy on opencast production is paid by British Coal as the licensor. Secondly, there is no direct link between levy payments and readaptation aid. The coal production levy finances a variety of ECSC expenditures, of which readaptation aid is only one. Finally, and perhaps fundamentally, opencast mining is a thriving, prosperous industry for which ECSC readaptation aid is hardly appropriate.
  Mr. John McWilliam: Perhaps the Minister has not been told by his officials that some of those opencast mining companies are financially effective because they are taking opencast coal and running it through private drift mines that they own. They claim the levy on the opencast coal as if it were drift mine coal. If the Minister is so innocent that he does not know about the rip off that is taking place in the industry, he should not be on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman makes strong allegations.
  Mr. McWilliam: They are accurate.
  Mr. Spicer: If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about those allegations, perhaps he will write to me, giving specific examples, so that I may consider them. However, we are talking not about drift mining, but about opencast mining. The hon. Gentleman is proposing specific public funding arrangements for an industry which, by and large, is thriving. If he thinks about the matter carefully, he will see that he and his hon. Friends are putting forward a peculiar proposition.
  Mr. McWilliam: If the Minister were to study the activities of R and A Young in the north-east, and if his officials and the Inland Revenue were to operate properly, he would discover that opencast coal is being run through drift mines as if it were drift-mined coal.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has made his allegations under privilege of the House of Commons and no doubt they will be seen by other people. I see no prospect of the opencast coal industry in the United Kingdom ever justifying the kind of special and expensive measures that were taken to deal with the social consequences of the closure of high-cost deep mines. They were extraordinarily generous measures that the state funded because of the restructuring of the industry, but they are totally inapplicable to and inappropriate for an industry which, by all acknowledgements, is thriving. British Coal is currently making £240 million a year profit in that industry.
  Mr. McWilliam: Crooks.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman shouts "Crooks", but this is a thriving industry for which he is implicitly demanding further public funds simply on the basis that the deep mine industry is undergoing considerable and radical restructuring to the great benefit, ultimately, of that industry. We believe it is appropriate that public funds on a massive scale should have been applied to that industry to deal with redundancies.
  I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East will agree with me, as they have heard these arguments before and have not agreed with them in the past, but I hope that they will, after this useful and interesting debate, at least acknowledge that there are two different sets of circumstances. Because the word "coal" appears in the titles does not mean that it is appropriate to apply public funding to one industry just because the other is going through a massive restructuring. On that basis, I rest the Government's case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Recruitment Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the monitoring exercise on recruitment begun in July 1987 to be completed; and whether he will then place a copy of the result in the Library.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The recruitment monitoring exercise which began in July 1987 is part of a central initiative co-ordinated by the OMCS. The figures for the initial stage of the exercise from July to December 1987 were submitted to the OMCS earlier this year; the next batch of figures should be compiled by the end of this year.

  The results for the Civil Service as a whole will be collated by OMCS; it will therefore be for the Minister for the Civil Service to decide in what form the results are published.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in what quasi-governmental bodies or other organisations under his aegis he has authority to request or require the carrying out of ethnic monitoring exercises in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality; and what ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises have been carried out by each such department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend does not prescribe the day-to-day personnel management policy of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department. Nevertheless, he would expect them to bear in mind the code of practice for the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment as recommended by the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many of those who responded to his recent ethnic origin survey and stated that they were in grades 1 to 7 were in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively;

  (2) how many of those who responded to his recent ethnic origin survey were senior executive officers and higher executive officers, respectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The survey was conducted on the undertaking that anonymity would be preserved. Any further breakdown from that given to the hon. and learned Member on 23 June could identify individuals and I am unable therefore to provide the information requested.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many of the equal opportunities officers appointed for his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities, or (c) both.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are two equal opportunities officers for the Department; one is male, one is female, neither is from ethnic minorities.

  Schoolchildren (Qualifications)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the percentages of the total post-primary school population in England and Wales who have attained passes in qualifications such as City and Guilds and B Tec certificates in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the percentages of the total post-primary school population, in England and Wales who have attained passes at each grade level, including upgraded status, in CSE and GCE O and A-level in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information in the form requested is not available. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to right hon. and hon. Members' correspondence during the summer recess.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not available for the period of the summer recess alone. However, during the period July to October 1987 the Department received over 5,000 letters which required a ministerial reply. Much the greater part of these were from right hon. and hon. Members. The average time taken for replies was 25 days.

  Schools (Inspections)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether Her Majesty's Inspectorate reports on the quality of teachers in schools which it inspects;

  (2) how many schools in the Gedling constituency have been inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors in the last two years and have been the subject of a written report;

  (3) how many schools per year Her Majesty's Inspectorate inspects; and on how many of these a written report is produced;

  (4) how many years at present rates of progress it will take for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools to produce a written report on all British schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate always issued reports after formal inspections, and since 1983 those reports have been published. In addition, many other informal visits to schools are made by Her Majesty's
  155
  Inspectorate in the course of its day-to-day work which do not result in published reports. Arising from inspections of schools begun in 1986 and 1987, a total of 187 and 144 reports have been published to date respectively. These exclude the reports of surveys involving more than one school, a number of which have also been published. In each of these years Her Majesty's Inspectorate visited some 5,000 schools.

  Given that there are over 23,000 schools in England, not including special schools and units, and that there are only about 350 schools Her Majesty's inspectors, the inspectorate does not set out to inspect and produce a report on every school on a regular basis. However, on average each primary school in England is visited informally every six years, and each secondary school every two years.

  The selection of schools for formal inspection is determined by the need to retain on a simple basis a national overview, and for Her Majesty's Inspectorate to report in a timely and useful fashion on specific matters of national interest such as the GCSE or the TVEI.

  No schools have been formally inspected in the Gedling constituency within the last two years. Reports were, however, issued on Gedling comprehensive school in January 1986 and on Arno Vale junior school in July 1985, and informal visits have been made to three primary and two secondary schools in the last year.

  The numbers of children aged under 51 benefiting from pre-compulsory educalion—United Kingdom

  1975–76

  1984–85

  1985–862

  1986–873

  Total pupils4 (thousands)

  576·0

  676·4

  670·7

  680·7

  Participation rate5 per cent.

  34·5

  46·4

  46·7

  47·6

  Source: Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1988 Edition Table 16.

  1 Ages at 31 December.

  2 Includes 1984–85 data for Scotland.

  3 Includes 1987–88 data for Scotland.

  4 Part-time pupils counted as one.

  5 As a percentage of all children aged 3 or 4.

  For maintained schools in England, pupils aged under five can be provided by the three types of schooling as follows:

  The numbers of children aged under 5 benefiting from pre-compulsory education—England

  Thousands

  1975–76

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Pupils1 in nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools

  157·6

  266·9

  272·5

  276·2

  Other pupils aged under 5 in infant classes in primary schools

  282·4

  245·6

  236·1

  240·6

  All pupils

  440·0

  512·6

  508·6

  516·8

  Participation rate2 per cent.

  32·0

  43·2

  43·3

  43·8

  Source: Statistical bulletin 4/88, Table 2.

  1 Part-time pupils counted as one.

  2 As a percentage of all children aged 3 or 4.

  Data for intermediate years are published in previous editions of education statistics for the United Kingdom; for England, "Statistics of Education—Schools"; their associated statistical bulletins (latest 1/88, 6/88 respectively); and 4/84. These publications are available in the House of Commons Library.
  156
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate reports include judgments about the general quality of teaching observed in schools, but not about individual teachers.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the number of under-fives who received nursery education in the whole of the United Kingdom for each year since 1974;

  (2) what information he has as to the proportion of education expenditure dedicated to nursery education in percentages in (a) Belgium, (b) Canada, (c) Denmark, (d) France, (e) the Federal Republic of Germany, (f) the Netherlands, (g) Portugal, (h) Spain, (i) the United Kingdom and (j) Sweden;

  (3) what information he has on the per capita expenditure on nursery education for each year since 1974, in (a) Belgium, (b) Canada, (c) Denmark, (d) France, (e) the Federal Republic of Germany, (f) the Netherlands, (g) Portugal, (h) Spain, (i) the United Kingdom and (j) Sweden.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The forms of pre-compulsory provision vary between and within countries, as does practice in the age and times of year at which children are admitted to compulsory education. For the United Kingdom this is five years of age, whereas for other countries it is six or even seven. For the United Kingdom, available data for pupils aged under five in education are as follows:

  The information in the tables excludes day-care nurseries and playgroups which are registered with local health authorities.

  Information on per capita expenditure on pre-compulsory education is not available. The percentages of public expenditure allocated to pre-compulsory education in the overseas countries mentioned are as follows:
  157

  Public1 sector current expenditure on pre-compulsory education as a percentage of all current public expenditure

  Country2

  Year

  Age at which compulsory schooling starts

  Percentage pre-school level

  Percentage not distributed by level

  France3

  1982

  6

  8·4

  5·5

  Germany, Federal Republic of

  1984

  6

  3·5

  4·3

  Netherlands

  1984

  6

  5·2

  7·1

  Portugal

  1983

  6

  0·1

  4·5

  Spain

  1979

  6

  3·5

  2·6

  United Kingdom

  1984

  5

  2·6

  9·0

  Sweden

  1984

  7

  0·1

  7·9

  Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook.

  1 It should be noted that in some countries the division between public and private sectors can be blurred, as some Governments may subsidise private arrangements.

  2 Expenditure on pre-school education is not separately identified for Belgium, Canada and Denmark.

  3 Metropolitan France.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Japanese War Criminals
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will make it his policy to release all hitherto unreleased material at the Public Record Office relating to the Soviet trial of suspected Japanese war criminals at Khabarovsk on charges arising from bacteriological warfare and illegal medical experiments on human beings.

  The Attorney-General
  The full reports from the British embassy in Moscow on the Soviet trial at Khabarovsk in December 1949 are among Foreign Office records which have already been released to the Public Record Office, Kew, where they are available for inspection.

  Hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Prosecution)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost to public funds associated with the action by the Director of Public Prosecutions in taking over and subsequently discontinuing the private prosecution brought recently against the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith at Telford Crown court.

  The Solicitor-General
  The action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions added less than £10 to the normal departmental running costs of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  House Sales
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to introducing to England and Wales, in whole or in part, the Scottish system of house sales; what consultations he has had on this possibility; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The advantages and disadvantages of using Scottish house purchase procedures in England and Wales were recently considered fully by the conveyancing standing committee at the Law Commission. Such procedures are available for use in England and Wales without the need for amending legislation. The committee has produced an explanatory guide for conveyancers and their clients showing how such procedures may be used.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to end the practice known as gazumping; and whether he will make a statement.
  158
  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on 30 June, at column 295.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the annual increase or decrease in(a) world trade in manufacturing, and (b) the British share of world trade in manufacturing, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information based on the exports of the main manufacturing countries is in the table:

  Exports of manufactures—volume (main manufacturing countries)

  Changes on previous year

  MMC Exports percentage

  United Kingdom Share percentage

  1979

  5·3

  -5·7

  1980

  4·8

  -3·6

  1981

  2·7

  -8·4

  1982

  -2·6

  4·5

  1983

  2·6

  -2·9

  1984

  9·8

  -0·4

  1985

  4·8

  1·3

  1986

  1·4

  1·4

  1987

  4·4

  3·7

  Sources: United Kingdom—Department of Trade and Industry: Others—OECD; UN.

  Soviet Union
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new opportunities of trade with the Soviet Union have arisen since the announcement of the new policies of Mr. Gorbachev; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The economic reforms announced by Mr. Gorbachev are bringing fundamental changes to the management of Soviet foreign trade. Responsibility has been decentralised and a number of industrial ministries and state enterprises have been granted foreign trade rights, providing opportunities for stronger links between foreign suppliers and end users. Higher priority has been given to imports of equipment which will modernise and increase the efficiency of Soviet industry, assist import
  159
  substitution and increase Soviet exports. Joint ventures and technical co-operation agreements are now actively encouraged. Banking reforms are creating opportunities for more flexible financing arrangements. None the less, the Soviet Union remains short of hard currency, and companies should be prepared to be flexible in their negotiations.

  Aerosols
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in drawing up a code of practice on reducing chlorofluorocarbons and halon emissions from new aerosols' sources in order to fulfil recommendations of the ozone group of scientists.

  Mr. Atkins
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 14 June, at columns 137–38, the Government will be studying the second report of the stratospheric ozone review group as soon as it is available. We have taken very careful note of the executive summary, but will examine the points raised in their fullest context.

  House of Fraser (Holdings) plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he now expects the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser (Holdings) plc to report.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 May 1988, c. 179.]: The report of the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc was received on Saturday 23 July and is being studied.

PRIME MINISTER

  Shetton on Dunsmore
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Shetton on Dunsmore, near Rugby.

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

  Canada
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Canada.

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

  National Health Service
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if, following her visit to Aberdeen on Friday 8 July, she will indicate what role she envisages for the National Health Service in situations when there has been a major disaster.

  The Prime Minister
  In the United Kingdom the response to most peacetime emergencies, whether natural or man-made, is based on the principle that those best placed to decide what needs to be done and then to manage the remedial action are people at the site of the emergency who know both the problems and the resources available. Consequently, for the immediate response there is heavy reliance on contingency plans made by local emergency services, health and local authorities, public utilities and the operators of industrial and other sites.
  160
  The health services' special role is to get injured people to the nearest hospital offering the particular services they need as quickly as possible. Guidance on major incident planning, which is constantly reviewed, has been issued to the health services by the Department of Health and Social Security and the territorial Departments. This guidance stresses the need for the plans of health authorities to be as flexible as possible, since no two major accidents are identical. Nor can it be foreseen how any particular situation may develop. It also advises that plans should be reviewed regularly with the other emergency services in the light of local discussions and circumstances.

  Mine Clearance (Gulf of Suez)
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Prime Minister whether an award is to be made to members of the armed forces and civilians who were engaged in mine clearance in the Gulf of Suez in 1984.

  The Prime Minister
  In recognition of outstanding service, and with special regard to the hardships and dangers which accompanied duty there, for both service men and Merchant Navy personnel, Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the award of the General Service Medal 1962 with "Mine Clearance—Gulf of Suez" clasp. A Command Paper (Cm. 436) is being laid before the House today.

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an announcement about the chairmanship of the advisory committee on business appointments.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, QC, has accepted my invitation to succeed the right hon. and noble Lord Diamond as chairman of the advisory committee on business appointments with effect from November 1988.I wish to express the Governments appreciation of Lord Diamond's service as chairman of this committee under successive Governments since its inception in 1975.

  Efficiency Unit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what topics have been covered in the efficiency unit's scrutiny programme in the last financial year.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1987–88 programme of scrutinies carried out in association with Sir Robin Ibbs and the efficiency unit included:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Enforcement of Milk and Dairy Regulations

  Her Majesty 's Customs and Excise

  The London Problem

  Ministry of Defence

  Arrangements for financing the British Forces in Germany

  Non-nuclear Research Establishments as an agency

  Department of Employment

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  Department of the Environment

  Planning enforcement appeals

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  161

  FCO/DS administration and support services

  Local budgets

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Social Security Regional Organisation

  Inland Revenue

  Procedures in the Enforcement Office

  Scheme for the sub-contractors in the construction industry

  Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland)

  Social security fraud

  Scottish Office

  Historic buildings and monuments

  Department of Transport

  Management of property purchased for road schemes

  Local roads capital expenditure

  Welsh Office

  Cash releasing cost improvement programme in the NHS in Wales

  Several of these are continuing. Further topics for scrutinies are being discussed with Departments.

  Other scrutinies are being conducted alongside the central programme according to scrutiny disciplines and with guidance from the efficiency unit. These are:

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Printing and publications (postponed from 1986–87)

  Metropolitan Police

  Traffic wardens

  Staff suggestions

  Special Constabulary

  Engagements
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Paul Obeng, chairman of the committee of secretaries of Ghana.

  Religious Discrimination
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister what information she has as to which European countries by law prevent (i) Roman Catholic citizens and (ii) citizens of any other Christian denomination from holding(a) the position of Head of State, (b) the position of Head of Government and (c) other high public functions.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 July 1988]: Outside the United Kingdom, in Denmark, Sweden and Norway Roman Catholics are prevented from becoming Head of State because of the constitutional requirement that the monarch must profess the Protestant faith. The Holy See is of course a special case. There are no European countries in which Roman Catholic citizens or citizens of
  162
  any other Christian denomination are prevented by law from occupying the position of Head of Government or other high public functions. This is also the formal position in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe, but in practice nearly all senior posts are held by Communist party members. This effectively precludes from high office those who openly profess a religious belief.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Flow (Greater London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library any map in his possession which shows(a) the maximum daily or hourly flow of vehicles on the major roads in Greater London and (b) the locations of current congestion and the periods over which it generally takes place.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No maps showing maximum flows are available. I refer the hon. Member to the Department's "Statistics Bulletin" (87)37, which shows average daily flows for trunk roads.

  This publication also includes charts showing average speeds on the strategic network. More recent information on the central area is given in "Statistics Bulletin" (87)41. I also refer the hon. Member to the stage 1 reports of the four London assessment studies.

  I am placing in the Library maps showing locations of congestion identified by the Metropolitan police in 1987 on an adjoining trunk road for morning, evening and inter-peak periods.

  Ministerial Duties (Rail Travel)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times in the last six months in the course of his ministerial duties he has travelled by rail; and what has been the cost to public funds of delay or diversion interrupting his ministerial duties on such journeys.

  Mr. Channon
  Since the beginning of this year I have made 11 journeys by rail in the course of my ministerial duties. None suffered delays or diversions involving public expenditure.

  London Underground
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the average time taken by London Underground to replace an escalator.

  Mr. Channon
  This is a management matter for the board of London Underground Limited.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the summer recess.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A recent review of ministerial correspondence in the Department of Transport (September 1987) showed that 86 per cent. of such letters are replied to with an average response time of 15 working days. Ministerial colleagues and I aim to deal with all inquiries in three weeks. Some complex questions do inevitably take longer.
  163
  It takes the same length of time for the Department of Transport to respond to right hon. and hon. Members' correspondence during the summer recess as in Session time.

  Road Traffic Law
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress the Government have made in considering the recommendations of the North report on road traffic law.

  Mr. Channon
  The Government have taken an initial look at all the report's 137 recommendations and have sought comments from all the main interested organisations. We need to take account of the considered views of others and do more detailed work before reaching final decisions.

  We have been able to form a view in principle on much of the report.

  We recognise the importance of taking forward further work urgently, given the vital role of road traffic law in efforts to reduce the continuing high level of road casualties.

  The Existing Structure

  We accept the conclusion of the review that the present reckless driving offences do not operate satisfactorily in England and Wales and are interpreted differently in Scotland. Change is required.

  There are a number of options. We will want to consider the views of others before deciding whether to adopt the detailed approach recommended by the review.

  We support the review's emphasis on a proportionate response to offences, marking out serious criminal behaviour and recognising the nature of more minor offences.

  In particular we support the full use of alternatives to prosecution—for example, the greater use of roadside warnings—and have sought opinions on the detailed recommendations.

  Drinking and Driving

  Society takes an increasingly serious view of the driver who drinks and drives.

  We accept the review's basic conclusion that a way must in particular be found to ensure that convictions can be secured and that appropriate penalties are available to the courts for people who drink and drive with tragic consequences.

  We are considering whether the review's detailed recommendation for a new offence of causing death when over the legal limit for alcohol is the best means of securing this aim. Other recommendations also have a bearing on this major problem.

  We agree that insurance policies against disqualification are undesirable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is discussing with the insurance industry how the offering of such policies might best be brought to an end.

  The practicability of the review's proposal that licensing authorities should take account of evidence of licensees persistently serving alcohol to customers committing drink-driving offences needs further study.
  164
  The Government will continue to support the constructive and successful initiatives we have seen recently by brewers and licensees, promoting non-alcoholic and low-alcoholic drinks.

  The Bail Acts may be used to impose conditions on an accused which appear necessary to secure that an offence is not committed while on bail. If the court perceives a real risk of an offence being committed whilst an accused is on bail, it could impose conditions which precluded driving.

  We have sought further views on the review's proposals to encourage the use of the Bail Acts in this way for some drink-drive offenders.

  Disqualification

  We agree with the conclusion that disqualification from driving is a proper response to irresponsible behaviour on the roads, including drink-related driving offences.

  The review stresses the importance of improving the effectiveness of disqualification as a penalty. On the possibility of using more short periods of disqualification, we have asked for views and are investigating the administrative changes needed if disqualifications of two months or less were imposed more widely.

  Failure to Stop After an Accident

  Convictions for the offences of failure to stop after or report an accident have become more common in recent years.

  There are grounds for believing that this increase may be linked to attempts to avoid prosecution for drinking and driving. We are considering the review's proposal that this offence should be imprisonable.

  We intend, as quickly as possible under regulations, and as part of a number of penalty points changes, to increase the level of penalty points for the offence to a new, higher range of eight to 10.

  Penalty Points

  We accept the review's conclusion that a major restructuring of the penalty points system is not necessary.

  We accept in principle the recommendations for court discretion to impose more points in serious cases of speeding.

  We accept in principle the suggestion that a period of disqualification should no longer remove all previously imposed penalty points from the offender's licence.

  We have decided that the points for the offence of driving without insurance should be six to eight instead of the present four to eight. For careless driving the range should change from two to five to three to nine. These are changes which will be made now.

  Retesting and Retraining

  We accept the principle in the report that retesting of driving offenders should be more widely used. We will want to consider further the suggested criteria for retesting; the type of test which would be suitable; and the implications for the driver testing organisation.

  We accept that retraining of motoring offenders is an option that ought to be properly investigated to test its effectiveness in reducing reoffending. The time scale for such an experiment is long.

  We are exploring the practicalities of undertaking some useful experimental schemes in advance of the legislation which will be needed.
  165
  Condition of Vehicles, Driving Licensing

  We accept in principle the recommendations relating to restructuring offences on the condition and use of vehicles and to widening powers to prohibit the movement of dangerous vehicles. These should simplify the law and improve enforcement.

  The proposals to clamp dangerous vehicles, and to use clamping in certain other circumstances, will need further careful consideration in the context of policy on vehicle clamping more generally. We agree that the driver licensing offences need to be restructured to simplify them and to reflect the relative seriousness of the different offences. The details will be addressed in further work.

  Availability of Information

  The review suggests that the Government should investigate ways of providing police officers on patrol with faster access to existing information about drivers and their vehicles. We support this aim.

  Detailed work, some of which depends on the introduction of more advanced information technology, will be undertaken as part of the development and implementation of the second stage police national computer.

  We shall need to satisfy ourselves that the resultant benefits will justify additional costs.

  We have sought detailed views on the proposal that there should be a charge for checking a driving licence at a police station in order to encourage people to carry their driving licences.

  Enforcement Technology

  Technology has an important role to play in enforcement. We endorse the review's conclusion in principle that the use of cameras to detect speeding and red light offences is acceptable, and that satisfactory procedures can be developed for using the evidence from such devices.

  We intend to press ahead with testing the equipment in consultation with the police, and examining its costs and benefits in order to assess the extent to which such equipment might be used and the timing of its introduction.

  We accept the recommendation for a more co-ordinated approach to research between Government Departments in co-operation with the police in this field.

  Knowledge of The Law

  The Government recognise the importance of increasing public knowledge and understanding of traffic law. Preparation of a new layman's guide which the review recommended must await completion of the primary legislation which will be needed to implement the main changes to road traffic law which are now envisaged. The Government will consult widely on its content.

  The report contains a number of other recommendations on which we are at present consulting. We shall continue to work on all the recommendations with a view to announcing our conclusions on the report as a whole early in the new year.

  PSO Grant
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an announcement about the public service obligation grant to the British Railways Board for 1988–89.

  Mr. Channon
  The public service obligation grant, which constitutes the central Government support for British Rail's services on the Network SouthEast and provincial sectors, will be £572·5 million for 1988–89. The settlement will, as usual, be subject to adjustment for certain factors to be settled with the British Railways Board.

  P and O Ferries
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his Departments investigation into the allegations that the P and O ferry, Free Enterprise II sailed with her bow doors open in November 1987.

  Mr. Channon
  My Department has carried out a thorough investigation into the alleged incident. As I informed the House on 16 May, at column 659, the ship was not sailing from port but moving from one berth to another within the confines of the harbour. The investigation concluded that the manoevre did not present any danger to the ship or to anyone on board. Moreover, there was no contravention of the statutory requirements and no offence was committed.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about radio communication aboard the P and O ferry European Trader.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: A qualified radio officer is required on board this vessel, and the radio communications equipment fully complies with statutory requirements.

  Vehicle Batteries
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were injured by exploding vehicle batteries in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: No statistics are available. I understand that accidents of this kind are likely to be very rare in this country.

  I shall be replying shortly to the hon. Member's correspondence about vehicle batteries.

  London Underground (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date his Department received London fire brigade inspection reports on the London Underground deep underground stations in 1987 and in each of the preceding five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: None was received in 1987. The last report received from the London fire brigade of one of its inspections of London Underground stations was dated 10 May 1983 and was received on 16 May 1983. After that date the system of reporting the results of fire inspections changed and

  167
  reports were no longer sent to the railway inspectorate. London Underground Limited took on the task of recording the results of fire inspections. It did not initially adopt the practice of sending copies of its own reports to the railway inspectorate. Subsequently, as part of its investigations into the fire at Green Park, the inspectorate asked that the fire reports should again be sent to it. Those for the intervening period were received in bulk and thereafter as each report arises.

  Small Cars (Exhaust Fumes)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about proposals to limit toxic exhaust fumes from small cars; if his Department is studying proposals being considered by the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The vehicle manufacturers were closely consulted over the proposals. They made it clear to the Government that they regarded an early settlement on the basis of these proposals as preferable to a delay in agreement.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 30 June, at column 368, that a political agreement by qualified majority, and subject to a United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny reserve, was reached at the 28 June Environment Council. More complete details of the proposal and the agreement are in the supplementary explanatory memorandum 4637/88, COM(87)706 dated 8 July 1988.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Lord Chancellor's (Pension)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of pension and the lump sum paid in respect of the previous Lord Chancellor; and what remuneration he receives in his ex-officio capacity as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

  Mr. Brooke
  Under the terms of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972, Lord Havers receives a pension of £36,015. Retiring Lord Chancellors do not receive lump sum payments.

  Former Lord Chancellors do not receive salaries in respect of their service on the Appellate Committee. They are, however, entitled to a daily fee when they sit. Between November 1987 and February 1988 Lord Havers received a total of £4,760 in such fees.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to make changes to the definition of the public expenditure planning total.

  Mr. Major
  The Governments objective for public spending is that it should decline as a proportion of national income. This objective relates to the total spending of central and local government and is expressed in terms of general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds). The Government seek to achieve this objective by controlling expenditure within the targets for the public expenditure planning total, which are set for three years ahead in the public expenditure survey.
  168
  Hitherto the planning total has included not only Government's spending on their own programmes but also the total spending of local authorities. In a White Paper published today, "A New Public Expenditure Planning Total" Cm. 441, the Government propose that when the new arrangements for local government finance come into operation in England and Wales the coverage of the planning total should be changed. In future, it will include spending on their own programmes, grants paid to local authorities, the credit approvals they issue for local authority borrowing for capital expenditure, the payments to local authorities from the proceeds of the national non-domestic rate, and the external financing limits of public corporations. Thus the new planning total will include those elements for which central Government are responsible and exclude spending which local authorities determine and finance themselves.

  Redefining the planning total to include only the expenditure for which central Government are responsible will make it a more effective instrument for planning and control of central Government's operations. In combination with the disciplines on local authority spending introduced by the reform of local government finance, it will help to achieve the Government's wider spending objective, which will continue to be directed towards total Government expenditure. Distinguishing the spending for which central Government are responsible from that which results from local authorities' decisions will also enhance local accountability, thereby reinforcing the changes brought about by the introduction of the community charge.

  One feature of the proposals is that plans for grants and credit approvals will be set out for three years ahead rather than one as at present. This will assist local authorities in their expenditure planning.

  It is proposed to bring the new planning total into operation from 1 April 1990, the date of introduction of the community charge in England and Wales. This means that the 1989 public expenditure survey, the results of which will be announced in the 1989 Autumn Statement, will be conducted on the new basis.

  These changes are designed to improve planning and control of public spending. They do not represent any dilution in the Governments determination to reduce the size of the public sector or to restrict total public spending, whether by central or local government.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to impose value added tax on the sale of used goods; what representations he has received on this matter from Oxfam and other charities; and what assessment he has made of the implications of such a move for the work of major international charities.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to alter the present zero rating for goods donated to charity shops. My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from Oxfam and its supporters about the implications for this zero rate of the EC Commission's proposals for tax approximation by 1992. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that, while the Government are committed to the completion of the single market, they do

  169
  not believe tax approximation to be a necessary part of that process and will reject any proposals which restrict the United Kingdom's ability to retain zero rates.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for 1979, 1984 and the most recent year the numbers of staff by grade in the statistical divisions in his

  Staff in statistical divisions (staff in post, 1 April)

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Inland Revenue

  Customs and Excise

  19791

  Statisticians

  6

  19

  7

  Administrative Grades

  24

  235

  886

  Total

  30

  254

  893

  19842

  Statisticians

  Grade 5 Statistician

  2

  4

  1

  Grade 7 Statistician

  11

  13

  4

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  4

  2

  3

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  18

  20

  8

  Administrative Grades

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  —

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  —

  3

  2

  SEO

  4

  8

  11

  HEO

  8

  29

  28

  EO

  19

  46

  111

  AO

  9·5

  34

  216

  AA

  3

  12

  142

  Total

  44·5

  134

  511

  62·5

  154

  519

  1988

  Statisticians

  Grade 5 Statistician

  2

  4

  1

  Grade 7 Statistician

  8

  13

  1

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2

  3

  3

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  2

  1

  13

  22

  6

  Administrative Grades

  Grade 3

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 6

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 7

  —

  3

  2

  SEO

  2

  9

  10

  HEO

  6

  35·5

  24

  EO

  12

  50

  89

  AO

  8

  28

  193

  AA

  5

  14

  229

  33

  141·5

  548

  Total

  46

  163·5

  554

  1 The numbers for 1979 can be disaggregated by grade only at disproportionate cost.

  2 The difference between 1979 and 1984 reflects the transfer of some functions from the Civil Service Department to the Treasury.

  Statisticians working outside statistical divisions are excluded form these figures.
  170
  Department; if he will differentiate between staff in the statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give separate figures for (a) Customs and Excise and (b) the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The numbers of staff in the statistical divisions in Her Majesty's Treasury, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are:

WALES

  "Promoting Better Health"
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the White Paper, "Promoting Better Health"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We have received a variety of representations from professional and other organisations in Wales, together with a number of comments from individuals. These have confirmed my view that the development of primary care is essential to the maintenance of effective Health Service provision for the Principality.

  House Sales
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has to end the practice known as gazumping in Wales; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has under consideration to slow house price rises in Wales; what consultations he intends to undertake; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I do not consider that Government intervention in the market for owner-occupation would improve the situation.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a list of all public appointments, paid and unpaid, made by him since June 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Water Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of water pollution by farm wastes were recorded in each of the years 1980 to 1987, and in 1988 to date, in Wales; how many of these incidents were attributable to pollution by silage effluent, and by slurry; how many of these incidents were the subject of warning letters and prosecutions; and how many prosecutions were successful.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Number of Incidents1

  462

  404

  716

  of which caused by Silage Effluent

  127

  76

  212

  of which caused by Slurry

  162

  129

  186

  Number of prosecutions

  14

  19

  59

  1 In area covered by the Welsh Water Authority.

  These details are not available for the years prior to 1985 and are not yet available for 1988.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Great Yorkshire Agricultural Show
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why no Minister from his Department attended the Great Yorkshire Agricultural Show.
  172
  Mr. MacGregor
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was due to attend the Great Yorkshire Agricultural Show to represent my Department on Wednesday 13 July, but was prevented from doing so at short notice by parliamentary business. Unfortunately at that stage no other Minister was available to take over this engagement.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend last met members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on 26 October 1987 to discuss religious slaughter. I last met council members on 17 May 1988 to discuss the councils new studies on enforcement of farm animal welfare regulations and codes, new husbandry systems and equipment, and promotion of farm animal welfare.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to promote environmentally sensitive agriculture throughout England.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government promote environmentally sensitive agriculture through a wide range of measures. In particular, under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, 10 areas have now been designated in England. The agriculture improvement scheme has since 1985 encouraged farmers to invest in environmentally beneficial items, such as hedges, shelter belts, dry stone walls and farm waste control. A major objective of my new farm woodland scheme which comes into operation on 1 October 1988 is to enhance the environment.

  We have taken a number of initiatives to reduce the risk of agricultural pollution. These include controls on the use of pesticides and the issue, free of charge, of the code of good agricultural practice.

  In addition to those measures, my Departments Agricultural Development and Advisory Service provides farmers with free advice on environmental matters on request.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in the European Economic Community on negotiations over the green pound.

  Mr. MacGregor
  On 18–19 July the Agriculture Council formally confirmed, as part of the price-fixing agreement, that as the next stage in dismantling MCAs by 1992 the green pound will be devalued on 1 January 1989 so as to reduce United Kingdom MCAs by 3·2 points in all sectors except beef, for which decisions on green rates are to be taken later. It was also agreed that the Commission should now examine the measures to adopt for future stages. These were issues for which the United Kingdom, however, had particularly pressed.

  Sheep
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage reduction in the respective sheep premium payments in the current year as a result of the European Community sheepmeat stabiliser; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The sheepmeat stabiliser came into effect on 23 May this year. An immediate reduction of 3 per cent. was applied to the guide price used for calculating payments of sheep variable premiums in Great Britain. The basic price which will be used to establish the level of 1988 annual ewe premiums has been reduced by 1·85 per cent. in Great Britain and 1·23 per cent. in the rest of the Community (reflecting the lower rate of stock expansion there); levels of actual payments are dependent upon market prices.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the net cost to Great Britain of his set-aside scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I do not expect there to be a net cost, since the value of incentive payments should be outweighed by savings on CAP support costs.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have entered each tier of an environmentally sensitive area agreement in each of the following areas, and if he will list the total area of land involved in each case:(a) Somerset levels, (b) Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and (c) Breckland.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information is not yet complete, as agreements resulting from applications received in 1988 have not yet been finalised. I will be including the information in my report to Parliament on the operation of the scheme later in the year.

  Water Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of water pollution by farm waste were recorded in each of the years 1980 to 1987, and in 1988 to date, in England; how many of these incidents were attributable to pollution by silage effluent, and by slurry; how many of these incidents were the subject of warning letters and prosecutions; and how many prosecutions were successful.

  Mr. Ryder
  Water pollution incidents from farm waste in England and Wales, excluding the Welsh water authority area, have been as follows:

  Year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total incidents

  3,048

  3,023

  3,174

  —of which caused by silage effluent

  879

  516

  791

  —of which caused by slurry

  719

  735

  736

  Number of related prosecutions

  145

  109

  166

  Information on incidents in the year 1988 to date, in years prior to 1985, and on numbers of warning letters and successful prosecutions is not readily available.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the Governments future support policy for potatoes.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Revised support arrangements were introduced for potatoes in Great Britain on 1 July 1985. They are due to be reviewed before 30 June 1990, to enable decisions to be taken on the form of any subsequent support. To give time for a thorough debate and give the industry as much notice as possible of any changes, we must make an early start to the review. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I will, therefore, be issuing a consultation paper in the autumn seeking comments from all interested parties.

  It seems unlikely on present indications that any changes as a result of the review would take effect before 1 July 1991. In so far as this would necessarily involve an extension of the support arrangements financed jointly by the Government and the Potato Marketing Board beyond 30 June 1990, during the review the Government will be exploring with the farmers unions and the board ways of reducing their financial commitment after that date.

  Wildlife
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the way in which wildlife habitats and the landscape in upland areas would be affected by the implementation of current proposals for the reform of the sheepmeat regime of the common agricultural policy;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the way in which wildlife habitats and the environment would be affected by the implementation of budgetary stabilisers in the cereals, beef, dairy and sheep sectors.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The potential impact on the environment of upland areas is one of the factors which I shall be taking into account in the continuing negotiations in Brussels on reform of the sheepmeat regime. It is too soon to form any assessment of what, if any, effects on the environment can be identified following the introduction of stabilisers earlier this year.

  Thames Barrier
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the future effectiveness of the Thames barrier in the light of the impact of pollution and the greenhouse effect on Thames water levels.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: I am satisfied that the Thames barrier will continue to provide effective flood protection even if the most extreme predictions for sea level rise materialise. The barrier's design allows for increased sea levels of 0·75 m by the year 2030 and a further rise of up to 1 m could be accommodated. Engineers from Thames Water, who are responsible for the barrier, and MAFF are closely monitoring the evidence emerging about rising sea levels, but no special action is necessary at the present time.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning a
  175
  campaign by the Food and Drink Federation to educate the public about ways to avoid food poisoning by improving domestic hygiene; whether the campaign has the support of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food and Drink Federation's campaign is a very welcome initiative by the food industry to help people improve food hygiene in their houses and kitchens. It has the support of both the Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  This initiative complements the pilot phase of a separate food hygiene education campaign run jointly by the Department, MAFF and the Health Education Authority. The results of this pilot phase will be used to decide how future phases, in 1989 and beyond, can best inform and educate the general public about good food hygiene practice. Copies of the FDF booklet and our pilot leaflet have been placed in the Library, together with a MAFF report "Food Hygiene—Report on a Consumer Survey" used in the preparation of the leaflet.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which categories of hospitalised war veterans he proposes to exempt from payment of poll tax in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  War veterans who are solely or mainly resident as patients in a hospital, residential care home, nursing home or hostel as defined in paragraphs 8 and 9 of schedule 1A to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, proposed to be inserted by paragraph 34 of schedule 12 to the Local Government Finance Bill, will be exempt from personal community charge liability.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those salmon fishings which in the current financial year are liable for non-domestic rates, as a result of being within existing district salmon board areas and separately entered in the valuation roll, and which will cease to be so liable as a result of the Local Government Finance Bill; and if he will state the current rateable value of each such fishing.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to meet the principal of Strathclyde university to discuss the effect of the poll tax on Scottish students.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Technical Drawing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government will publish the evidence made available to the committee set up to review the future of O-grade technical drawing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The review group which was set up by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum 176
  (SCCC) to review the future of O-grade technical drawing and O-grade engineering had access to and took account of extensive correspondence received from teachers of technical education, representatives from industry, teacher organisations and hon. Members. Evidence was not sought, however, on the basis that it would be published and in the circumstances publication would not be appropriate.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the Governments response to the ad hoc committee's recommendation that O-grade and higher grade technical drawing should be phased out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering the review group's recommendations. An announcement of our conclusions will be made shortly.

  Nurses
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of nurses per 10,000 of the population for each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The whole-time equivalent number of qualified nurses per 10,000 population for each health board and for Scotland at 30 September 1987 is set out in the table.

  Number

  Scotland

  69

  Argyll and Clyde

  55

  Ayrshire and Arran

  51

  Borders

  60

  Dumfries and Galloway

  74

  Fife

  60

  Forth Valley

  64

  Grampian

  67

  Greater Glasgow

  85

  Highland

  73

  Lanarkshire

  58

  Lothian

  68

  Orkney

  72

  Shetland

  66

  Tayside

  87

  Western Isles

  67

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the summer recess.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Precise information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gartcosh Steel Strip Mill
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to estimate the number of small businesses which became bankrupt as a result of the closure of the Gartcosh steel strip mill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information required to produce such an estimate is not readily available, and could not be derived from regularly available statistical sources.
  177
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account was taken when setting the rate support grant to Strathclyde regional council and Strathkelvin district council of the effects of the closure of the Gartcosh steel strip mill.

  Mr. Lang
  Local authorities are compensated for any loss of rate income resulting from a plant closure through the resources element of rate support grant.

  Forestry
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what cost benefit analysis will be undertaken before commercial conifer forestation is approved for grant-aid under the woodland grant scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No cost-benefit analysis is undertaken, since the decision whether or not to plant under the woodland grant scheme is a commercial one for each owner to take, altough the Forestry Commission would withhold grant-aid for any planting proposals which were not silviculturally sound or eventually capable of producing a crop of utilisable timber.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether new afforestation proposals made by the Forestry Commission fall within the scope of the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Forestry Commission planting does not fall within the scope of these regulations, but I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 19 July, at column 586, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether an environmental statement will normally be required in accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 in respect of afforestation proposals made under the woodland grant scheme which would affect a site of special scientific interest or an area meeting the criteria for designation as a special protection area under European Community directive 79/409/EEC.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission will shortly be publishing guidance on the application of these regulations which will include an indication of the circumstances in which an environmental assessment is most likely to be required.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Forestry Commission will not consult voluntary bodies, local groups or other non-statutory agencies about new afforestation proposals; and if he will ask the Commission to publicise, by way of notices in local newspapers or the London or Edinburgh Gazette, applications made under the woodland grant scheme for new afforestation over 5 hectares.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As stated by my right hon. and learned Friend in his reply of 10 December 1987,Official Report, columns 251–54, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), we take the view that the Forestry Commission's present
  178
  consultation arrangements strike broadly the right balance between wider public involvement and the risk of increased bureaucracy and administrative costs. The statutory authorities consulted by the commission are encouraged to consider the views of voluntary bodies and others in commenting on forestry applications.

  My right hon. and learned Friend does not consider that it would be reasonable or practical to ask the commission to publicise all applications under the woodland grant scheme for new planting over 5 hectares.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to meet representatives of disability organisations to discuss the implementation of the Disabled Person's Act 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Prisons (Racial Harassment)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he intends to take to tackle the problem of racial harassment in Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the measures I announced in my speech to the House on 8 July 1988, when I also made it clear that there was no evidence that racial harassment in Scottish prisons was a widespread problem.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his policy is for the teaching of languages other than English in Scottish schools.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The teaching of foreign languages in our secondary schools has for long been an important element in the education of the ablest pupils. Against the background of achievement and expansion in other areas of the curriculum in recent years, it is right that the position of languages should now be more clearly defined.

  A modern foreign language is currently studied by some 40 per cent. of each year cohort in S3 and S4 and by less than 10 per cent. thereafter. These figures are too low.

  A modern foreign language is already a core element for pupils in S1 and S2, but all pupils, not just the more able, should continue their experience of at least one modern foreign language beyond this level. Recent developments in language teaching make this increasingly capable of achievement and my aim is that by 1992 it should be the norm for pupils to study at least one modern foreign language throughout the compulsory years of secondary school. I intend to ask education authorities to give priority to this. I would also expect a modern secondary foreign language to be provided in those years for pupils who wished it and to see an increased proportion of pupils continuing the study of languages into S5 and S6.

  For long the principal foreign language taught in our schools has been French and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. But other languages, particularly those of our main European partners, have strong claims to be more widely studied and I shall be asking education authorities to consider how opportunities for the study of these languages can be increased.
  179
  The study of Latin and Greek has declined in recent years in face of the expanding curriculum. The classical languages, none the less, represent an important part of our heritage and provide a valuable educative experience. It is right that opportunities for their study should continue to be available and encouraged. I shall therefore be asking education authorities to ensure that some schools in each area continue to offer these languages in addition to the study of a modern foreign language.

  Currently, the teaching of foreign languages takes place only in the secondary school. Attempts to introduce language teaching in primary school have not previously met with success. Nevertheless, I intend to consider how progress can be made towards introducing the study of foreign languages at the primary stage.

  I turn now to Gaelic and Asian languages. Gaelic is a living part of the Scottish heritage and culture and I reaffirm our general policy of support for the learning and teaching of the Gaelic language and the teaching of other subjects through Gaelic where these facilities can be provided and where there is demand for them. Difficulties can arise in fitting Gaelic along with a modern European language into an already crowded timetable, but new courses and materials, for learners and native speakers alike, should help in overcoming these difficulties and ensuring a healthy uptake of the subject.

  Asian languages are the heritage of a significant number of our population and it is right that these languages and the traditions they represent should be respected and fostered. At the same time, it is important to impart to all our children a good knowledge of English and in the primary school those languages have a particular role in acting as a bridge to proficiency in English. In the secondary school the considerations which apply to Gaelic are again relevant, but the scarcity of trained teachers and teaching materials are particular limiting factors.

  In formulating these policies I have taken account of the statement of position by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum entitled "The Provision of Languages other than English in Primary and Secondary Schools in Scotland". I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  I shall shortly ask education authorities to put in hand the action necessary to implement the policies I have outlined. These have implications for the management of schools, and because they must be implemented within planned provision will involve a gradual switch of resources to language departments from other departments. The pace of implementation will depend on local circumstances, but in the majority of cases resources should allow these policies to be implemented within the time scale envisaged.

  For too long we have lagged behind our European partners and competitors in the matter of linguistic competence. In view of our growing links with Europe and the advent of the single European market in 1992 it is time to arrest and reverse that trend. A major effort will be required and I ask education authorities, teachers and all concerned with educational provision to join me in ensuring that rapid progress is made.

  Bail
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were placed on bail in Scotland in the year ended December 1987.
  180
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing how many people were disconnected from their water supplies for each year between 1978–79 and the latest date available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. A water authority (regional or islands council) would disconnect a domestic household's supply only for operational reasons. These would include repairing leaks in household plumbing systems or in the authority's mains, making connections or lining pipes.

  Water Pollution (Farm Waste)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many incidents of water pollution by farm waste were recorded in each of the years 1980 to 1987, and in 1988 to date, in Scotland; how many of these incidents were attributable to pollution by silage effluent, and by slurry; how many of these incidents were the subject of warning letters and prosecutions; and how many prosecutions were successful.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of water pollution incidents in Scotland arising from farm waste in each of the years 1982 to 1987 are as shown in the table. Cases within those totals involving silage effluent and slurry are shown separately. Complete data are not available for 1980, 1981, or 1988 to date. Statistics on numbers of warning letters issued by river purification boards are not held centrally.

  Type of incident

  Number of incidents

  Number of successful prosecutions

  Number of unsuccessful prosecutions

  1982

  Total farm waste

  263

  2

  —

  Silage effluent

  86

  —

  —

  Slurry

  51

  2

  —

  1983

  Total farm waste

  414

  16

  1

  Silage effluent

  232

  9

  —

  Slurry

  73

  3

  1

  1984

  Total farm waste

  330

  12

  —

  Silage effluent

  116

  4

  —

  Slurry

  71

  6

  —

  1985

  Total farm waste

  763

  13

  —

  Silage effluent

  503

  10

  —

  Slurry

  88

  2

  —

  1986

  Total farm waste

  478

  7

  1

  Silage effluent

  241

  2

  1

  Slurry

  70

  0

  —

  1987

  Total farm waste

  713

  17

  1

  Silage effluent

  428

  6

  —

  Slurry

  88

  5

  —

  Teachers Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will lay before Parliament the Government Actuary's report on the actuarial inquiry into the teachers superannuation scheme (Scotland) for the quinquennium 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1986.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have today laid this report before Parliament (House of Commons No. 552) and arrangements have been made for its publication tomorrow.

  Registered Establishments Act
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to implement the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Act will come into force on 17 October 1988. It empowers local authorities to charge fees for their work on the registration and inspection of voluntary and private residential establishments for the elderly and other client groups subject to prescribed limits. It also provides for the joint registration with the health boards of establishments providing both nursing and residential care and for the making of conditions for regulation subject to right of appeal. Limits on fees which my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to prescribe for the purpose of the Act have been the subject of recent consultation.

  I believe the charging of registration fees will be useful in enabling local authorities to further their efforts to secure and maintain the same standards of care as they would be expected to provide in their own establishments.

  Complaints (Common Defender)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to improve availability in Scotland of an effective judicial remedy for a number of individuals with similar complaints against a common defender.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission has agreed to accept a formal reference from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commission Act 1965, in the following terms:

  a. To consider the desirability and feasibility of introducing in Scottish civil court proceedings arrangements to provide a more effective remedy in situations where a number of persons have the same or similar rights;

  b. to consider how such arrangements might be funded; and

  c. to make recommendations.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures for monitoring the background of prison officers exist to ensure the recruitment of a suitable proportion of staff from ethnic communities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: Application to join the Scottish prison service is open to anyone who can satisfy the basic entrance standards in height, eyesight and age. Ethnic origin is not a factor which is taken into account.
  182
  However, the new initial recruit training course includes a module whose specification aims to make
  "students fully aware of their role and responsibilities with regard to the custody and care of inmates from different ethnic backgrounds".
  The same module will be used by staff training officers attached to individual establishments for the training of serving staff, a process which has already started.

  Agriculture (Subsidies)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the approximate total value of all direct public subsidies to agriculture in Scotland in each year between 1980 and 1987, distinguishing between direct grants from national and European Community schemes, and price support provided under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  National and EC schemes (gross expenditure)

  Price support under CAP

  £ million

  £ million

  1980–81

  132

  70

  1981–82

  116

  70

  1982–83

  124

  115

  1983–84

  133

  150

  1984–85

  141

  150

  1985–86

  143

  180

  1986–87

  137

  115

  Health Care Projects
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of specialists consulted since 1980 in order to supplement the in-house expertise in the Scottish Development Agency in the evaluation of health care projects.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: The number of specialists consulted by the agency since 1980 in connection with the evaluation of health care product development projects is 64. Specialists include scientists, clinicians, medical practitioners and management consultants. For private medical projects, health boards and social work departments are consulted as appropriate.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those individuals in the Scottish Development Agency, with their functions, who provide in-house expertise in the evaluation of health care projects, giving their relevant qualifications, including medical qualifications.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: Health care projects fall into two main categories: private medical projects, and health care product development projects. The agency's involvement with the former calls for expertise in company finance and property development, which is provided by staff of the appropriate agency divisions. For health care product developments, the agency's health care and biotechnology division provides in-house expertise in evaluating market demand, any relevant technical factors and the skills and experience of those engaged in management. The division is staffed by four project executives with relevant management and

  183
  technical experience who consult external experts as appropriate. No member of the staff of the division has medical qualifications.

  Private Medical Projects
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those individuals and medical bodies the Scottish Development Agency is consulting in connection with the eight private medical projects currently being considered for support.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: Of the eight private medical projects which are currently being considered for support, seven involve the setting up of nursing or residential homes for elderly people and would have only local impact. In each of these cases the agency will ensure that health board and social work department licensing requirements are met.

  The remaining project is Health Care International. In this case my right hon. and learned Friend's approval was required. Before giving his approval he consulted, through
  184
  the Scottish Home and Health Department, a wide variety of interested parties. In addition, the Scottish Development Agency helped the company to meet and discuss the project with a number of individuals and organisations in the medical and political fields—including the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those individuals and medical bodies the Scottish Development Agency has consulted since 1980 when considering support for private medical projects.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: No private medical projects were supported by the Scottish Development Agency before 1983. In taking forward such projects it is standard practice for the agency to ensure that appropriate health board or social work department registration requirements are met. Where appropriate, further consultations take place with individuals and organisations.

  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer given on 24 June to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, if he will give the dates of each of the occasions in the last 12 months the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), met officials of the East Kilbride development corporation; and whether the housing policies of the development corporation were discussed on any of those occasions.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: I have met officials of East Kilbride development corporation on a number of occasions in the last 12 months. Details are as follows:

  1 September 1987—Visit to Motorola during tour of factories in Glasgow area.

  16 October 1987—East Kilbride 40th anniversary dinner.

  27 November 1987—Informal lunch with chairmen, chief executives and managing directors of the five new town development corporations.

  3 June 1988—Informal dinner with chairmen, chief executives and managing directors of the five new town development corporations.

  7 June 1988—Motorola press conference to announce opening of design centre.

  The only occasions when housing policies were discussed were my meetings with chairmen, chief executives and managing directors on 27 November 1987

  £ million

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  Northern Ireland housing executive revenue account—expenditure

  1. Loan charges

  130·3

  139·1

  156·8

  167·7

  179·7

  190·5

  203·0

  214·2

  225·8

  2. Housing and grounds maintenance

  48·2

  45·1

  50·5

  54·4

  58·4

  63·4

  64·0

  64·0

  64·5

  3. Supervision and management

  27·9

  31·9

  33·8

  36·7

  37·4

  41·0

  40·9

  42·0

  43·0

  4. House renovation grants

  34·3

  45·5

  58·4

  60·2

  56·5

  45·2

  36·0

  31·0

  32·0

  5. Miscellaneous

  7·7

  7·8

  9·1

  9·0

  9·2

  10·0

  10·0

  10·0

  10·5

  Total

  248·4

  269·4

  308·6

  328·0

  341·2

  350·1

  353·9

  361·2

  375·8

  Revenue account—receipts

  1. Rents from dwellings and garages

  116·0

  123·2

  127·6

  131·8

  137·2

  143·1

  155·7

  —

  —

  2. Rents from commercial property

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  1·1

  1·1

  1·2

  1·2

  —

  —

  3. Miscellaneous

  2·5

  2·5

  3·0

  2·6

  3·2

  3·3

  3·4

  —

  —

  Total

  119·5

  126·7

  131·7

  135·5

  141·5

  147·6

  160·3

  166·0

  171·0

  Voluntary housing movement

  DOE grants and loans

  29·5

  38·6

  40·2

  38·2

  41·3

  43·6

  44·1

  42·5

  40·7

  Receipts

  0·0

  2·6

  2·6

  3·1

  7·2

  9·4

  9·2

  7·5

  7·7

  Social Services (Down)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the Eastern health and social services board's recent advertisement for an assistant director of social services in the Lisburn unit of management, indicated that similar duties in the Down unit of management would be within the postholder's ambit of responsibility.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. The board had advised that in advertising this post it said that for an interim period the successful candidate may be required to undertake similar duties in Down unit of management. The assistant director of social services, post in Down unit of management, will become vacant from 1 September 1988. The board is 186
  and 3 June 1988. As the hon. Member is aware, I have also met representatives of SLANT (Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns) and with the hon. Members representing four of the five new towns on 15 June, when we discussed, among other things, housing policy for the Scottish new towns.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a summarised housing revenue account, consistent with table 18.1 of Cm. 288-II, for each of the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 for (a) local authorities, (b) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, (c) the new town development corporations in Northern Ireland and (d) Housing Corporation-financed housing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The relevant figures for(b) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's revenue account and for (d) support to the voluntary housing movement are given in the table. All housing functions of (a) Northern Ireland local authorities and (c) new town development corporations were taken over by the Housing Executive before 1975. The Housing Corporation does not operate in Northern Ireland: the voluntary sector is supervised direct by the Department of the Environment (NI).

  taking this opportunity to examine the need for organisational changes. The assistant director of social services Lisburn unit of management would assume responsibility for Down pending completion of such a review.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current position with regard to the post of assistant director of social services in the Down unit of management, Downpatrick, County Down.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. The board has advised that the assistant director of social services post in Down unit of management will become vacant from 1 September 1988. The need for the post is being reviewed.

  Gaelic
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on the position of Gaelic within the core curriculum in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: A substantial number of the responses to the Government's consultative paper on education reform have referred to the position of Irish in the curriculum. No decisions on this or any other aspect of the reform proposals have yet been taken.

  Incomes
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many children for each year since 1979 in Northern Ireland were living in families(a) below, (b) at and (c) up to 140 per cent. of income support or supplementary benefit level classified by employment status; whether they were in one, or two-parent families on the latest basis, and on a basis comparable with 1979; what proportion of these children made up the total number of children; and whether they were in families of one, two, three, four or more children;

  (2) if he will estimate for each year since 1979 the number of people in Northern Ireland who had incomes (a) below, (b) at and (c) up to 140 per cent. of the income support or supplementary benefit level on the latest basis and on a basis comparable with 1979; what percentage of the population they represented in each case; what his estimate is of the number of children living in such households; and what percentage of total children they represent in each.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West from the Secretary of State for Social Services on 13 May,Official Report, columns 273–74, if he will supply similar information on the level of home help provision in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The information requested is given in the following table:

  As at 30 September

  Home helps (wte) per thousand population (all ages)

  1979

  2·52

  1980

  2·52

  1981

  2·63

  1982

  2·54

  1983

  2·46

  1984

  2·35

  1985

  2·29

  1986

  2·11

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Southern Africa
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about Her Majesty's Governments efforts to secure peace in southern Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We welcomed the announcement on 20 July of agreement to principles for a settlement in Angola and Namibia by the Governments of Angola, Cuba and South Africa. The Government have consistently called on all parties involved to follow the path of negotiation, not conflict. We also welcome recent signs of improved relations between South Africa and Mozambique.

  Women Workers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each member of the United Nations in ranked order in index form, with the United Kingdom = 100, the proportion of the female population who were economically active for the years 1960, 1979, 1980 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Governments policies in the light of this information.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Statistics on the percentage of women active in the economy in more that 140 member countries of the United Nations are available in the "World Demographic Estimates and Projections, 1950–2025" (United Nations document ST/ESA/SER/.R/79), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to take any initiative to increase the number of electors who are registered to vote in St. Helena in advance of the forthcoming elections.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The St. Helena Government are planning a comprehensive publicity campaign and a door-to-door delivery of the registration forms in advance of the forthcoming elections.

  Falkland Islands (Housing)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 19 July, the guidelines for housing standards set by the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands have been met in the case of migrant workers and others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The vast majority of expatriate contract workers on the Falkland Islands, who come mainly from Britain and St. Helena, are housed at Mount Pleasant airport in permanent buildings which conform to the building guidelines adopted by the Falkland Islands Government.

  Most of those housed elsewhere in the islands live in modular structures—for example, Portakabins—purchased from the Ministry of Defence and which conform broadly to British standards.

  Passports
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many full-time permanent staff were employed in the passport office in each year from 1979 to when his Department ceased to be responsible for the office.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Responsibility for the passport office was transferred to the Home Office on 1 April 1984. The number of staff employed in the passport office between 1979 and 1983 was:

  Financial Year

  Number

  1979–80

  945

  1980–81

  1,004

  1981–82

  972

  1982–83

  1,005

  1983–84

  1,005

  These figures included messengerial and other support staff who also served other branches of the FCO.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 25 July.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 25 July.

  The Council discussed the community's relations with Eastern Europe at an important juncture, following signature of the EC/CMEA joint declaration, the initialling of a trade and co-operation agreement with Hungary, and in the light of the Soviet wish to explore the possible scope of an EC-Soviet agreement. The Council agreed that the Community could play a positive role in the development of relations between East and West Europe, but that the pace of reform in Eastern Europe would be largely dictated by internal developments. The Council also agreed that the Community should continue to give priority to agreements with individual CMEA states rather than CMEA itself; that each country should be treated according to its individual economic and political circumstances; and that all agreements must be firmly based on mutual advantage.

  The presidency and the Commission reported on their plans for handling follow-up to the Hanover summit.

  The Council resolved the main issue which has delayed the establishment of a court of first instance. It decided that the jurisdiction of the new court will cover competition, coal and steel, and staff cases, and that a review after two years will consider whether anti-dumping cases should also be included. In a conference of representatives of member states, Ministers considered and provisionally accepted nominations to the Court of Justice and agreed to finalise the procedure in September.

  Representatives of the presidency troika and Portugal met a delegation from the European Parliament to discuss the dates for the 1989 elections. It has since been confirmed that these will be 15–18 June.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what booklets and information are currently available to the general public about home defence and civil protection;

  (2) what current efforts are being made to increase public awareness of home defence and civil protection; and what plans he has for any future campaign.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1985 we published the emergency planning guidance to local authorities which provides detailed planning advice on wartime and other emergencies. It is accompanied by handbooks on communal shelter, protective qualities of buildings and emergency feeding. Work is in hand on new handbooks on communications and environmental health. A booklet entitled "Domestic Nuclear Shelters—Technical Guidance", published in 1981, is still in print.

  The booklet and video entitled "Civil Protection", published in 1986, give a general introduction to the subject of civil defence and emergency planning. There are no immediate plans to revise this material. The quarterly magazine "Civil Protection" provides information on matters of current interest. Copies of all publications are in the Library.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have been required to draw up an emergency plan; which have complied and which have not; and if he will make such plans available to the general public.

  Mr. John Patten
  All 54 county councils and fire and civil defence authorities in England and Wales are required to draw up emergency plans under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983. Monitoring of their performance in doing so will not be completed until the end of 1989, but none is refusing to meet its statutory obligations. The Government encourage the publication of plans, but this is a matter for individual local authorities. Additionally, local authorities have responsibilities under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 in relation to the preparation of plans to deal with any off-site consequences of accidents at certain major installations in their areas.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the financial arrangements with local authorities for the funding of works in connection with home defence and civil protection; and if he will set out the sums expended to the present date.

  Mr. John Patten
  Grant-aid is payable towards the cost of the discharge by local authorities' of their statutory civil defence functions, including works in connection with the establishment of emergency control centres for use in the event of hostile attack or its threat. There is central funding of some works connected with communications. The Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 allows civil defence resources to be used in response to peacetime emergencies. The expenditure figures do not specifically identify the funding of works. Overall local authority expenditure which attracted civil defence grant was as follows:
  191

  £ million

  1983–84

  11·20

  1984–85

  13·27

  1985–86

  15·25

  1986–87

  16·90

  1987–88

  121·26

  1 estimated

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what practical equipment has been supplied to the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence forces for combating the after effects of a possible nuclear attack or accident.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office has supplied radiation monitoring equipment and communications equipment to the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority for civil defence purposes. Information about equipment obtained from other sources is a matter for the authority to provide.

  Prison Service (Graduates)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of graduates who entered the prison service in each of the last three years; at what grade such people enter the service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All prison officer recruits enter at unified grade VIII. An accelerated promotion scheme has recently been introduced under which selected graduates and other exceptionally able candidates may progress swiftly to the senior ranks. Across the service as a whole, staff are recruited to a wide range of disciplines. Information about the numbers who are graduates is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Women Prison Governors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of women prison governors employed within the prison service; and if he will list the prisons of which they are governors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are 82 women in prison service unified grades V to I, which broadly speaking, correspond to the previous governor and assistant governor grades. The six establishments listed currently have female governors.

  Her Majesty's Prison Blundeston

  Her Majesty's Prison Brixton

  Her Majesty's Prison Bullwood Hall

  Her Majesty's Youth Custody Centre Hewell Grange

  Her Majesty's Youth Custody Centre Hollesley Bay

  Her Majesty's Prison Kingston

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the number of male prison officers employed in female prisons in England and Wales;

  (2) what is the number of women prison officers employed in male prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 9 May, the latest date for which information is available, 67 male prison officers, prison service unified grades VI to VIII were employed in female establishments. One hundred and one female officers were employed in male establishments. A further 919 men and 234 women were employed in establishments which accommodate both men and women.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the necessity of the experiments on animals using Dithienon and Lindane carried out under licences granted to Hazleton United Kingdom; and until what date these licences run.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our practice to give information either on whether licences have been granted for the performance of work at particular establishments or on the terms of particular licences.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce further details of increases in police manpower.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not yet in a position to say.

  Prison, Saltney Ferry, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to build a prison at Saltney Ferry, Clwyd, north Wales; if he is considering any other sites in the county of Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The construction of a prison at Wrexham was included in the prison building programme in 1986. Clwyd county council has recently proposed two sites in other parts of the county, of which Saltney Ferry is one. No decisions have been taken about these sites, which are said to be discussed shortly with the county council.

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those presently incarcerated in Her Majesty's prisons have been diagnosed as HIV positive.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 22 July 1988 the prison population of England and Wales included 62 inmates reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account of the work at the committee independently reviewing the workings of the Data Protection Act he expects the Data Protection Registrar to take in his comprehensive survey.

  Mr. Renton
  The Data Protection Registrar, who is independent of the Government, is consultant and adviser to the interdepartmental committee reviewing the Data Protection Act. He will attend meetings of the committee and will therefore be aware of its work.

  Blair Peach
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to waive privilege in respect of the Cass inquiry documents covering the Blair Peach case and allow solicitors acting for Mr. Peach's family to release to the public their contents.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis regards the use of the documents supplied in the Blair Peach case for purposes outside those for which they have been disclosed on discovery as a matter for the courts.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the documents of the Cass inquiry concerning the Blair Peach case identify or help to identify any person involved in the killing of Blair Peach.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Director of Public Prosecutions considered the report of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Peach and decided that the available evidence was insufficient to justify any criminal proceedings against any officer.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to why he refused consent to hearings in the Blair Peach litigation taking place in open court.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the plaintiffs appealed against an order to give security for costs and applied for the appeal to be heard in open court. The judge in chambers decided that it was not appropriate to hear the appeal relating to security of costs in open court. Counsel for the Metropolitan police opposed the application on the grounds that publication of the matters which would be raised might prejudice a fair hearing of the later trial for which a date had been fixed.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the proposed national lottery to raise funds for the National Health Service from the National Bingo Game Association Ltd., and what response he has made.

  Mr. John Patten
  The chairman of the National Bingo Association Ltd. wrote to my right hon. Friend on 31 May about the question of a national lottery for the National Health Service. A reply has been sent thanking him for his letter.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward amendments to the Gaming Act 1968 to enable licensed bingo halls to sell on their premises tickets for any future national lottery.

  Mr. John Patten
  The arrangements for the sale of tickets would no doubt be one of the matters for consideration if it were proposed to bring forward legislation to enable a national lottery to take place.

  Nationality
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of applications received for registration under the Nationality Act on 30 June.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of the membership of the Police Complaints Authority are from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Police Complaints Authority at present has 13 members, including a chairman and two deputy chairmen. Of the 13, three (or 23 per cent.) are from ethnic minorities. There is one vacancy.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints the Police Complaints Authority has received during the last 12 months for which records are available; and how many and what percentage of such complaints are from people known to belong to ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the 12 months to 30 June 1988 the authority dealt with 12,347 complaints. The ethnic origins of complainants are not known.

  Bedford Prison
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Bedford prison were locked up for an average of 20 hours or more a day in the most recent convenient week.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the seven-day period ended 16 July 1988, five prisoners were locked in their cells for an average of 20 hours or more a day. All five had been segregated under rule 43 for reasons of good order and discipline.

  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours' association prisoners at Bedford prison receive per week.
  195
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Currently, prisoners at Bedford are allowed about eight hours of association per week.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the levels of crime in other countries in relation to the levels in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  The only readily available information is that compiled by Interpol, whose latest

  Table 1 Interpol statistics on the levels of offences recorded by the police in certain countries

  1984 (unless stated)

  Number per 100,000 population

  Country

  Homicide and attempted murder

  Wounding

  Rape

  Robbery and violent theft

  Burglary

  Theft of cars

  Western European countries

  England and Wales

  1·6

  224

  2·2

  50

  1,807

  694

  Scotland

  1·4

  92

  4·4

  87

  2,179

  632

  Northern Ireland (1983)

  19·8

  131

  5·0

  119

  1,361

  106

  United Kingdom (1)

  2·0

  210

  2·4

  55

  1,784

  635

  Austria

  2·4

  2

  5·2

  30

  806

  17

  Belgium

  3·3

  89

  5·7

  50

  n/a

  141

  Denmark

  5·8

  116

  7·7

  36

  2,230

  470

  Ireland

  1·1

  3

  2·0

  55

  1,057

  30

  Finland

  5·6

  37

  6·4

  34

  773

  172

  France

  4·6

  70

  5·2

  106

  810

  483

  Germany

  4·5

  104

  9·7

  46

  1,554

  118

  Greece

  1·8

  4

  0·9

  2

  73

  n/a

  Italy (1983)

  5·3

  n/a

  1·8

  36

  n/a

  276

  Netherlands

  12·3

  113

  7·2

  53

  2,329

  156

  Norway (1983)

  0·9

  22

  4·2

  n/a

  n/a

  273

  Portugal

  4·6

  1

  2·0

  22

  100

  61

  Spain

  2·2

  27

  3·6

  147

  1,070

  298

  Sweden

  5·7

  26

  11·9

  44

  1,709

  460

  Other countries

  Australia

  3·4

  59

  13·8

  84

  1,754

  585

  Canada

  6·3

  117

  n/a

  93

  1,421

  305

  Japan

  1·5

  20

  1·6

  2

  251

  29

  USA

  7·9

  290

  35·7

  205

  1,264

  437

  1 Calculated—not shown in Interpol returns

  n/a Not available

  Table 2

  Interpol statistics on the annual average increase in offences recorded by the police per 100,000 population in certain countries

  1974–1984 (unless stated)

  Percentages

  Country

  Annual average percentage increase

  Western European countries

  England and Wales

  7·7

  Scotland

  7·5

  N. Ireland (1974–1983)

  7·2

  Austria

  2·7

  Denmark

  3·6

  Finland

  2·1

  France

  9·4

  Germany

  5·3

  Italy (1974–1983)

  -2·5

  Netherlands

  13·8

  Norway (1974–1983)

  7·5

  Sweden

  4·3

  Other countries

  Australia

  10·5

  Canada

  -0·9

  Japan

  2·1

  USA

  0·3

  196
  figures are for 1984 and are given in the following two tables. The figures show that rising crime is a feature common to most Western European countries. United Kingdom recorded crime rates are relatively low for homicide and attempted murder and rape, relatively high for burglary, robbery and wounding and particularly high for car theft. However, these figures are unlikely to be comparable between countries: definitions and counting procedures may differ, as may levels of reporting and recording.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing, for each month since January 1986, the number of people held in detention, while awaiting the result of an application for political asylum, who injured themselves or attempted suicide.

  Mr. Renton
  No statistical information is maintained relating specifically to detailed political asylum applicants who have injured themselves or attempted suicide. I shall write to the hon. Member with such information as we can make available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for each year since 1979, the number of people who were held in detention while awaiting a decision on a request for political asylum and the proportion they constituted of the total numbers of people seeking asylum.

  Mr. Renton
  The information readily available about detention was given in response to a question from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on 12 July, at column 106. Figures for the number of applications received for refugee status or
  197
  asylum were given in table 1 of of the Home Office statistical bulletin, "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom", 1987, issue 16/88, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to decide whether or not an applicant for United Kingdom political asylum is held in detention until a decision is made.

  Mr. Renton
  Consideration is given to the grant of temporary admission, or temporary release in respect of illegal entrants, in all cases where a person is liable to be detained under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971. The power to detain is used sparingly and temporary admission or release is readily granted where the immigration officer is satisfield that the person will comply with its terms. The need for detention is kept under regular review.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to assess the psychiatric condition of applicants for political asylum.

  Mr. Renton
  There is no routine psychiatric assessment of asylum seekers, but any known medical factors are taken fully into account in the consideration of their application. When an asylum applicant is detained there is access to medical care where necessary at all times.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the summer recess.

  Mr. Hurd
  Information is not available in the form requested, but the average turn-round time of ministerial correspondence in my Department during the third quarter of 1987 was 45 days.

  Prisoners (Condoms)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration has been given to the possibility of prisoners being allowed confidential access to condoms in the wake of the conclusions and recommendations of the advisory council on the misuse of drugs in its report on "Aids and Drug Misuse".

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to a question from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on 29 March, at columns 452–54.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to protect drug misusers in prison from the risk of contracting the HIV virus.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The education and counselling of prisoners, including drug misusers and other risk behaviour groups, is given high priority. Central initiatives have included the wide distribution of printed material and a video film which stress the high risk from sharing needles 198
  and syringes. Governors have been urged to use such material to the best effect, and encouraged to develop local educative initiatives. A comprehensive education package with unequivocal messages both for prisoners in general and for specific target groups is in preparation.

  Measures taken to combat the misuse of drugs in establishments have included increasing the number of dogs specially trained in drug detection work, training dogs in the detection of heroin and cocaine as well as cannabis, improving staff training on drugs, the issue of further guidance aimed in particular at the prevention of smuggling by visitors and by prisoners returning from home leave, and abolition of the privilege whereby unconvicted prisoners were permitted to have food and drink sent in to them, thereby closing a significant avenue for smuggling.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to encourage drug misusers in prison to identify themselves; and what steps are taken to reduce or eliminate their drug dependency, and ensure that controlled drug intake arrangements free from AIDS infection are available for those requiring them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I announced in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on 31 March, at columns 681–82, the possibility of a history of drugs misuse is one of the factors medical officers inquire into during the course of their examination of inmates being received into prison custody. Where drug dependency is identified help in withdrawing is offered, its nature determined by the medical officer's clinical assessment of the individual case. Additionally, at a number of establishments personal support continuing after withdrawal is provided by members of staff or drug counselling agencies from the community.

  Guidelines prepared in discussion between the prison department and probation service for the introduction at all establishments of a more co-ordinated response to drug misusers were issued on 25 September 1987 and copies were placed in the Library. These describe the responsibility of the prison governor to ensure the development of a coherent system and the complementary roles of medical and probation officers in the provision of care and support. The use of suitable drug counselling agencies from the community is encouraged. The expectation is that as these through-care arrangements develop, rather than seek to conceal their habit, inmates will increasingly be inclined to identify any need of help on or shortly after reception. This and concurrent action to combat the entry into prison of illicit drugs will be especially valuable where they are in HIV high-risk behaviour groups.

  Immigration Act 1988
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of persons and organisations invited to his office to mark the Royal Assent being given to the Immigration Act 1988; if he will list the names of persons and organisations who declined his invitation; and at what he estimates the cost of the hospitality provided on this occasion.

  Mr. Hurd
  As in the past, I have invited the Chairman and members of the Standing Committee and officials
  199
  closely involved in the Bill to attend a small party to mark its completion. Eighteen hon. Members and 21 officials have been invited. Acceptances have been received from eight hon. Members and from 15 officials. I expect the cost to be about £20.

  Murder and Manslaughter
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons convicted of(a) murder and (b) manslaughter have been convicted of (i) murder and (ii) manslaughter after release from prison, in each year since 1965.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding reply 22 July 1988]: The total number of suspects convicted of murder or manslaughter who had previously been convicted of murder or manslaughter, including those who commit the second offence before release from prison or hospital, is published annually in table 4.10 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library. The number of persons who have been convicted of a second homicide after release from prison or hospital is given in the following table:

  Persons convicted of murder or manslaughter in England and Wales and released on licence or termination of sentence and convicted again of murder or manslaughter.

  Previous conviction for

  murder Convicted for

  manslaughter Convicted for

  murder

  man-slaughter

  murder

  man-slaughter

  1966

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1967

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1971

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1972

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1973

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1974

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1975

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1976

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1977

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1978

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1979

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1982

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1983

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1984

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1985

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  1

  —

  2

  —

  19871

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were murdered in each year since 1958.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The number of offences decided at court to be murder is published annually in table 4.2 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library: the figures for 1958–86 are given in the following table. Each offence relates to a separate victim. The corresponding figures for 1987 are not yet available.
  200

  Offences initially recorded by the police as homicide and later decided by the courts to be murder1

  England and Wales

  Year

  Murder

  1958

  26

  1959

  44

  1960

  41

  1961

  38

  1962

  38

  1963

  38

  1964

  47

  1965

  54

  1966

  64

  1967

  66

  1968

  73

  1969

  69

  1970

  91

  1971

  86

  1972

  88

  1973

  81

  1974

  154

  1975

  97

  1976

  102

  1977

  112

  1978

  123

  1979

  160

  1980

  125

  1981

  148

  1982

  160

  1983

  152

  1984

  165

  1985

  168

  1986

  204

  1 As at 1 June 1988.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were found guilty of(a) murder and (b) manslaughter in each year since 1958.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The number of persons convicted of murder and manslaughter is published annually in table S2.1(A) of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables Volume 2", copies of which are in the Library; the figures for 1958–1986 are given in the following table. The corresponding figure for 1987 is not yet available.

  Persons found guilty of murder and manslaughter by year of completion of court proceedings

  England and Wales

  Found guilty

  Year

  Murder

  Manslaughter due to diminished responsibility

  Other manslaughter

  1958

  30

  25

  48

  1959

  42

  21

  54

  1960

  42

  23

  55

  1961

  51

  36

  56

  1962

  31

  34

  63

  1963

  46

  46

  72

  1964

  44

  41

  73

  1965

  57

  47

  84

  1966

  72

  51

  109

  1967

  63

  49

  109

  1968

  74

  44

  118

  1969

  75

  47

  117

  1970

  97

  66

  124

  1971

  97

  68

  127

  1972

  79

  76

  141

  1973

  90

  80

  154

  1974

  112

  79

  177

  1975

  107

  66

  196

  1976

  104

  92

  194

  1977

  115

  82

  144

  1978

  105

  79

  143

  201

  Found guilty

  Year

  Murder

  Manslaughter due to diminished responsibility

  Other manslaughter

  1979

  136

  92

  186

  1980

  169

  78

  193

  1981

  126

  84

  167

  1982

  184

  40

  182

  1983

  132

  84

  164

  1984

  156

  72

  168

  1985

  173

  65

  200

  1986

  179

  49

  194

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning the use of DNA testing in disputed immigration and natonality cases.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: I have today placed in the Library the report of a pilot trial by the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the use of DNA profiling in immigration casework. Copies of the report are being sent to all—including right hon. and hon. Members—with known interests in the outcome. Further copies are available on request.

  The Government are grateful for the assistance they have received from Professor Jeffreys of Leicester university, ICI Cellmark Diagnostics, Professor Dodd and Dr. Lincoln of the London hospital medical college, and its independent scientific adviser, Professor Sir David Weatherall of Oxford university.

  The main findings of the trial are that DNA profiling is viable and, with the use of the single locus probe, appears to be the most accurate method now available for determining parentage in immigration cases. The Government will therefore continue for the present to accept the validated results of commercial testing under the interim procedures issued by the Home Office last year. It follows that, where applicants can show through a validated DNA test result a qualifying relationship with both parents, and where the other requirements of immigration law are met, their claims will be accepted and the Home Office will not contest outstanding appeals.

  The pilot was a scientific trial to test procedures and not a statistical investigation based on a properly constructed representative sample. It follows that, from the limited data available, no valid statistical inferences may be drawn about how far different decisions on admission would have been reached in the past if DNA testing had been available, or on the extent to which future applications are likely to be successful.

  We are considering whether DNA testing should continue to be left to private initiative or organised under a centrally run scheme. The Government are clear that the cost of any such schemes should not fall on the taxpayer. We do not consider that a scheme should be either automatic for all settlement applicants or compulsory, though reasonable inferences could be drawn from refusal to take a test. We shall announce our final conclusions in due course.

  Copies of the report may be obtained, free of charge, from Room 905, Home Office, Lunar house, Wellesley road, Croydon CR9 2BY.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Scheme
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much will be paid in total during the first year of implementation to trainees on the employment training scheme, over and above their unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the first full year of employment training the Training Commission plans to spend around £800 million on training allowances of which some £190 million is for the lead over benefit and other allowances.

  The Training Commission and training managers are also jointly funding a training bonus scheme. Trainees will receive a bonus for completing their action plan of three months or more and a higher bonus for achieving a vocational qualification or a credit towards one.

  Training managers or practical training providers may also choose to give additional financial support to trainees.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies there are in the Factory Inspectorate; what has been the total number of vacancies by year from 1979 to date; by what region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 July 1988 there were 40 vacancies in the Factory Inspectorate. Recruitment competitions were organised in the period 1979 to 1988 to fill the following number of vacancies.

  Year

  Number of vacancies

  1979

  90

  1980

  0

  1981

  0

  1982

  0

  1983

  0

  1984

  45

  1985

  30

  1986

  75

  1987

  70

  1988

  35

  It is not possible to break down the total number of vacancies geographically. A further recruitment competition for factory inspectors is planned for the autumn of 1988.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly amount available on employment training excluding supplementary grants to purchase training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Excluding supplementary grants of up to £40 per trainee per week, a basic grant of £17·50 per trainee per week and an initial administration fee of £15 for each trainee will be paid to training managers under employment training.

  Training managers would also expect to receive contributions of about £5 per day from employers offering practical training placements and also contributions from patrons of some projects. The Training Commission is also

  203
  making separate grants available for training providers' staff, for special help for people with disabilities, for assessment and certification and for higher and technical level skill training.

  Leave
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department monitors the extent to which extended leaves are available to employees.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Terms and conditions of employment are a matter for employers and employees or their representatives to determine.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to right hon. and hon. Members' correspondence during the summer recess.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department of Employment took an average of about one month to respond to right hon. and hon. Members' correspondence received during the 1987 summer recess.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for the latest available most nearly comparable dates the number of unemployed workers in Coventry and the number of vacancies at(a) the jobcentre and (b) the careers office, broken down into (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs, and (iii) places on various Government schemes, by title and duration of scheme.

  Average daily available geriatric beds in all NHS hospitals, England, 1982–1986

  Year

  Percentage change

  Regional Health Authority

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1982–1986

  Northern

  3,809

  3,885

  3,894

  3,940

  3,949

  3·7

  Yorkshire

  5,090

  5,041

  4,938

  4,960

  4,827

  -5·2

  Trent

  5,204

  5,229

  5,233

  5,237

  5,263

  1·1

  East Anglian

  2,372

  2,417

  2,452

  2,467

  2,497

  5·3

  North West Thames

  3,366

  3,329

  3,380

  3,417

  3,460

  2·8

  North East Thames

  4,555

  4,574

  4,635

  4,636

  4,614

  1·3

  South East Thames

  4,237

  4,233

  4,088

  3,985

  3,740

  -11·7

  South West Thames

  3,064

  3,035

  2,975

  2,907

  2,878

  -6·1

  Wessex

  3,543

  3,510

  3,477

  3,468

  3,433

  -3·1

  Oxford

  2,027

  2,006

  1,974

  1,866

  1,825

  -10·0

  South Western

  3,771

  3,848

  3,807

  3,782

  3,720

  -1·4

  West Midlands

  6,256

  6,230

  6,235

  6,176

  6,054

  -3·2

  Mersey

  3,136

  3,171

  3,180

  3,120

  3,042

  -3·0

  North Western

  5,135

  5,193

  5,175

  5,230

  5,161

  0·5

  Special Health Authorities

  80

  102

  127

  130

  126

  57·0

  England

  55,646

  55,801

  55,571

  55,320

  54,588

  -1·9

  Source: SH3 return.

  Cases treated, throughput1 and average length of stay, in the geriatric sector, England, 1982 and 1986

  Change

  Percentage change

  1982

  1986

  1982–1986

  1982–1986

  In-patient cases treated

  297,200

  396,311

  99,111

  33·3

  Throughput

  5·3

  7·3

  2·0

  37·7

  Average length of stay (days)

  62·3

  44·8

  -17·5

  -28·1

  1 In-patient cases treated per available bed.

  204
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: Following is the available information. On 9 June 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Coventry local authority district was 17,572. At Coventry jobcentre, which covers an area nearly corresponding to Coventry local authority district, the level of unfilled vacancies, excluding community programme vacancies, registered on 3 June 1988 was 595, of which 420 were full-time and 175 part-time. The numbers of vacancies on Government training programmes registered at the jobcentre on the same date were 486 community programme places, of which 98 were full-time and 388 part-time. In addition, there were three voluntary project programme places and 18 job training scheme places.

  At Coventry careers office there were 132 unfilled vacancies registered on 3 June 1988; these are not separately identified as full-time and part-time vacancies. Also some of these vacancies could have been notified to a jobcentre as well as a careers office.

  In the Coventry local authority district the number of YTS places planned for first and single year trainees in the current financial year is 2,436, of which 1,069 were unfilled on 3 June 1988.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what change there has been in the numbers of long-stay hospital beds for elderly people provided by each regional health authority over the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information is not collected in the form requested. The latest figures for the average daily available geriatric beds are shown in the table.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the overall increase in the real value of national insurance pensions over(a) the period 1974 to 1979 and (b) the period 1979 to the present date.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table. The upratings shown are those which applied for most of 1974 and 1979.

  Real terms increase in retirement pension

  Single person

  Married couple

  (a) October 1973 to November 1978

  20·1

  19·1

  (b) November 1978 to April 1988

  2·4

  2·5

  White Hart Training Centre, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration has been given to offering the White Hart training centre in Harrogate to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The National Health Service Training Authority is actively considering the future role of its two training centres and all options for their future use are being considered. The authority hopes to reach a conclusion on this by early 1989.

  Cholesterol Screening
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to introduce cholesterol screening.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are inviting the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to advise on the cost-effectiveness of wider cholesterol testing in the prevention and treatment of heart disease.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the work of the Health Education Authority, listing its achievements since its formation.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Health Education Authority was set up in April 1987 as an integral part of the National Health Service to advise Ministers on health education issues and to take forward its health education campaigns. The authority is carrying forward its health education work in 10 main areas—smoking, heart disease, AIDS, dental health, alcohol and drug misuse, family and personal health, young people, adult and community, the elderly and professional development. In many cases it is developing work undertaken by the former Health Education Council. Issues such as women's health and ethnic minority health are also being addressed.

  The main new developments have been in two major areas, AIDS and the "Look After Your Heart" campaign. Following its assumption of responsibility for development of the mass media aspects of the public education on AIDS, the authority has since run separate campaigns aimed at the general public, in particular young sexually active adults, and holiday and business travellers. These have been supported by the publication of new leaflets giving information about AIDS and HIV infection.
  206
  The authority has also worked closely with the Department to launch and take forward the joint "Look After Your Heart" campaign. This activity, together with the wide range of other health education work, is continuing.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present estimated costs of the complete rebuilding of St. George's hospital, Tooting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Including building, engineering, fees and equipment, the cost of rebuilding phases I, II, IIA and IIG2 and F of St. George's hospital, Tooting, with the new accident and emergency unit currently under construction, is £125·5 million.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the proportion of deaths from coronary heart disease; and what equivalent information he has for other members of the European Community.

  Mrs. Currie
  The latest available information is shown in the table. Data have, with the exception of those for the United Kingdom and England and Wales, been taken from the 1987 edition of World Health Organisation "World Health Statistics" annual; for Belgium, the data were obtained from the "UN Demographic Year Book 1986".

  Proportion of total deaths which have ischaemic heart disease1 as underlying cause

  Country

  Year

  Percentage of total deaths

  Belgium

  1984

  13·3

  Denmark

  1985

  28·7

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1986

  19·3

  France

  1985

  9·9

  Greece

  1985

  11·0

  Ireland

  1984

  26·6

  Italy

  1983

  14·3

  Luxembourg

  1986

  14·8

  Netherlands

  1985

  20·9

  Portugal

  1986

  8·5

  Spain

  1981

  9·8

  United Kingdom2

  1987

  27·8

  England and Wales2

  1987

  27·5

  1 International Classification of Disease (9th revision) code 410–414.

  2 Provisional. Source OPCS.

  Note:

  There may be differences in the assignment of underlying cause between countries. Direct comparisons should therefore be made with care.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the savings made by the change introduced in paragraphs 5 to 9 and 12 of schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1988 which require that occupational pensions paid to dependents should now be treated as earnings in assessing claimant's income.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated savings in a full year are £3 million.

  Council Expenses
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why council travelling and subsistence expenses are classed as income for income support purposes; and if he has any plans to change this situation.

  Mr. Scott
  Any payment to councillors solely to enable them to carry out their duties is disregarded. Payments to councillors for travelling and subsistence which are not made wholly, exclusively and necessarily in respect of expenses incurred in the course of their duties, represent a reward for their services and are therefore treated as earnings in income support. When added to any other earnings, they attract a weekly disregard of £5, or £15 in certain circumstances. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Income Support
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people received supplementary benefit at the latest available date; and how many currently receive income support in(a) Clwyd South-West, (b) Wales and (c) Great Britain.

  Mr. Scott
  The constituency of Clwyd, South-West is served by the local offices at Rhyl, Wrexham and (from 18 April 1988) Deeside. The boundaries are not conterminous.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Clwyd South-West

  Wales

  Great Britain

  People in receipt of supplementary benefit at 17 November 1987

  34,107

  287,978

  5,056,102

  People in receipt of income support at 31 May 1988

  30,524

  258,789

  4,431,409

  The figures relating to income support are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. These figures may however, overstate the number of people receiving supplementary benefit. The footnote to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hyndburn, (Mr. Hargreaves) on 31 March 1988, at columns 660–61, refers.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of people who during the last winter were able to claim under the severe weather heating allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  . Information is not available in the form requested. The provisional number of payments made under last winter's exceptionally cold weather scheme is 99,783.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out his plans for emergency medical care in time of war—or national emergency; and if he will make a statement.
  208
  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has recently issued revised civil defence planning guidance to the National Health Service. It replaces the existing guidance issued in 1977 and takes account of changes in the Governments planning assumptions and in management and structure within the NHS.

  The guidance is designed to assist health authorities and others to plan the various phases of putting the NHS on a crisis footing in the event of war, however unlikely that may be. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the summer recess.

  Mr. Moore
  The average length of time taken to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the last summer recess was 31 calendar days.

  Transplants
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has completed his consideration of the Hoffenberg report on the supply of transplant organs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Further to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 18 December 1987, at column 934, we have recently issued for consultation a draft health circular on the provision of donor organs for transplantation. This implements the key recommendation of the Hoffenberg report. Health authorities, medical organisations and others with a particular interest in the subject have been invited to comment by 30 September 1988.

  Patients (Treatment)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate for each specialty group the percentage of patients(a) nationally and (b) by region who are treated outside the district within which they live.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have the available information which can be provided without incurring disproportionate costs as soon as possible.

  Institutional Care (Discharges)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will increase funding to local authorities to enable an improvement in the monitoring of patients discharged from long-term institutional care.

  Mrs. Currie
  When determining the level of grant to local authiorities for future years, the Government will take into account all responsibilities falling on social services departments, including those which will arise in relation to patients discharged from long-term hospital care when section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 is implemented.

  Marriage Breakdown
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the annual cost to public funds of providing support to people whose problems are attributable to marriage breakdown.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about benefits paid to people in this situation is not available in the form requested. The latest published information shows that supplementary benefit in payment to divorced and separated women at February 1986 amounted to £619 million a year. This takes account of maintenance paid by the liable relative to the Department or direct for divorced or separated women claimants totalling £115 million per annum at February 1986.

  Abortions
  Mrs Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning the number of abortions performed in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available which were performed on pregnancies arising out of the use of in vitro fertilisation techniques; and what were the grounds for those abortions.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the method of fertilisation is not required to be collected on the abortion notification form, and it is therefore not possible to provide the data requested.

  In Viro Fertilisation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning the frequency of major handicap in babies conceived through in vitro fertilisation techniques.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the Medical Research Council is currently funding a study of data on children conceived by in vitro fertilisation, and the results will be available next year.

  Housing Benefit (Non-dependants' Income)
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services for what reasons it is considered necessary to ask for the precise income, instead of whether over or under £49·20, of a non-dependant in regulation 63(1) of the Housing Benefit Regulations, April 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The threshold below which deductions in respect of non-dependants in remunerative work are made at a lower rate is subject to regular review. It would not be practicable to renew stocks of claim forms each time the threshold was reviewed. Moreover, it would be inevitable that some old stocks would remain in circulation after the rate had been changed, thus misleading claimants and necessitating additional inquiries.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 21 July, if he will name the seven local authorities which failed to provide returns concerning services they provided for people with disabilities for 1986–87; and what action he is taking.
  210
  Mr. Scott
  The local authorities concerned are:
  Cleveland, Wolverhampton, Westminster, Kingston-Upon-Thames, Kent, Devon and the Isles of Scilly. Several reminders have been sent.

  Patient Registration Data
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the organisations asked to comment on his Department's consultation document on DHA use of family practitioner committee patient registration data; what representations have been received; and of those, how many were for or against the proposals;

  (2) when the Government expect to respond to representations received regarding the consultation document on DHA use of patient registration data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Copies of the consultation document were sent by the Department to the following bodies in England:

  Regional Health Authorities (14)

  District Health Authorities (191)

  Family Practitioner Committees (90)

  Special Health Authorities for London Teaching Hospitals (8)

  Community Health Councils (191)

  Health Service Commissioner

  General Medical Council

  General Medical Services Committee

  Joint Consultants' Committee

  Community Medicine Consultative Committee

  British Medical Association

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Joint Committee of Professional Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Associations (England)

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Midwives

  Health Visitors' Association

  Data Protection Registrar

  Society of FPCs

  Society of Administrators FPS

  National Association of Health Authorities

  Inter-Regional Secretariat for Health Authorities

  Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales

  Royal Institute of Public Administration

  Institute of Health Service Managers

  British Computer Society

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  General Whitley Council (Staff Side Secretary)

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux

  Consumers' Association

  Patients' Association

  National Council for Civil Liberties

  National Consumer Council.

  The document was publicised in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 25 November 1987, at column 243, and in a press release on the same day.

  Over 400 responses were received. The great majority of responses recognised that there would be additional benefit to patient care if DHAs could use patient registration data, and supported such use on condition that questions about the extent and nature of proper safeguards were resolved. We are considering all the issues arising from the process of consultation and will bring forward proposals as soon as we are in a position to do so.

  Mentally Ill and Handicapped and Elderly Patients
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number in each region of(a) hospital beds, (b) local authority and health authority day places, and (c) places in sheltered accommodation, for (1) the mentally handicapped (2) mentally ill and (3) elderly patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  Figures for 1986, the latest year for which statistics are readily available centrally, have been published and are in the Library.

  Figures for the number of available staffed beds at 31 December 1986 in National Health Service mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units in England are in table 2·1 of booklets 9 and 10 respectively of the series, "Mental Health Statistics for England".

  The table gives the estimated average number of daily occupied beds during 1985 for the elderly in National Health Service non-psychiatric hospitals in England; later estimates for the elderly are not currently available.

  Average number of beds occupied daily by patients aged 65 years and over in NHS non-psychiatric hospitals in England, 1985

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  6,080

  Yorkshire

  8,108

  Trent

  8,500

  East Anglian

  3,658

  North West Thames

  6,886

  North East Thames

  8,643

  South East Thames

  7,394

  South West Thames

  4,783

  Wessex

  4,581

  Oxford

  3,731

  South Western

  5,816

  West Midlands

  10,911

  Mersey

  5,331

  North Western

  8,173

  Special health authorities

  442

  England, total

  93,037

  Figures for day patients, other than out-patients, attending National Health Service mental illness and mental handicap facilities in England during 1986 are also contained in the two booklets mentioned.

  Figures for people attending day centres within local authorities are contained in the Departments publication A/F 86/8, "Adult Training Centres for Mentally Handicapped People and Day Centres for Mentally Ill, Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People, at 31 March 1986, England", by local authority area.

  Figures on "sheltered accommodation" are not centrally available by regional health authority. However, figures by local authority area are available for certain categories of accommodation in publications A/F 86/11, "Homes and Hostels for Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People, at 31st March 1986, England", and RA/86/2, "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and for Younger Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes, Year ending 31 March 1986, England".

  No reliable figures for day patients attending other National Health Service facilities specifically for the elderly are collected centrally.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will announce the names of the chairman and vice-chairman of the Independent Living Fund.

  Mr. Scott
  At their last meeting the trustees elected Mrs. Winifred Tumin as their chairman and Miss Pauline Thompson as vice-chairman. They also elected Mr. Stewart Lyon as treasurer.

  Miss Sharon Campbell
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the inquiry into the care and after-care of Miss Sharon Campbell.

  Mrs. Currie
  We received the report of the independent committee of inquiry, chaired by Mr. John Spokes, QC, on 22 June 1988. It is being published in full today and copies are being placed in the Library.

  The Government are very grateful to Mr. Spokes and his colleagues, Dr. Michael Pare and Mr. George Royle, for their work. Their extremely helpful report examines the care provided for a young woman, Miss Sharon Campbell, by health and local authorities between 1980 and 1984. It examines her treatment as a psychiatric in-patient at Bexley hospital, and subsequent out-patient treatment and the care provided by two social services authorities when she was living in the community in Lewisham. It considers also the circumstances in which she killed her former social worker, Miss Isabel Schwarz, and examines the responses to earlier threats and incidents of violence by Miss Campbell.

  The report draws attention to the dedicated care and treatment given to Miss Campbell by many professional staff. It identifies also a number of shortcomings in co-ordination and liaison; inadequate supervision of staff; and regrettable omissions by some individuals. It is, however, clear from the committee's findings that Miss Campbell received a generally good level of attention from the caring services and that, although her behaviour was unpredictable and, at times, threatening, her action in killing Isabel Schwarz was of a wholly different order from that which characterised earlier violence or threats by her.

  The report makes recommendations for the care of mentally disordered people in the community; record-keeping by, and communications between, health and local authorities, professional staff and others; the safety, training and supervision of social workers; and other related matters. Ministers are considering those recommendations which are addressed specifically to the Secretary of State and some others which may call for action or consideration by the Department. We shall take action to implement any changes that are necessary. We expect that the health and local authorities directly concerned in the care of Sharon Campbell will also consider the report's findings with particular care and act upon them as necessary.

  Officials are in touch with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other professional bodies about a recommendation that they might co-operate in preparing a report on discharge and after-care procedures for mentally ill patients. The report also contains recommendations which will be of value to health and local authorities in their service planning, the delivery of good

  213
  quality patient and client care, and the safety and security of staff. Copies are being sent today to all health and local authorities in England.

  Violence to Staff
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish the report of his advisory committee on violence to staff.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am grateful to the members of the committee for their assistance in producing a most useful report. Copies of the committee's report, which I am placing in the Library, are today being sent to health authorities, family practitioner committees, local social services authorities and to managers within the Department of Social Security. I hope it will be of particular value to those who are locally responsible for the provision of health and personal social services and for the operation of the social security system.

  We continue to be very concerned about violence against staff by members of the public, and we take seriously our duty to protect those who work for us all.

DEFENCE

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recently announced arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent contract for the sale of Tornados to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recently announced arms deal between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Younger
  The recently announced signature of a formal understanding with the Saudi Arabian Government provides for an enhancement to the project Al Yamamah involving the supply of additional aircraft, specialised naval vessels and a construction programme. I believe the agreement is of considerable importance and benefit to both countries.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the implications for west midlands industry of the recent major arms contracts with Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Employment consequences for individual regions cannot yet be assessed, but it is clearly excellent news for British industry and has the potential to help support and sustain jobs in a wide range of companies and regions.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has as to the number of jobs that will be created or protected among British firms as a result of the signing of the recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is too early to assess the employment consequences.

  NATO Defence Ministers (Meeting)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet the Defence Ministers of European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries; and what subjects he will discuss with them.

  Mr. Younger
  I will next meet Defence Ministers of European NATO countries; at an independent European programme group meeting in September. We will discuss a wide range of defence matters.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining a British military presence in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimated cost of maintaining a British military presence in Gibraltar in 1988–89 is £71 million.

  British Bases
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost over the last five years of employing manpower to protect British bases from unauthorised incursions, and the threat of criminal damage, by protesters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Activities by protesters and the threat of such activities produce a considerable increase in the task of protection of military units and MOD establishments in the United Kingdom. However, it is not possible to identify that part of the total cost of protection which is attributable to the activity of protesters. In addition, there will have been costs incurred by local constabularies.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals have been received from the United States Administration for Upper Heyford and Lakenheath to be used as bases for United States F111 aircraft armed with air-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals have been received from the United States Administration for Upper Heyford and Lakenheath to be used as bases for United States F111 aircraft armed with air-launched cruise missiles.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals have been received from the United States Administration for Upper Heyford and Lakenheath to be used as bases for US F111 aircraft armed with air launched cruise missiles.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals have been received from the United States Administration for Upper Heyford and Lakenheath to be used as bases for US F111 aircraft armed with air-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Younger
  No proposals have been received from the United States Administration. The redeployment to Europe of dual capable aircraft currently based in the United States is one force restructuring option currently under consideration within NATO, but no decisions on
  215
  this or any other option have yet been taken. There would in any case be no question of the redeployed aircraft being armed with strategic air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs).

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role in current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy of long-range sea-launched cruise missiles; and what changes in the role are currently being considered.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role in current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy of long-range sea-launched cruise missiles; and what changes in the role are currently being considered.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role in current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy of long-range sea-launched cruise missiles; and what changes in this role are currently being considered.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs), which the United States navy has been deploying since 1984, provide a flexible and survivable addition to the US sea-based nuclear deterrent. Their specific role is to hold at risk fixed targets on land. SLCMs are not formally assigned to NATO.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the possibility of F111s stationed in the United Kingdom carrying air-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the possibility of F111s stationed in the United Kingdom carrying air-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  NATO (Conventional Stability Talks)
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisations Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisations Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further progress has been made in conventional force reductions in Europe.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place between North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers on reaching a common position on the forthcoming conventional stability talks.
  216
  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall).

  Trident
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed Britain's Trident programme with his United States counterpart; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Mr. Carlucci, the United States Secretary for Defence, last discussed the Trident programme, together with a number of other subjects, when they met in April of this year.

  Glenmoriston Estate (Sale)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet in a position to assess the defence implications of the proposed sale of Glenmoriston Estate, Inverness-shire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have written to the hon. Member, explaining that it has been decided not to seek to acquire part of the Glenmoriston estate for Army training purposes.

  Warsaw Pact/NATO Conventional Forces
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest estimate of the conventional balance between the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest estimate of the conventional balance between the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest estimate of the conventional balance between the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest estimate of the conventional balance between the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The latest estimate of the balance of NATO and Warsaw pact conventional forces in Europe was published in chapter 6 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988". As the statement makes clear, the Warsaw pact enjoys huge numerical superiority and its forces are deployed so as to enable them to initiate surprise attack and large-scale offensive action. The Warsaw pact also has the potential to bring forward massive land-based reinforcements across relatively short distances. By contrast, NATO is faced with the need for many of its reinforcements to cross the Atlantic.

  NATO Ships (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review with his colleagues
  217
  in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the number of nuclear weapons carried by NATO ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review with his colleagues in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the number of nuclear weapons carried by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review with his colleagues in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the number of nuclear weapons carried by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).

  COD Donnington (Fire)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many witnesses have so far been interviewed by the Ministry of Defence team inquiring into the fire at COD Donnington.

  Mr. Freeman
  The board of inquiry into the fire at COD Donnington has so far taken evidence from 27 witnesses.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account Her Majesty's Government take, in deciding whether to maintain their support for the strategic defence initiative, of the latest information and evidence on the technical feasibility of the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account Her Majesty's Government take, in deciding whether to maintain their support for the strategic defence initiative, of the latest information and evidence on the technical feasibility of the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account Her Majesty's Government take, in deciding whether to maintain their support for the strategic defence initiative, of the latest information and evidence on the technical feasibility of the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account Her Majesty's Government take, in deciding whether to maintain their support for the strategic defence initiative, of the latest information and evidence on the technical feasibility of the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The aim of the strategic defence initiative research programme remains to determine the feasibility of effective ballistic missile defences, and it would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of such work. Accordingly, the Government continue to support the strategic defence initiative research programme and the involvement in it of United Kingdom entities.

  Front-line Aircraft
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of the RAF front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of the RAF's front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the Hawk aircraft referred to on page 23 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" are not included in the list of front-line RAF units given on page 76 of the same document.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Annex C of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" is primarily concerned with front-line units. The Hawk aircraft mentioned on page 23 are not included because their primary role is training.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to improve safeguards against accidental use of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are fully confident that appropriate safeguards exist to prevent the accidental use of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons. We keep our safeguarding arrangements under constant review.

  Submarine Technology
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of expenditure on conventional submarine technology.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The majority of expenditure on conventional submarines is currently directed towards the introduction into service of the type 2400 upholder class. As stated in table 3.2 of the 1988 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", volume 2, the current commitment of funds to this programme is £620 million.

  Destroyers and Frigates
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current numbers of destroyers and frigates available for operational purposes in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following HMS Coventry joining the fleet earlier this month, there are currently 48 destroyers and frigates in service with the Royal Navy, of which 41 are available for operational deployment immediately or within a short period.

  Aircraft Recognition
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the effectiveness of the technology
  219
  currently used by the Royal Navy to distinguish between oncoming civilian and military aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the effectiveness of the technology currently used by the Royal Navy to distinguish between oncoming civilian and military aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the effectiveness of the technology currently used by the Royal Navy to distinguish between oncoming civilian and military aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the effectiveness of the technology currently used by the Royal Navy to distinguish between oncoming civilian and military aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The effectiveness of technology used by the Royal Navy is kept under regular review.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people for whom he has responsibility carry an identity card.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, idendity cards are carried by all regular members of Her Majesty's forces and by most reservists. Various MOD civilian staff also carry identification cards, mainly when serving in service establishments or with Her Majesty's forces afloat or overseas. Dependents of service and MOD personnel serving overseas may also carry identity cards. Security passes, warrants and other documents are also issued to service and civilian personnel as required for the execution of their duties.

  Defence Establishments (Dispersal)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration is being given to moving defence establishments to the northern region.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 30 June, at column 319.

  Persian Gulf
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current situation with regard to British and Allied patrolling of the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British Government welcome the current moves towards a settlement of the Iran-Iraq conflict, but it would be premature to modify the current pattern of operations of the Armilla patrol or the tri-national United Kingdom/Netherlands/Belgium mine countermeasures until the threat to merchant shipping in the Gulf has clearly been seen to have diminished.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the RAF's Tornado allocation 220
  is currently flying with ballast in the nose cone to compensate for the absence of radar systems found to be not fully functional.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the RAF's Tornado allocation are currently flying with ballast in the nose cone to compensate for the absence of radar systems found to be not fully functional.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Royal Air Force's Tornado allocation are currently flying with ballast in the nose cone to compensate for the absence of radar systems found to be not fully functional.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no front-line Tornado F3 aircraft flying with ballast.

  Stonehenge
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police as to the powers under which members of that force were recently deployed at Stonehenge on land not owned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police as to the powers under which members of that force were recently deployed at Stonehenge on land not owned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 30 June, at column 324.

  Wormhoudt
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has yet completed its consideration of requests for posthumous awards for bravery at Wormhoudt in May 1940.

  Mr. Freeman
  Awards and medals for battles and operations which took place during the second world war were examined in detail in 1946. It was judged that no further awards should be instituted after that date. This decision was approved by His Majesty King George VI, and the ruling remains in force today. I am therefore unable to recommend the grant of any posthumous awards for actions during the second world war.

  Gallantry medals are awarded on the basis of recommendations put forward at or near the time of the incident. They are then subjected to selection by the appropriate chain of command. Although great care was taken during the 1946 review to consider those who deserved gallantry awards, there must inevitably have been very many acts of individual bravery which have not been formally recognised. This does not detract from the bravery shown by the individuals concerned.

  I accept that there will inevitably be a sense of injustice that the great courage and self-sacrifice shown by Capt. James Frazer Lynn-Allen, CSM Augustus Jennings and Sgt. Stanley Moore, in the face of the brutality of their captors at Wormhoudt in May 1940, was not officially recognised. Captain Lynn-Allen first remonstrated with

  221
  the SS guards before being killed while assisting a wounded man to escape to safety. CSM Jennings and Sgt. Moore died smothering grenades with their bodies. Their actions deserve our highest praise and admiration and are, I know, a source of pride and comfort to the survivors of the massacre, their regiment and their relatives.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the citing by authors and researchers of the war crimes interrogation unit's reports of the Wormhoudt massacre to which they have been given access in military museums.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 July 1988]: I would expect access to public records in military museums to be in accordance with the criteria laid down in the public records lists.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any proposals to withdraw copies of war crimes interrogation unit's reports of the Wormhoudt massacre from military museums.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 July 1988]: I have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of titles of the documents relating to the Wormhoudt massacre which his Department is making available to the relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 July 1988]: We will make all the evidence we have available to the relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany. Once German legal proceedings are concluded, consideration will be given to opening, for public inspection, all the files so made available.

  Mangusta Programmes
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to have talks about the EH101 and A129 Mangusta programmes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend regularly takes stock with his European colleagues of progress on important collaborative projects, such as the Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopter programme and the proposed A129 light attack helicopter, which is being studied by the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

  Spare Parts (Labelling)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the Chief of Defence Procurement in introducing a labelling scheme for spare parts, following his recent statement to the Public Accounts Committee.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The great majority of defence contractors are now co-operating with the Ministry's spares price-labelling requirements. The proportion of price-labelled stocks is steadily increasing in service depots.

  Royal Dockyards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at 222
  Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).

  RAF Aircraft (Demonstrations)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline current Royal Air Force practice with regard to the organisation of commercial demonstrations of different aircraft in service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Defence Export Services Organisation considers requests from industry for assistance in the organisation of commercial demonstrations of defence equipment in service. The Royal Air Force, in turn, like the other services, makes every effort to provide the required facilities.

  Nuclear Test Site (Nevada)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely continued availability of Nevada as a test site for British nuclear weapons and as to the factors which will influence this.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely continued availability of Nevada as a test site for British nuclear weapons and as to the factors which will influence this.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely continued availability of Nevada as a test site for British nuclear weapons and as to the factors which will influence this.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

  Radar Tracking Techniques
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any plans to review the radar tracking techniques used on British warships in the light of recent events in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Operating procedures on Her Majesty's ships are kept under constant review.

  Procurement Policy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department operates to ensure that its procurement policy takes account of regional economic development needs.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 24 June, at column 739.

  ALARM
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the time and cost overruns on the ALARM anti-radar missile programme.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the time and cost overruns on the ALARM anti-radar missile programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on 29 April, at column 309.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of countryside and farming organisations to discuss problems associated with low-flying military exercises.

  Mr. Freeman
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have attended any such meetings recently. However, officials, during the course of normal business, are in fairly regular contact with representatives of countryside and farming organisations with regard to low-flying military exercises and other matters.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the frequency of low-level RAF flights(a) in Scotland and (b) in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  A low-level training sortie or flight covers on average 2·5 low-flying areas and the number of flights that take place entirely within Scotland is not separately recorded. A comparison in terms of aircraft movements can be made, although available statistics cover all British military users, not just the RAF. On this basis, in 1987 there were 24,679 movements in Scotland and 262,948 movements in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if United States Air Force B-52 aircraft are permitted to use the Highlands restricted area for terrain following radar low flying.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: Normally only RAF and United Kingdom-based USAF aircraft are allowed to conduct low-flying training with terrain following radar in the Highlands restricted area, although an exception has been made in the past for USAFE C-130 aircraft based in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which types of United States military aircraft are permitted to fly at less than 250 ft in the three tactical training areas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: Use of the three tactical training areas (TTAs) in the United Kingdom is not formally limited to certain aircraft types, although in practice approval to operate in a TTA would normally be sought only on behalf of aircraft whose operational role required such low-level flights. All requests to operate in a TTA are considered on their merits; no requests have been received from the United States air force.

  Defence Commitments (Review)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to institute a review of Britain's defence commitments; and if he will make a statement.
  224
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 27 April, at column 144.

  NATO (Expenditure)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to discuss with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues the relative share of military expenditure borne by individual countries within the Alliance.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to discuss with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues the relative share of military expenditure borne by individual countries within the Alliance.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to discuss with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues the relative share of military expenditure borne by individual countries within the Alliance.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay).

  Military Equipment Sales (Middle East)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now able to review the potential of further high technology military equipment sales to middle eastern countries following the recent announcement of major new defence contracts with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We, of course, keep under constant review the potential for defence sales to the middle east as elsewhere. We therefore support the companies concerned in their pursuit of all potential sales opportunities where these are consistent with Government policy, which takes into account political, strategic, security and humanitarian factors.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new confidence building measures are proposed in the area of chemical weapons, following the recent exchange of visits by British and Soviet scientists to their respective facilities.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new confidence building measures are proposed in the area of chemical weapons, following the recent exchange of visits by British and Soviet scientists to their respective facilities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are currently making a detailed assessment of the recent exchange of visits between the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, and the Soviet military chemical facility at Shikhany. When the outcome of this assessment is available, we will consider what further steps might be taken in this field.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress of DESO in the promotion of arms sales in 1987–88.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 28 June 1988.

  Listed Military Buildings
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce disposal plans for the redundant listed buildings recently visited by the advisory committee on listed military buildings.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Historic Military Buildings Committee most recently visited three sites in Gosport in May. The disposal of RNAD Priddy's Hard is being planned for mid-1989 and we hope to announce further details later this year. The future of Fort Rowner is currently being discussed with the local authorities concerned. St. George's barracks will be released in due course for sale when new accommodation for the present occupants has been completed.

  The committee has also visited Woolwich. The future of the majority of historic buildings on the Woolwich Arsenal west site is inextricably linked with the future location of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance. It is now clear, however, that the riverside area will not be required, and although the precise boundaries have still to be defined it will be possible to release for other purposes a substantial area of land including the Grand Store, New Laboratory Square, Riverside Guardroom and Mallets Mortar. Once the boundaries have been determined we will seek discussions with the planning authorities at an early date.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spends on information technology to assist in the control of Ministry stocks.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We estimate that some £16·3 million will be spent in the financial year 1988–89 on information technology to assist, directly or indirectly, in the control of Ministry stocks. This figure includes the acquisition of new hardware, the replacement of life-expired hardware and ongoing commitments for maintenance and software licences.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to improve Territorial Army recruitment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government continue to make every effort to improve Territorial Army recruitment through local and national recruiting campaigns, and we keep under careful review pay and conditions of service of volunteers. Results have so far been satisfactory, but we are not complacent and continue to look for new sources of recruitment to tap. The Government have also taken a number of measures to improve retention, including measures to improve the quality of training. In addition we 226
  are about to launch a campaign recommended by the national employer liaison committee to promote public awareness of the value of the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to prepare for the untying of the exclusive contractual relationship with the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Freeman
  A small team has been established within MOD to plan the arrangements for dealing with works services after 1 April 1990. They have completed preliminary consultations and commenced their detailed work.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many overseas students were trained at defence establishments in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 1 July 1988, at column 223.

  Film-making (Public Relations)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the services' public relations departments take to assist and advise film and television programme makers in the preparation of items of military history or interest.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All requests for assistance and advice are considered on their merits. In general, assistance is given when it is compatible with the interests of the Department to do so, subject to suitable resources being available.

  Frigates and Destroyers (Orders)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in achieving better value for money from his frigate and destroyer orders for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The progress that is being made is demonstrated in the recent order for three type 23 frigates, where the average unit cost of each is about £10 million less than the average of the last three ordered in 1986.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of how many jobs have been secured directly and indirectly in the shipbuilding industry by orders for ships for the Royal Navy in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Orders placed in the last 12 months for three Duke class type 23 frigates, one auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel and four Sandown class single role minehunters (together with some other minor contracts) are estimated to have secured an average of 13,000 to 14,000 jobs directly and indirectly over the next four years or so. The order for a Vanguard class SSBN placed this year will secure jobs for about 5,000 over a similar period.

  Combined Cadet Force
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many branches of the Combined Cadet Force are currently functioning in(a) maintained and (b) independent schools; what numbers of pupils are involved in each case and at what annual cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are currently 254 detachments of the CCF, of which 58 are in maintained schools, with 6,579 pupils. There are 196 detachments in independent schools, with 38,158 pupils. I regret that it is not possible to provide a cost breakdown between the two categories. Additionally, there are 143 detachments of the ACF in schools, with 4,016 cadets; over one third of these are "closed" detachments limited to pupils of the school.

  The CCF is part of the national youth movement and provides a great many young people with the opportunities to develop qualities of good citizenship and the spirit of service. The Government are very conscious of their value and will continue to encourage their well-being.

  Home Service Force
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current composition of the Home Service Force in terms of (i) its establishment, (ii) numbers currently recruited and (iii) what weapons and equipment are issued; and what are his plans for expanding the Home Service Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  The current establishment of the Home Service Force is 4,497; recruited personnel numbered approximately 3,157 as at 31 May 1988. The Home Service Force is issued with standard Army weapons and equipment appropriate to its operational role. It is planned to increase the establishment of the Home Service Force to 5,000 by 1990.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria led to the formulation of the tasks of the Home Service Force; what assessment was made as to the numbers and establishment of a Home Service Force necessary to be able to perform such tasks; and what are the age limits for membership of the Home Service Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Home Service Force is intended to draw on the pool of manpower who have had some prior military training and who therefore can fulfil a useful role with a minimum of training. It was decided that such personnel would best be suited to the home defence role, thus releasing Regular Army and other manpower for other tasks. The establishment selected reflects the numbers that it was assessed, on the basis of the trial conducted in 1982, might be available. Enlistment to the Home Service Force is between the ages of 20 and 50, with a maximum retention age of 60.

  Contracts (Profit Formula)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report by the review board on its third annual review of the profit formula for Government non-competitive contracts.

  Mr. Younger
  The Government accept the principal recommendation by the review board in its report that 228
  there should be no change in the existing profit formula which has been in operation since 1 July 1987—Official Report, 24 July 1987, column 602. Discussions are already taking place between officials and the CBI on other aspects of the board's report. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the summer recess.

  Mr. Younger
  The average length of time taken to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the summer recess should not differ greatly from our normal practice of answering within three weeks. However, allowance must be made for some slight delays owing to summer leave arrangements.

  Nuclear Test Victims
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action he is taking to investigate the claims of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association that they have discovered malformity in 700 children born to test veterans; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will instruct the National Radiological Protection Board to expand the range of medical conditions included in its next report, for the 10 years commencing January 1984, into the incidence of disease and conditions affecting British nuclear test veterans; if he will ensure that cases of skin disease, depression, genetic disorders, infant mortality, sterility, deformity, miscarriage and still birth will be considered for investigation; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what action he is taking to investigate the causes of infant mortality, deformity, miscarriages and still birth amongst the families of ex-service men who served in the Pacific during the 1950s;

  (4) what action he is taking to investigate medical conditions, not related to mortality and cancer, which may have arisen due to ex-service men's exposure to radioactivity during their military service in the Pacific in the 1950s;

  (5) what action has been taken to investigate cell scarring in thyroid, liver and intestinal tissues, the reduction of lymphoid cells in blood, overgrowth of lymph tissues in lymph glands and premature aging, as conditions arising from over exposure to ionising radiation among British nuclear test veterans serving in the Pacific during the 1950s;

  .(6) what action has been taken to investigate cases of temporary or permanent sterility, reduced fertility and hereditary changes in later generations due to changes in chromosome and gene formation, as conditions arising from over-exposure to ionising radiation, among British nuclear test veterans serving in the Pacific during the 1950s;

  (7) what action has been taken to investigate cases of bone cell inflammation and bone cell death, as conditions arising from over exposure to ionising radiation, among British nuclear test veterans serving in the Pacific during the 1950s;
  229
  (8) what action has been taken to investigate cases of eye cataracts and eye surface burns, as conditions arising over-exposure to ionising radiation, among British nuclear test veterans serving in the Pacific during the 1950s;

  (9) what action has been taken to investigate cases of varicose veins as a condition arising from over-exposure to ionising radiation among British nuclear test veterans serving in the Pacific during the 1950s;

  (10) what action has been taken to investigate cases of redness, blistering, baldness, ulceration and scarring of the skin, as conditions arising from over-exposure to ionising radiation, among British nuclear test veterans serving in the Pacific during the 1950s.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  When the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) was commissioned to undertake its recent study, the conduct of that study was left as a matter for the professional judgment of the NRPB, in consultation with other experts, such as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. The board decided to rely primarily on mortality as an indicator of health and also used the readily available cancer registration data. In choosing these reliable sources the NRPB recognised the impracticability of attempting to obtain comprehensive data about the wide range of other diseases, the records relating to which are much less complete. None the less, it was recognised from the outset that, if the findings showed cause for concern, other investigations might prove to be necessary.

  In the event, the conclusion of the report is that participation has not had a detectable effect on the expectation of life of the participants nor on their total risk of developing cancer. This overall conclusion stands despite the observed higher incidence of certain leukaemias and multiple myelomas in the participants as opposed to the control group, not least because this higher incidence was more marked among participants not present at the time of a detonation.

  The Government do not therefore accept that there is any justification for further investigation other than the follow-up of mortality and cancer registration data recommended by the NRPB to investigate the incidence of disorders referred to in the questions.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases the service medical records of former military personnel who served in the Pacific during the British nuclear tests in the 1950s have been released to their general practitioners.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  General practitioners are not required to state the specific purpose for which such records are required; thus the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men who took part in British nuclear tests in the 1950s have been consulted and examined by the National Radiological Protection Board as part of their report of the incidence of mortality and cancer in British nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The mortality and cancer incidence information which was analysed by NRPB was obtained from records held by Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys (OPCS), National Health Service (NHS) central registers and other official records. Individual service men were neither consulted nor examined. As the report acknowledges, a valuable contribution to checks of the 230
  validity and completeness of the study was made by various groups and ex-service organisations who supplied lists of names of participants.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the crew of ships which took part in the Monte Bello tests in 1952 were included in the National Radiological Protection Board report into the mortality and cancer incidence in United Kingdom participants in United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All the Royal Navy ships that participated in the nuclear test programme were identified and their crews included in the NRPB study. It was estimated that a 99 per cent. coverage of Royal Naval personnel had been achieved, as shown in table 5.5 of the NRPB report.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to investigate the complaints of aborigines at Wallatina station who claim that the Totem 1 blast in 1953 which took place at Emu field was the cause of mass sickness and fatalities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The evidence presented on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the Australian Royal Commission, which included substantial new work on theoretical modelling of the path of the fallout, does not support the contention that harm could have been caused to aborigines at Wallatima by the Totem 1 explosion in 1953. The decision to embark on any further investigation is a matter for the Australian Government.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the estimated average mortality rate due to multiple myeloma for the British nuclear test veterans as investigated by the National Radiological Protection Board for the 10 years 1984 to 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the study (on page 86, section 10) the NRPB estimates that during the 10-year period 1984 to 1994 about 30 deaths would be expected from leukaemia and multiple myeloma in the participants and a similar number in the controls, if the men experienced the normal national mortality and cancer rates in England and Wales. Of these 30 deaths, approximately one third are expected to be from multiple myeloma. Of course, some assumptions have been made in obtaining these figures and they are provisional estimates.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to compensate fully British nuclear test veterans and their families who are suffering from, and have lost relatives due to, multiple myeloma and leukaemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia, following the publication of the National Radiological Protection Board's investigation into the mortality and cancer incidence in United Kingdom participants in United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Former service men or their next-of-kin who believe that their health may have suffered as a result of participation in the United Kingdom nuclear test programme are already entitled to apply to the
  231
  Department of Social Security for consideration of a war pension or gratuity. The decision concering the award is one for the Department of Social Security, but it is not necessary for the applicant to prove negligence, and the Department of Social Security will accept claims if it is satisfied that there is reliable evidence of reasonable doubt that the disability suffered is attributable to service.

  Maralinga (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of contamination at Maralinga, in square acres, to the present date; what weight of plutonium is buried there, whether he has received representations from the Australian Government to decontaminate Maralinga and to remove the plutonium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The area at Maralinga where residual levels of surface radioactivity have been measured extends to about 200 square kilometres (50,000 acres). The amount of plutonium in the burial pits does not exceed 20kg and may be much less. The Australian Government have made no request for the United Kingdom to participate in any clean-up operation, but we are providing technical advice and assistance on an agreed basis.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current conditions and contamination level of the Monte Bello Islands, Emu and Maralinga; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Recent surveys of the Monte Bello Islands show that some small areas of low surface radioactivity remain, and that the minor access restrictions that apply now can probably be removed totally within the next 30 years. I understand that the Australian Government intend to return control of the islands to the Western Australian Government, who have plans to designate the area a nature reserve and marine park. The current condition of the Emu field area is that low levels of surface radioactivity extend to an area of about 10 square kilometres. The highest levels there are considerably lower than the highest levels at Maralinga.

  Chemical Warfare Research
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is available to those currently engaged in chemical warfare research on the extent and implications of Japanese research programmes into bacteriological warfare using prisoners of war during the war of 1941 to 1945.

  Mr. Freeman
  Those engaged in chemical defence research have access to all such information held by the Government.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an inquiry into the alleged use by the Japanese of prisoners of war for research programmes into bacteriological warfare during the war of 1941 to 1945.

  Mr. Freeman
  Allegations that British prisoners of war held by the Japanese were used in bacteriological warfare experiments between 1941 and 1945 have been the subject of lengthy and exhaustive investigation. No evidence to substantiate them has been found and there are therefore no plans to institute a further inquiry.

  United Kingdom Mobile Force
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current provision for logistical support for the United Kingdom mobile force; and how much of it is currently provided by the Danish Government.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom mobile force is a self-contained force which incorporates its own logistic support group. Current plans provide for some additional logistic support to be provided for the United Kingdom mobile force by the Danish Government. Details of the plans and amounts of support provided are, however, classified.

  Western European Union
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Western European Union has been used as a forum for co-ordinating policy on any other out-of-area issues, apart from mine clearance operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Western European Union consultation on out-of-area issues has been confined to matters relating to the Gulf, which includes co-ordination of the joint Belgium/Netherlands/United Kingdom mine countermeasures force. However, one of the objectives of the United Kingdom presidency of the Western European Union is to develop the Western European Union as a forum for co-ordinating European approaches to out-of-area issues generally.

  Abbot Self-propelled Howitzer
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when companies were asked to bid for the contract to replace the Abbot self-propelled howitzer; how many bids were received; when the last bid was received; and when he expects to announce the replacement order.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A request for quotations for 155 mm self-propelled howitzers was issued to industry in December 1986. Responses were received last year from four companies, but it was necessary to seek further information and revised proposals from some of the companies involved. These revised proposals were received in January this year. Regarding the way ahead, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on 8 June 1988, at column 586.

  Main Battle Tank
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between his Department and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministries concerning the collaborative producton of a new main battle tank.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no current discussions with our NATO allies on any proposals for collaborative production of a new main battle tank. However, we are looking jointly with some allies at the characteristics of tank main armament that may be required in the future.

  DROPS
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 15 July,Official

  233
  Report, column 377, what information he has about civilian injuries caused by the DROPS vehicle overturning on 17 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have no knowledge of any MOD or other civilian being involved in the incident.

  Local planning authority

  Proposed development

  1. Dartford Borough Council

  Business Park, hotel, residential development, nature reserve and Dartford Northern Bypass on land at Dartford Marshes; joint inquiry into mixed development scheme south east of River Cray and Thames Road

  2. Dartford Borough Council

  Office development at Hawkley Road/Darenth Road, Dartford

  3. Dartford Borough Council

  Business Park and residential development in North West Sector, Dartford

  4. Dartford Borough Council

  Residential development at Darenth Park Hospital

  5. Maidstone Borough Council

  Motorway service area at M20 at Hollingbourne

  6. Rochester upon Medway District Council

  Industrial building and airship for the manufacture and testing of microlight aircraft at The Paddock, Borroughs Lane, Middle Stoke

  7. Sevenoaks District Council

  Two motorway service areas at Pedham Place and West Kingsdown

  8. Sevenoaks District Council

  Residential development at Croft Road, Westerham

  9. Sevenoaks District Council

  Residential development at Bowsers Meadow, Westerham

  10. Sevenoaks District Council

  Industrial and warehousing development at M20/M25 junction, Swanley

  11. Sevenoaks District and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Councils

  Service area on A21 at Kennards Farm and Barrets Wood, Leigh

  12. Shepway District Council

  Marina and associated residential development at Princes Parade, Hythe

  13. Shepway District Council

  Windsurfing centre at New Romney Pit, Greatstone

  14. Thanet District Council

  Access road to Ramsgate Harbour and associated development

  15. Thanet District Council

  Retail development at Margate Road, Broadstairs

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the number and percentage of planning applications refused, (b) the number and percentage of refused planning applications going to appeal and (c) the

  Planning applications

  Planning appeals

  Received

  Refused

  Percentage

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Percentage

  Cotswold District Council

  1984–85

  1,365

  245

  17·9

  61

  40

  13

  32·5

  1985–86

  1,412

  254

  18·0

  51

  36

  11

  30·6

  1986–87

  1,489

  256

  17·2

  46

  38

  14

  36·8

  1987–88

  69

  35

  13

  37·1

  New Forest District Council

  1984–85

  2,277

  437

  19·2

  133

  112

  36

  32·1

  1985–86

  2,204

  414

  18·8

  141

  104

  41

  39·4

  1986–87

  2,279

  421

  18·5

  180

  141

  53

  44·7

  1987–88

  201

  168

  62

  36·9

  Test Valley District Council

  1984–85

  1,359

  180

  13·2

  57

  62

  19

  30·6

  1985–86

  1,369

  192

  14·0

  73

  54

  26

  48·1

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Inquiries (Kent)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the inquiries into planning applications relating to Kent conducted since 9 June 1987.

  Mr. Ridley
  Since 9 June 1987 inquiries have been held into the following planning applications, which I have called in for my decision:

  number and percentage of appeals upheld by his Department for the district council areas of Cotswold, New Forest and Test Valley boroughs over each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information readily available is given in the tables.
  235

  Planning applications

  Planning appeals

  Received

  Refused

  Percentage

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  Percentage

  1986–87

  1,581

  285

  18·0

  109

  75

  37

  49·3

  1987–88

  123

  119

  48

  40·3

  Waste Imports
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the quantity of toxic waste substances, arising from energy industries, which was imported into the United Kingdom in the last five years for detoxification treatment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to call in any application for planning permission for the construction of a Channel tunnel terminal at the White City.

  Mr. Trippier
  The White City is one of several sites being considered by BR for a second terminal. I cannot give any commitment in advance of planning applications, if any, that might be submitted to the local planning authority.

  Princes Dock, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on the planning application of Erril Holdings for the development of Princes dock, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  This planning application is with Liverpool city council. If Liverpool wished to approve it the council would require special authorisation from the Secretary of State for the Environment as there are proposals to extend the Merseyside Development Corporation which include the site in question. The rights of the applicant to appeal against non-determination or refusal remain intact.

  Liverpool Docklands
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications have been made for the development of Liverpool docklands at the latest date.

  Mr. Trippier
  Statistics on planning applications are not collected for an area known as Liverpool docklands. For the period 1983–88, the Merseyside Development Corporation has approved 165 applications.

  London Docklands (Roads)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a map showing those roads planned or projected in or adjacent to the area of the London Docklands Development Corporation that are(a) to be built and owned by the corporation and (b) to be constructed and owned by a local authority or the Department of Transport; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements he expects to make for those in category (a) in respect of their servicing and maintenance.
  236
  Mr. Trippier
  A plan showing LDDCs road proposals will be placed in the Library shortly. The corporation will service and maintain its own roads, until such time as they may be adopted by an appropriate highway authority. Roads constructed by the Department of Transport and the local highway authorities are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and for the relevant local authorities, respectively.

  Housing and Planning Act 1986
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which sections of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, remain to be brought into force; and if he will list the dates on which he intends to make them operative.

  Mr. Ridley
  The following provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 remain to be brought into force: sections 5, 7, 8, 30–38, 42, and 43 and certain minor and consequential amendments and repeals.

  These provisions will be brought into force as appropriate, when the necessary preparatory work, including the making of statutory instruments, has been completed. However, the current Housing Bill includes provision to repeal section 7.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of council-owned dwellings sold under the right to buy for each year since 1980 in (a) each London borough and (b) England as a whole.

  Mr. Ridley
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and flats in Devon and Cornwall have been sold by each local authority since the Housing Act 1980.

  Mr. Ridley
  Sales reported by the local authorities are given in the table:

  Houses

  Flats

  Devon

  East Devon1

  1,237

  38

  Exeter

  1,218

  68

  Mid Devon1

  1,179

  4

  North Devon

  1,080

  4

  Plymouth1

  3,818

  181

  South Hams1

  922

  27

  Teignbridge

  1,347

  18

  Torbay1

  993

  10

  Torridge

  755

  13

  West Devon1

  646

  8

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  837

  12

  Carrick1

  964

  7

  Kerrier

  749

  13

  North Cornwall

  1,029

  11

  Penwith1

  658

  20

  Restormel

  1,001

  29

  Isles of Scilly1

  9

  2

  237
  1 incomplete data.

  Housing (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any information regarding the number of people on housing association waiting lists in each local authority area in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Ridley
  This information is not collected by my Department.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projected building of council accommodation over the next five years in each local authority in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Ridley
  The only projections centrally available at present are the figures of starts and completions for the years up to 1989/90 provided by the authorities in their 1987 housing investment programme HIP2 returns; these are available in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the total number of people currently on the council housing waiting lists of each district authority in Devon and Cornwall;

  (2) if he will list the total number of empty council housing units in each local authority area in Devon and Cornwall, dividing housing into houses, flats and caravans;

  (3) if he will list the total stock of council accommodation currently owned by each district authority in Devon and Cornwall dividing the accommodation into houses, flats and caravans.

  Mr. Ridley
  The latest available information on the number of households on waiting lists for council housing is for April 1987 and was provided by local authorities in their 1987 housing investment programme returns; the figures appear in column B51 in the "HIP1 All items print", which is available in the Library. Local authorities' criteria for inclusion of names on the waiting lists are not uniform and the frequency of reviewing the lists varies.

  The numbers of dwellings owned by each authority in Cornwall and Devon and, of these, the numbers vacant, including any awaiting demolition, appear in columns A11 and A81, respectively, of the same document.

  The numbers of houses, flats and bungalows built for each authority with one, two or three bedrooms but not four-bedroomed or other dwellings, appear in "Housing Rents Statistics at April 1987", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which is also available in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of council houses and flats that have been built per year in each local authority in Devon and Cornwall since 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Poor Housing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet allocated the additional £3 million which he announced on 17 June would be made available to areas of poor quality private sector housing; and if he will make a statement.
  238
  Mr. Ridley
  Letters will be sent shortly to the leaders of the following local housing authorities informing them of the Government's intention to make available additional capital allocations for 1988–89 to assist them tackle their worst areas of private sector housing:

  £ million

  Allerdale

  0·20

  Birmingham

  0·40

  Blackburn

  0·40

  Bolton

  0·20

  Hyndburn

  0·20

  Pendle

  0·10

  Rochdale

  0·20

  Sheffield

  0·40

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0·25

  Wirral

  0·50

  The additional expenditure is expected to be targeted on area schemes involving a mix of clearance, renovation, new build and environmental improvements in partnership with the private sector, housing associations and other agencies. These schemes will complement other Government initiatives, such as Estate Action and housing action trusts, to improve conditions in rundown urban areas, and it is intended that additional resources will continue to be made available in subsequent years, subject to satisfactory progress, to enable programmes to be completed. Discussions are continuing with other housing authorities with a view to expanding the number of schemes next year.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members during the summer recess.

  Mr. Ridley
  Precise information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost A random sample taken during the 1984 summer recess suggested that the average time taken to reply to right hon. and hon. Members was then approximately 25 days.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the availability of landfill sites for disposal of household, industrial and toxic waste to the end of the century; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  At present rates of mineral extraction and waste disposal by landfill, rather more void space is created each year than is required for landfill. Not all voids are suitable for use or landfill and they are unevenly spread throughout the country. In general, however, we do not expect there to be a shortage of void space for the disposal of United Kingdom waste.

  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of loans outstanding on capital account for local authorities in England and Wales at 31 March in each year from 1980–81 to 1987–88.
  239
  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The figures are based on capital outturn returns submitted by local authorities and relate to England and Wales. Returns for 31 March 1988 are not yet available.

  Outstanding Loan Debt for all services on Capital Account

  £ billion

  31 March 1981

  33·9

  31 March 1982

  35·9

  31 March 1983

  38·2

  31 March 1984

  40·9

  31 March 1985

  42·2

  31 March 1986

  44·7

  31 March 1987

  45·6

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year from 1980–81 to 1987–88(a) the local authority borrowing requirement and (b) the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The figures requested are as follows. They relate to the United Kingdom.

  £ million

  Local authority borrowing requirement

  Public sector borrowing requirement

  1980–81

  2,120

  12,519

  1981–82

  -225

  8,622

  1982–83

  87

  8,935

  240

  Local authority borrowing requirement

  Public sector borrowing requirement

  1983–84

  1,206

  9,717

  1984–85

  2,386

  10,100

  1985–86

  1,670

  5,654

  1986–87

  238

  3,436

  1987–88

  1,465

  -3,486

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of unwanted stray dogs destroyed in 1987; and whether he will seek to explore the costs and benefits of free subsidised sterilisation for all dogs whose owners wish it.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  No central record is kept of the number of stray dogs seized by the police, local authorities or others, and so it is not possible to estimate the number of unwanted stray dogs destroyed.

  As regards the introduction of free subsidised sterilisation for dogs, we have at present no evidence of any general agreement on the need for such a measure or of any widespread public demand for it.

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

COSMOS 1900
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull Asked Her Majesty's Government:
What civil protection precautions are being taken in view of the fact that COSMOS 1900, a nuclear-powered spacecraft which is out of control, is due to crash on 16th October 1988.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government are monitoring the progress of COSMOS 1900. If a threat to the United Kingdom became apparent the emergency services would be alerted and arrangements to deal with the effects would be set in hand.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that reply, may I ask what instructions and guidance have been given to the Lord Great Chamberlain, to our much respected Black Rod and to the Doorkeepers who serve us so well—likewise the police—in the event of it landing on Westminster?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod follows a distinguished number of people who have looked after the interests of the Palace of Westminster. I am not aware of any specific instructions given to him as regards this particular instance any more than would have been given to him in the eventuality of a No. 11 bus humping into the Victoria Tower. In the somewhat bizarre circumstances which my noble friend postulates, I am sure that the Gentleman Usher would remember the resourcefulness and courtesies which have always gone with his office and that he would at least have time to say, "Cheerio chaps".
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, while the lighthearted intention of the noble Baroness has been well echoed by the Minister and since the Government have now ensured that this country has no capability of putting any satellites into space, the fact remains that a similar satellite—I am sure that the noble Earl has been briefed on this—namely, COSMOS 954, caused several million pounds worth of damage. Although the odds are heavily against the satellite landing on Westminster, the fact remains that there will be quite a problem. Will the Government therefore consider pressing and supporting those who seek some limitation as regards putting into space nuclear capabilities which present a particular threat when they come down to earth?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is quite right. When these objects go up into space and go wrong they can cause immense
146
trouble. This is a matter with which the Government are always concerned. According to the information I have, there is about one chance in 2,000 of this particular instrument collapsing on to the United Kingdom.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if, mercifully, this object does not land on Westminster, it might nevertheless land in an important farming area? Is he aware that a report of the Agriculture Select Committee of another place published today contains advice both critical and constructive as regards our handling of the Chernobyl incident and its effect on farming? Can the Minister confirm that if there should be this kind of mishap in a farming area the advice of the Select Committee will be followed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if that eventuality were to come about, the authorities would be responsible for dealing with it. They would no doubt take into account what the Select Committee says. However, overall responsibility would be exercised from a central control point with ministerial and official representation from all the government departments concerned. Local authorities would follow the Home Office emergency planning and guidance to local authorities in which Annex C to Section 25 deals specifically with incidents of this kind.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, on reflection, does the noble Earl feel that not only would it be unfortunate if a Number 11 bus collided with the Victoria Tower, but it would also be very careless indeed because it should be going down Victoria Street?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is particularly accurate. In that case, the bus would not be going in the right direction. Oddly enough, this missile or satellite is also not going in the right direction and that is why it is a hazard.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this not a situation where a simple form of the star wars technology might be useful in disposing of this dangerous object in a peace-time incident?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that might be one method of disposing of it; but whether it is the most appropriate or suitable is a matter of opinion and for considerable discussion. I do not believe that everyone would welcome the idea of objects being shot out of space.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there has been confirmation of the Tass news agency report of May this year that the satellite poses no danger? If not, what confirmation can the Minister give that the Government have sought from the USSR Government assurances that the nuclear reactor on COSMOS 1900 will be expelled into space?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had statements not only from Tass but also from the Russian Ambassador who wrote about this matter. There is the possibility of danger. As I understand it, this satellite may burn up as it comes into the earth's atmosphere. In that case, it may leave a long trail. On the other hand, it may come down in one lump in which case the effects will be somewhat different. In either eventuality the emergency services will take control of the situation, and it will be dealt with.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the event of it coming down in either form, have the Soviet Government given any indication of what compensation they will pay to people who are stricken by this object?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, international law allows a country in which a satellite falls to be reimbursed for any damage and other costs which arise from the incident. In such an eventuality an announcement would be made after the event about claims for compensation for injury or death. It is another thing of course to get the compensation.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is perhaps desirable that the public should be informed of the risk, if any? Is he aware that one fragment from COSMOS 954 was nine inches long and gave off 40 times the acceptable level of radiation? Although the risk is small, nonetheless it would be as well on a matter of this kind if the Government were to issue a flat straight statement which showed the extent to which there could be a risk, although I would agree that the odds are heavily against it landing in an inhabited part of the world.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that not until about two weeks before the entry of the object will it be clear exactly where it is likely to land. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that if it were decided that there was a possible threat, no matter how small, a warning would be given to relevant agencies, including the police, so that they could activate their contingency plans; and the public would be advised at the same time if the threat was significant.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is this not the kind of Question to which it is impossible to give a coherent answer—apart from the possibility of creating a lot of fright? I should have thought that the practical thing to do is to get in touch with Lloyds of London to see what the terms are for covering the risk.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords I am grateful to my noble friend for his generous comment upon my answers. I agree that the situation is somewhat hypothetical, but I have tried to describe only what might happen should the hypothesis become a fact.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, would not the Hotol space plane be particularly useful in this situation in its ability to intercept satellites in distress? Will the Government show a little more enthusiasm in supporting the project?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that Hotol in its present form would be much of an assistance in dealing with the problem under discussion. The noble Lord asks a far wider question which I do not propose to answer.

Bus Registration Database
2.46 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's bus registration database, and to what extent it is being used to monitor the effects of bus deregulation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, some 30 reports have already been published on the basis of information supplied from the database. A further comprehensive report covering the first year of deregulation will be published next month.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that the TRRL is not continuing with the registration of bus services? What do the Government propose to put in its place to provide this information? Can the Minister inform the House what other monitoring work will be done on deregulation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have decided to discontinue this database because it was too expensive to maintain indefinitely. Now that deregulated bus services are well established, we shall be able to rely upon normal statistical returns from the operators to monitor developments in local bus services. I can confirm to my noble friend that the statistical branch of the Department of Transport will continue to publish statistics on a variety of matters, including vehicle kilometres run, patronage, passenger receipts, fares and so on.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Oxford University Transport Studies Group has been commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to carry out a three-year study into deregulation under the 1985 Act? Is he further aware that the university studies group has said that there are gross inaccuracies in the database used by TRRL? If that is so, what will happen to the future of monitoring? The Minister says that it is being carried on. I understand that these inaccuracies mainly affect deregulation in the metropolitan areas.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware that Oxford University was carrying out this study for the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; nor was I aware that it is said that there are inaccuracies in the statistics produced by the database. However, as I have said, the database is to cease. We shall continue to publish statistics based on the figures sent into us. Those will continue to be published by the department.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister place more reliance on the statistics of his department than apparently the Department of Trade and Industry is prepared to place on its statistics in relation to imports?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a very different question. In this situation we were receiving two sets of statistics: one set provided by the database of the TRRL and one set produced by the department. That seemed to be a waste of resources.

DHSS General Practice Research Unit
2.49 p.m.
Lord Sherfield Lord Sherfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Department of Health and Social Security has decided to close its General Practice Research Unit and transfer the bulk of its funding to the Medical Research Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the retirement of the director of the DHSS funded General Practice Research Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry and the forthcoming retirements of the two Medical Research Council unit directors provides the opportunity for restructuring the three programmes. Our objective is to fund research of high scientific quality with the potential to improve the treatment and care available to patients by means of the establishment of a new social psychiatry research unit. The DHSS intends to fund a significant programme of work at that unit.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he think that even if the Medical Research Council devotes the bulk of this fund, so reserved, to the same kind of work as that being done by the research unit, that the Medical Research Council, as a science-led body, is the right body to undertake research concerned with the delivery of primary care to the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think I would be wise to reserve my answer to the noble Lord's question until such time as the Government publish their response to the Select Committee's Report on the subject.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware of the most important and internationally recognised work that has been carried out by this unit in delineating and defining the large proportion of work which reaches general practitioners which is of psychogenic or social origin, although it often masquerades first as physical illness. If the Medical Research Council takes over the bulk of the funding, can he say whether the expertise of that team will be maintained? Further, will the new units be situated appropriately as this one is, at the Institute of Psychiatry?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what I can say is that the Department of Health will continue to fund research at broadly the same level of expenditure at the new unit. I recognise that primary care and the work of general practitioners is of vital and growing importance in the mental health field, as the noble Lord said. Indeed, the unit itself recognises that fact.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on his new appointment and express the hope that he will continue to speak in this House on health as well as social security?
In relation to the Question on the Order Paper, may I ask what the total expenditure by the DHSS was on the GP research unit and what extra funding will be made available to the Medical Research Council? Moreover, can the Minister give an assurance that the decision which has been taken will have no adverse effect on the research into general practice?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord's introductory comments. When I said earlier that I expected the Department of Health's support to continue at broadly the same level, the figure I referred to was£280,000 per year. More generally, however, the research will have to be discussed with the new director when he is appointed, But I must point out that he is currently in the final stages of selection.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, while the noble Lord is quite right to reserve his answer to my noble friend Lord Sherfield, can he draw the matter to the attention of the new Minister of Health, Mr. Clarke—to whom we also extend congratulations—and wish that he will do better than he has done in space over HOTOL? At the same time, my noble friend has brought out a most fundamental point in the report; namely, that it is the view of the committee—perhaps he will consider this—that research should not just be transferred to the Medical Research Council. Will he give a good deal of consideration to this fundamental point?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course I shall refer the matter both to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and also to my honourable friend the Minister for Health, because I am aware of the concern of your Lordships in this area.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can clarify one aspect of his Answer which I may have missed. Will the new research unit which will be working in this field be located at the Institute of Psychiatry, or do we not yet know where it will be located?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot give a cast iron guarantee; but it expected that it will continue to be at the Institute of Psychiatry.

TV and Films: Exports to South Africa
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are encouraging independent British television companies and film-makers to export to South Africa; and if so whether this does not breach the spirit of limited sanctions against apartheid to which they subscribe.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, officials in my department have been in touch with British television companies in order to draw their attention to the potential for the sales of British television programmes to South Africa. Such action is not contrary to our international undertakings on South Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister makes an assertion at the end of his Answer which is certainly questionable. Is it the case that an official in his department, a Mr. Barry Harding, wrote a letter which included the following statement:
"Whilst, because of international commitments, the DTI is unable to offer financial support for trade missions to South Africa, or trade fairs there, all other export assistance is available both in London, and through commercial sections overseas".
Is that not a breach of the whole spirit of the Government's participation in the Commonwealth and the EC sanctions programme which was intended to deter governments from offering to export any goods to South Africa?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fail to see what the noble Lord's question has to do with the Question on the Order Paper. However, as I have told the noble Lord on previous occasions, we stand by the letter of our agreement with our Community and Commonwealth partners that we arrived at in 1985 and 1986. The measures which most affect our civil trading links with South Africa are of course the cessation of Government funding; the trade missions to South Africa or the participation in exhibitions in that country; a ban on the import of certain gold coins; a ban on the import of certain bulk iron and steel and a voluntary ban on certain new investment in South Africa. Other than that, we do not see how the letter from which the noble Lord quoted comes under any one of those headings.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether his officials, when they discussed the matter with the BBC, were informed whether the recent BBC Panorama programme concerning the torture and imprisonment of children in South Africa was exported to South Africa If it was, can he lay down a condition that such programmes are exported there so that the South African government can take the rough with the smooth?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships' House and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this Government is not the kind of government which
152
tells anyone—the BBC or otherwise—what they should do. I suspect that all Members of your Lordships' House would greatly rue the day if the Government were to do so. It may well be in the noble Lord's mind that the Government of the day should have the power to tell the BBC, or anyone, exactly what they should do.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, apart from what my noble friend has so rightly said as to the Government's attitude, would it not be the height of folly if one wishes to change the climate of thinking in South Africa, as most of us do, to deny that country the import of as many films and television programmes as possible which are made in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there is no doubt that we have close historical, cultural and family links with South Africa. Further, there exists a sizeable English-speaking population in that country. Surely all Members of your Lordshps' House would agree that the absence of British material from South African screens—which can only be for the good in trying to solve the problems in that troubled land—means in effect that we are missing opportunities to influence and to promote our way of thinking.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not a fact of life in South Africa—as in so many other places—that the wider use of the video-tape recorder has made almost any product accessible to everyone, whether in its legitimate or pirated form? Therefore would it not be a prime objective of the Government to encourage products for the small and the large screen which reflect our democratic traditions and freedom of speech?
Lord Young of Graffham: That is actually the purport of my department's policy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the height of hypocrisy for the Government to claim that they are opposed to apartheid when one of their principal departments is deliberately encouraging, and using taxpayers' money, to circumvent the sanctions with which they, on paper, agree?
Is it not also a breach of the agreement which has been made with a number of trade unions, including Equity, that no television programme in which their members take part shall be sold to South Africa?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord had best be his own judge of what constitutes hypocrisy. I must tell the noble Lord that the Government are in no way responsible for the policies of trade unions. The restrictive measures we agreed in common with our Commonwealth and Community partners were intended as a political signal to bring home to the South African Government the urgent need for peaceful dialogue leading to fundamental change. In no way was that signal meant to discourage legitimate civil trade which, I suspect, would not be to the benefit of the whole population.

Bredero (Bon Accord Centre, Aberdeen) Order Confirmation Bill
3 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Highland Region (Lochinver Harbour) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Solicitors (Scotland) Bill
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Morton of Shuna.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the Bill. In fact, I approve of it, and I am supported in that view by the citizens of——
Noble Lords: Order, order!

Local Government Finance Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO BE MOVED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to HL Bill 82 as first printed by the Lords. The Commons reasons and amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 13, page 10, line 3, at end insert—
"() If a person is undertaking a course of nursing education on each day of that period, the amount he is liable to pay under this section shall be determined by order, no such amount being less than one-fifth of the amount it would be apart from this section.".
2 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
Because the amendment affects local taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may he deemed sufficient..
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their amendment numbered 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2. With the leave of the House, I should also like to speak to amendments numbered 3, 4 and 4A which all relate to the same subject.
Your Lordships will recall that we had two interesting debates on the subject of student nurses and the community charge. At the end of the second debate on report the Government were defeated on an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. That group of amendments was intended to require my right honourable friend to make an order determining the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses. The order could have set a level of payment between 20 per cent. and 100 per cent. The Government accept the spirit behind the amendments agreed in your Lordships' House.
My right honourable friend is content that he would be required to specify in secondary legislation the level of community charges to be paid by student nurses. The original amendments were, however, defective in their drafting in a number of ways. In order to ensure that the powers operated effectively, it was obviously essential to replace the amendments. The Government did that in another place, and the consequence is reason numbered 2 and part of amendment numbered 4 which disagree with your Lordships' amendments numbered 1 and 3. The other part of amendment numbered 4 is the substitute amendment which produces the same effect as those it replaces except in one respect. The amendments moved on Report by the noble Baroness would have allowed the level of payment to be set anywhere between 20 per cent. and 100 per cent. The government amendment allows a choice only between 100 per cent. payment and 20 per cent. The option of interim levels of payment will not he open except of course to the extent that student nurses may be eligible for rebate. That reflects the fact that in practice the Government may choose only 20 per cent. or 100 per cent.; in other words, whether the student nurses should be treated as students in some or all cirumstances.
The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment for further debate today (amendment numbered 4A). Perhaps I may first reassure her that my right honourable friend will, in the regulations he makes under the government amendment, be setting out the level of community charge to be paid by all student nurses. He will be defining those student nurses who will pay only 20 per cent. If there are to be any categories of student nurse which are not to benefit from that relief they will also be shown in the regulations. I know that that has been a matter of some concern, but I hope that my reassurance has helped to clarify the position.
However, amendment numbered 4A can be read another way. The noble Baroness might be attempting to go further and say that certain categories of pre-Project 2000 student nurses should automatically pay less than 100 per cent. If that is so, I do not believe that that is something that was in her original amendment or that I can recommend your

155
Lordships to accept as it would not be in accordance with our usual procedures.
What I can say to the noble Baroness is that when Project 2000 is implemented, the nature of student nurses' training will alter and they will begin to receive bursaries rather than salaries. At that point, student nurses would in any case automatically become students for the purposes of the community charge. That leaves a level of community charge to be paid by student nurses before Project 2000 is implemented. No decision has yet been taken on that matter. We shall be considering the matter carefully in the light of all the issues that arise, including the timetable for implementing Project 2000 and of course the views expressed in your Lordships' House. We shall then announce our decision, probably in the autumn of this year, and lay the regulations that the amendment requires my right honourable friend to make.
I hope that what I have said has been helpful. Let me confirm that the Government accept the spirit of the amendments originally passed in your Lordships' House, and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make regulations setting the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses, both those who are on salaries and those post-Project 2000 who receive bursaries. I am afraid that I cannot today say what those regulations will include so far as pre-Project 2000 student nurses are concerned; but the Government will come to a view on this matter in the next few weeks before regulations are laid in the autumn. In doing that we shall of course take account of the views expressed in your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their amendment numbered 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and for the amendment that he moved which was introduced in another place. I should also like to thank him for the two long letters he wrote to me in which he tried to explain the implications of the Government's amendments. I regret that his second letter arrived while I was abroad. I was unable to communicate with him until 1 p.m. today. I tried to telephone him from about 12 noon onwards when I returned but he is such a busy man that his telephone was engaged all the time.
I of course accept the implications of a varying rebate if the Government were to use the power contained in my original amendment. I do not argue about that. I welcome the recognition in the Bill of nursing education as part of student education. That was originally missing from the Bill. It now appears in the Bill, and so to that extent I accept the government amendments.
What worries me is that the amendments give the Government power to specify which courses constitute full-time courses of nursing education for the purpose of the 80 per cent. poll tax. The crucial point to me and my fellow Members on these Benches is how the Government mean to use their powers. We
156
are reassured that once Project 2000 is fully introduced and nursing students move from a salary to a bursary they will automatically become students for the purposes of the rebate; so that is not at issue.
However, the Minister will remember that in debating the amendments which I introduced prior to this one there is the problem of what happens before Project 2000 is introduced in full. It will be remembered that this interim period before the introduction of Project 2000 could be very significant. Some student nurses will start their nursing education perhaps only three months before the introduction of Project 2000. We all hope that that will take place in 1990. They will therefore remain under the old system for the whole of the period of their training. It is inconceivable that they should move across to Project 2000 in mid-stream.
We do not know what is going to happen about the introduction of Project 2000. It is also unclear at what rate students will become proper students; in other words, in receipt of bursaries or full bursaries and no salary once the run-in to the introduction of Project 2000 begins. It may take a number of years before the new system is fully introduced. Even if it is fully introduced in 1990 there will still be the anomaly of the students who started their ordinary nursing student training perhaps only three months before Project 2000 was introduced.
I have read Hansard for another place and the Government were questioned on the issue during the debate there on 20th July. The Minister for Local Government said:
"We have not decided how to exercise the order-making power".
—[Official Report. Commons, 20/7/88; col. 1129.]
He also said, at col. 1121:
"That is an issue on which we have yet to take a decision".
That is what worries and concerns me. It is the Government's intention which is the crucial issue. We on these Benches have no objection in principle to accepting the Government's new amendment as long as they are prepared now to commit themselves to granting poll tax rebate to student nurses under the conditions which I have mentioned. If this power is not used to any significant extent, there will be tremendous problems in nurse recruitment prior to the introduction of Project 2000. But if the Minister can assure me that the Government intend to treat student nurses as students the moment the poll tax is introduced, great relief will be felt among students all round the country. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give me that assurance.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question for genuine information related to the return to us by the Commons of this amendment. We are told that the Commons reject it because the amendment affects local taxation. I am extremely confused as to the criteria on which the Commons turned down our amendment on the ground that it affects local taxation. I should have thought a great many of the matters we have been discussing throughout this long, cold summer have affected local taxation in the field of education and many other fields.

157
What is the test by which it affects taxation or does not affect taxation? When we decided that we should not charge poll tax to the people in short-stay hostels, that would affect taxation. There must be some rule. I genuinely ask for information because we need to know this. What makes an amendment affect local taxation in one case and not in others? I am mystified.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I spoke previously in support of the amendment passed in this House benefiting nurses. If I have any comment to make on the amendment now before the House it is that it does not go far enough. I cannot understand why the Government have consistently been a little mean-handed with this branch of a respected profession. I have heard arguments to the contrary, but it seems to me that there is a distinction between the student nurse and the nurse who will move into the situation of full-time education and other trainees, if one wishes to use that word. Perhaps I may point out that the nursing profession itself does not like the use of the term "trainees". Nonetheless, they are in training in one sense or another.
These people do not have the opportunity that so many other students have to earn extra money, to do extra things and to have long vacations in which they can also be economically viable, to put it at its lowest. There are not that many nurses involved. Three times amendments have been put by others to your Lordships' House to suggest that a special privilege or special right should be granted to this group of people. They are not numerous, unfortunately, in terms of student nurses as opposed to other nurses. They are articulate and are championed, I am glad to see, by the noble Baroness; and I congratulate her on it. It seems to me that it would not be difficult for the Government to accept that the Secretary of State would have the powers to make the necessary regulations.
If I remember correctly the last amendment on which this matter was discussed, nobody asked that any money should be expended or that any specific task should he enjoined upon the Government. It was very simply the granting of powers to smooth out the anomaly first of all between Scotland and England relative to the timing of the introduction of the community charges Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill; and, secondly, those nurses who would already be in one form of education and unlikely to switch to another.
I am sorry to disagree with the Minister but I have deep suspicions that this will not be introduced with the same degree of funding as one might hope. Also, it will not be followed (as I personally believe it ought to be) with the support this House would have shown to this relatively small number of people, the student nurses.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I ventured on an earlier amendment, at an earlier stage of these proceedings, to give a perfectly sincere though not universally accepted view as to the constitution of this country and the relationship between the two Houses. If I may refer to what the noble Baroness mentioned a moment ago, I gave very clear references from two universally accepted
158
textbooks as to the extent to which another place regarded its privileges and had done so for more than 250 years. They included local taxation. They had nothing to do with the terms of the Parliament Act which discusses the meaning of a money Bill.
Perhaps noble Lords will look at Amendment No. 2 on the Marshalled List, to which the noble Baroness has already referred. It says:
"the Commons do not offer any further reason"
other than the fact that the amendment affects taxation——
"trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient".
I warned the House that that was the line that another place would inevitably take. The Commons gave the following reason for disagreeing with the amendments:
"Because the amendments involve charges on public funds and affect local taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient".
I told the House that that would happen. And it has happened. I beg the noble Baroness who speaks from the Liberal Benches and the noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench to pay some attention to the previous attitude of their parties as regards the relationship between the two Houses. I know the words "I told you so" are very unpleasant; but I propose to use them now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall he happy to respond to the noble and learned Lord when we come to later amendments where that matter becomes an issue. But the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, has not raised it in her amendment and I do not believe it is relevant to our discussion on this group of amendments.
What was missing from the Minister's speech was any recognition of the sterling work of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord. Lord Trafford, and particularly my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna, in advancing the Government's thinking on the matter of student nurses and the poll tax. It is an undoubted fact that the Government, under reasoned pressure over weeks and even months, have acceded in large part to arguments which they resisted at the very beginning.
Their opening stand was that nursing education, either now or in the future, should not be treated in the same way as other forms of post-school education. They have now recognised—and we are grateful for it—that when Project 2000 comes in nursing education will be treated in the same way as other forms of post-school education and will, therefore, not be subject to the poll tax. The force behind the amendments put down at all stages by noble Lords from all sides of the House was not only in respect of the long-term but also a recognition of the desperate shortage of nurses in the health service in England, Wales and Scotland.
The failure of the Government, having accepted all the other parts of the argument, is to go the last part of the way and recognise the difficulty there will be in the transitional period. The existing shortage of nurses, the problems about nurses' education and the penury in which nurses in education now exist are not

159
resolved by the Government's amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is concerned with the transitional period. Her amendment gives regulation-making power to the Minister. It does not impose anything on the Government which would delay the Bill. The Government could accept the amendment if it were approved by your Lordships now in advance of it being put to a Vote and the Bill would suffer no loss. It could be accepted by the House of Commons in two minutes flat and the Bill could receive Royal Assent by Friday without any difficulty. I suggest to noble Lords that rather than getting sidetracked now on constitutional issues, they should consider the very real merits of the case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I voted for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, when it was previously before us. I did so in the spirit which I think nearly all of your Lordships on all sides of the House show when they are asking the Commons to think again about a Bill we have received from there.
We carried that amendment; I am glad that we did. In another place Members gave the amendment further thought. The Government, having given it further thought, advised another place accordingly. It is contrary to the spirit of the constitutional relationship between the two Houses that, having given another place the chance of second thoughts, we should go on trading the amendment back to them again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a point which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone answered. It related to the Commons reason for disagreeing with the amendment; namely, that it affects local taxation. The Commons stated that it trusted that reason was sufficient and that this House would not take the matter any further. It is true, as my noble and learned friend said, that the Parliament Act does not specifically' deal with local taxation and make it impossible for us to deal with it. But page 854 of Erskine May states that it is a matter of privilege. On matters of privilege affecting finance of any kind, the House of Commons has the right to express the hope that it will have the last word. I should have thought that on this occasion it is best that it should have the last word.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may or may not be correct. I do not wish to enter into that argument. But the amendment standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is not in contradiction of that assertion. It seeks to add to the Commons amendment. Therefore it does not disagree with the Commons amendment, but adds to it.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, when there is a shortage of 18-year-olds for training as nurses it is essential, for the sake of the people who may become ill during the next 10 years or so, that we do nothing that diminishes the number of nurses in
160
training. We should suggest to another place that it accepts the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness and my noble friend which merely gives a power to the Government to make regulations, if they so wish. I should have thought that that was entirely consistent with the constitutional issue.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to consider once again whether, even though this provision concerns the giving of a power, it does not affect local taxation and does not give power to the Minister to impose it or to make charges on public funds. Obviously, it does. The amendment adds a further insult to our constitution; one should be accepting defeat.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, although the noble and learned Lord makes that point, we have discussed for days at a time on this Bill the question of whether people who have mental deficiencies of various kinds should receive rebates. We have also discussed whether people in various situations—for example, people in care or carers—should receive rebates. Those cases have all been discussed without the noble and learned Lord on any occasion raising the constitutional issue.
If my memory is correct, this matter was raised in an article in The Times written by the noble and learned Lord. It was not raised on Second Reading. Advice we received from those who are empowered to give it was that the practice of another place was not to raise the question of privilege on matters of local taxation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am sure that the last thing that he wishes to do is to mislead the House. I raised this matter in Committee on the very first amendment in this Chamber. I did not reiterate my complaint on every single amendment which followed, but what I said was said in terms which were designed to mean, and were understood to mean, exactly what I have said this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. The matter was not raised on Second Reading. I think that was what I said. It was not raised by the Government and it had not been raised by the Commons at that stage.
Page 850 of Erskine May reads:
"Amendments infringing privilege with respect to local rates. The Commons now generally waive their claim regarding amendments made to bills that they have sent to the Lords, dealing with municipal, county and local rates and assessments".
According to Erskine May, that has been the practice over the years. I should have thought that the discussion concerning the Bill in your Lordships' House showed that that is the general practice. I believe that amendment numbered 4A is perfectly within the spirit of Erskine May.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the other place has previously not raised the question of local expenditure or taxation.

161
However, it is clear that the claim to privilege is there. Has it occurred to the noble Lord that the reason the other place is raising the matter now is that it feels (perhaps not without justification) that the amendments carried in this House on the Bill have sought to take the power of this House to intervene in matters of local government finance and taxation a good deal further than has been the case for many years? If you press people who possess a power—in this case, the power to claim privilege—you are apt to get precisely the reaction we have had. The other place has said, "Now that you are pushing this as hard as you are, we must rely on our privilege or the whole balance of power between the Houses will be permanently upset".
The noble Lord made the extraordinary observation that my noble and learned friend had not raised the matter on Second Reading. He did not raise it on Second Reading because there were no amendments on Second Reading. It is only when amendments arise which seek to interfere in local government finance that the question arises. My noble and learned friend raised the issue on the very first amendment. I have heard some bad points made in this House; I have not often heard a worse one.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has never heard a worse point. I have certainly made some bad points and I believe I have made many points that were worse than the present one. However, if the question of a Bill being a money Bill or a Bill that raises the question of Commons privilege was to be raised, it would have been raised by the noble and learned Lord not only in an article in The Times before Second Reading but also on Second Reading. Surely he would have suggested to the House that debate should be restricted on the lines of the assertions of another place.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, once again, with great hesitation I ask the noble Lord to give way. I did not raise the matter on Second Reading. There has never been a privilege of the other place to refuse to allow this House to discuss even a money Bill on Second Reading. This has nothing whatever to do with a money Bill. That conception was introduced into Parliament in 1911. I was speaking of the immemorial privilege of the other place which was asserted as early as the 17th century. The noble Lord must study the elements of constitutional law.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I studied the elements of constitutional law a long time ago. I may well have forgotten many of them. In view of the debates which have taken place in another place and in view of the suggestions that were made at Second Reading, I believe that the House would have expected that some of the amendments foreshadowed at Second Reading might be suggested to be out of place by the noble and learned Lord. However, I do not believe that the argument can be continued further. Perhaps I shall be allowed to sit down without being asked to say anything more.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, on only one point. It is quite irrelevant that he did not raise the matter on Second Reading. He raised the broad issue in a letter to The Times, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has referred. However, it is not relevant that he did not raise the issue on Second Reading.
To my mind, the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is totally different from and contradictory to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said that it was desirable that your Lordships' House should express an opinion on the matter which should then be considered again by another place and by the Government. He said that if, after consideration, they said, "No", that would be a different matter.
The proposition which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, advanced in his letter and during debate on the first amendment was that the House should not only not have the last word but that it should not have a first word. That is completely different from the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the other place claims privilege when it does not like an amendment carried by this House. However, if it happens to think an amendment carried by this House is agreeable and reasonable, it does not claim privilege. In fact, the privilege is just as strong in either case. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will not get into too great a passion on the matter or be too intoxicated by his own omniscience.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with great interest. The other place has a right to be jealous of its privileges. They go back a long way. This House has always been jealous of those privileges because real power lies there. We are fortunate on some amendments that the Speaker was prepared to put them to the other place at all. On more than one occasion I exercised that right and said to the other place, "I shall not put the amendment to the House because the other place has exceeded its powers". This House then accepted that ruling. It had no choice.
The other place has power and it is not for us to seek to diminish it. It could not have put the matter in rougher language in rejecting the amendments on the ground that this House has exceeded its power. On this matter, I should have thought that all those who have served in another place would remember that above all we must protect its rights concerning expenditure. The other place fought hard for those rights. There was a civil war over the matter. I should be the last to attempt to encroach when another place has said, "You are going too far".
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the discussion. However, having been the Leader of your Lordships' House for some four years, I believe that I should contribute briefly. When I was a Member of another place, I was extremely jealous of its privileges. When I came to your Lordships' House and had the great privilege of

163
leading it, I properly became jealous of the privileges of this House. I believe that the privileges can easily be reconciled within our parliamentary system. They can be reconciled by some thought being given by each side to the privileges of the other. Both Houses should act in accordance with that principle.
I think that this House has made very important changes to the Bill. I believe that the Government and the Secretary of State in another place have taken considerable account of what your Lordships have done during the passage of the Bill. That is as it should be. This House has given its advice to another place. In some cases that advice was taken. That is as it should be.
In those cases in which, after consideration, it has not been taken, it seems to me that in your Lordships' House we have done a great deal to improve those Bills—as indeed we did on many other Bills while I was privileged to be Leader. However, there comes a moment when it is right for this House to bow to the position, privileges and views of another place rather than to press its views much further. That is the position which I believe we have reached today so far as concerns these amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we have now strayed firmly onto the ground which is covered by amendment numbered 11 B. I am one of those who believes that your Lordships' House should be quite firm and quite resolute in asserting the powers that lie in your Lordships' hands when it comes to differences with another place. However, that does not mean that your Lordships should interfere with any matter of supply; in other words, any matter that concerns public expenditure.
The reason for that is twofold. First, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham reminded your Lordships, in the 17th century the other place asserted the principle that it alone was concerned with all forms of expenditure. Your Lordships' House acquiesced with that assertion until 1910 –1911. The second reason is that if two Houses are concerned with supply, the Constitution becomes completely snarled up. We saw that happen in Australia where the senate asserted and indeed had the power to interfere with supply, withheld supply and caused a change of government.
I entirely agree with the way in which the case was put by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy. It is essential that, while insisting on our very real powers, your Lordships' House should not attempt to interfere with the other place's superiority and exclusive control over all matters of public expenditure and supply. In fact it is doubly dangerous to do so because the other place has its own rules which limit the discussion of supply, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with his Treasury experience will bear out.
The matter is difficult in this sense: many people regard the Parliament Act as embodying a complete code of law: that there are money Bills which have their own special procedures and there are all the other Bills. There are two things to be said about that. The first is the point that was made by my noble and learned friend that there is nothing to inhibit your
164
Lordships in discussing money Bills, even money Bills strictly defined and properly certified. They can be discussed but they cannot be effectively amended.
The second point is that the Parliament Act itself makes it plain that that is not exhaustive. It says, first, what can be done by your Lordships' House with Bills other than money Bills and then what can be done with money Bills, which is much more restrictive. However, a further clause was added—I think that it is Section 6 of the 1911 Act—which says that nothing in the foregoing (which refers to money Bills) should be taken as in any way derogating from the privileges of the House of Commons as heretofore asserted. That goes back to the resolutions of the 17th century.
Unfortunately two explanations were given of that particular provision. Two Ministers were in charge at that time. The Home Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill, said that it referred to the privileges of the House of Commons as against the Crown; but the Postmaster-General, Mr. Herbert Samuels, said, no, it referred to the other financial privileges of the House of Commons. I agree with the interpretation which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham put upon that provision and with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy.
I have nothing to say on the matter on which this debate turns. However, since we have touched on the subject of its constitutional basis, it seems to me that this House, while firmly asserting its powers as to matters of which it has undoubted cognisance, should be extremely cautious of—no, should abnegate—any attempt to deal with questions of supply, in other words with questions of public expenditure.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am under the impression—I hope that it is correct—that we are discussing amendment numbered 4A. Amendment numbered 4A deals with the tax treatment of student nurses. As I understand it, the amendment meets the rules of order of your Lordships' House and it is an amendment of the kind which your Lordships have debated, carried and put to the other place. I find it an extraordinary state of affairs, and I certainly think that those in the nursing profession will find it even more extraordinary that we have had two speeches on the subject of the amendment from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Trafford.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And me, my Lords.
Lord Peston: My Lords, and from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We have also had a long series of lectures on the British Constitution which, interesting though they are—and I found them immensely interesting, speaking as an academic—seem to me to have no bearing on this matter.
Speaking I hope for others, but certainly for myself, I feel that we are not doing our duty as Members of your Lordships' House in debating the Constitution instead of debating the amendment. It may be a good or a bad amendment, but it is certainly debatable and it is certainly one which I think we owe

165
it to student nurses to debate properly and if necessary take a view on, because it deals with a serious matter. To tell student nurses in due course that the reason nothing was done about this matter was because we preferred to spend half an hour discussing constitutional matters would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, as something like 50 per cent. of local authority expenditure is financed by the Exchequer, surely we should recognise the fiscal privileges of the other place.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I ask for a few more minutes! I think that I must rise to explain why I shall be voting for the Government and recommending my colleagues to do likewise. I completely share the views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. I recognise the benefits that he was able to introduce for this House during his period of leadership. I must be a great simpleton, but I find less difficulty in this matter than some of your Lordships. Noble Lords are entitled to discuss broadly what they like and to come to whatever conclusions they like. They are not prevented, and I very much hope that they never will be, from exercising their discretion as to what topics they discuss and what they do not discuss in their own way and by their own general consent.
We are not entitled to require the other place to accept our views. If the other place chooses to say that this is a matter of privilege—and we know that it is a matter of privilege; there is no dispute about that—it is entitled to do so. If, on another occasion, it chooses to say, "Well, we rather like this amendment", in my view the question of privilege does not then arise. With great respect to those who have put a different point of view, it is not my opinion that the other place is then disregarding its privileges. Certainly it is not my view that it is then eroding its own privileges. It is the case that it takes a view on the substance of the matter.
As regards the substance of the matter, I am wholly in favour of the amendment. In the situation in which we find ourselves, having discussed the matter, put it to the other place, received certain knowledge that the other place has given it the further consideration that we are entitled to ask it to give, should this matter be put to a Division (which I very much hope it will not be) I shall advise my colleagues to support the Government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, clearly the intervention of the noble Baroness Lady Seear, has led to a most interesting debate on the constitution. I think that it would be wrong for me to prolong that debate, but with your Lordships' permission perhaps I may say a few words on the matter. I should like to take noble Lords back to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which we are now discussing, as well as to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 4A.
In speaking to Amendment No. 4A the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, was concerned that there should be certainty about the new arrangements. Let me state clearly that there will indeed be certainty. This autumn we shall make absolutely clear the level of community charge to be
166
paid by student nurses. I do not think that certainty requires any kind of transitional scheme, as the noble Baroness sought to argue. It merely requires the Secretary of State to spell out which student nurses will pay 20 per cent. and which, if any, will pay 100 per cent.
If the decision is taken that some student nurses should pay the full charge, that will be because pre-Project 2000 student nurses will still be receiving salaries rather than bursaries. if the decision is taken that all student nurses should pay 20 per cent., one of the considerations will indeed be, as the noble Baroness pointed out, that there might be a risk of confusion if some student nurses were paying only 20 per cent. of the community charge while others were paying the full amount. Those arguments are indeed ones that the Government will weigh carefully when reaching a decision.
It is not just that when Project 2000 is fully introduced student nurses in any case will be students for the purposes of the community charge. Let me confirm that any student nurse who is trained under the Project 2000 scheme will pay only 20 per cent. The question is whether student nurses who begin their training before Project 2000 should pay 100 per cent. or 20 per cent. I am afraid that, like my honourable friend in another place, I cannot yet say how much such nurses will pay. That matter is still under active consideration.
I must put to your Lordships that what I surmised when I opened the debate has indeed proved to be correct; namely, that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is trying to go further than the amendment that was inserted in the Bill in your Lordships' House. That amendment gave the Secretary of State the right to decide, and in moving her amendment at Report stage the noble Baroness clearly indicated that that was what she wanted. I should like to quote from the debate on 30th June (Official Report, col. 1750) in which the noble Baroness said no more than that,
"the Secretary of State will hopefully use it to minimise the differential between students and student nurses".
Clearly the noble Baroness went considerably further than that this afternoon.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, perhaps I may say that it is simply not the case that we have always proposed to deny student nurses the 80 per cent. student discount. Our starting position was that student nurses on salaries should not be treated as students but that Project 2000 student nurses should receive the discount. I should like to refer the noble Lord to something that my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in Committee on 6th June, at col, 1196 of the Official Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I did not say that the Government had always wanted to deny the student nurses the 80 per cent. What I said was that the further concessions which have been made were about the 20 per cent. That is our concern.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that I have covered the point that the noble Lord raised. Before I close perhaps I may pick up a point that

167
rather surprised many of your Lordships who are aware of the situation of nurses. It was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I thought that they made some rather extraordinary comments about recruitment and pay for nurses.
Contrary to the assertions of the noble Lords, this Government have an outstanding record for increases in nurses' pay and cutting the burden of income tax that nurses have to bear, thus making the nursing profession a much more attractive proposition for prospective entrants than it was in 1979. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, shakes his head, but he knows that under this Government nurses' pay has increased by over 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979 compared with a fall of over 20 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way. I do not think I said a word about the levels of pay of nurses. I commented on the lack of 18 year-olds to be trained as nurses, which is a purely demographic issue. I did not say a word about levels of pay; nor did I criticise the Government. If I had thought about it, perhaps I would have criticised the Government, but in fact I did not do so. Therefore, the noble Earl should not put into my mouth words that I never said. I said that there was a shortage of 18 year-olds and perhaps even the Government will accept that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord said (and I stand to be corrected when I read the Official Report) that he was concerned about recruitment to the nursing profession. He has raised the question of finance before. Moreover, in addition to what we have done as regards nurses' pay, the income tax paid, for example, by a first-year student nurse has fallen in constant prices from £908 in 1979 to £744 last year, which is a drop of 18 per cent. There can be no doubt of the support that this Government give to nurses. However, I have to say to your Lordships that the noble Baroness, in speaking to her Amendment No. 4A, made it absolutely clear that she wanted to go further than the amendment which was accepted at Report stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 27, page 16, line 29, at end insert "and
(e) education may include nursing education.".
4 The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—
Page 16, line 29, at end insert—
"(2A) The regulations shall include a statement of what courses constitute, in the Secretary of State's opinion, full-time courses of nursing education: but this is without prejudice to the power to provide, or not to provide, that a person undertaking such a course is to be treated as undertaking a full-time course of education for the purposes of this Part.".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move. Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their
168
Amendment No. 4 in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT 4 IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT 3
4A Clause 27, at end insert—
("() The regulations referred to in subsection (2A) above shall provide for a transitional scheme to take effect from the date of introduction of the community charge to ensure that any person who is eligible for inclusion in a course under this section is so included during the period before the full replacement of nursing student salaries by bursaries or grants.").
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 4 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4A.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must say that I have absolutely no such constitutional knowledge as do others who have taken part in the debate. However, I have listened with very great care to what has been said. I thought that when I came to move my amendment to the Commons amendment, Members of this House would express their opinion on the amendment itself. I do not understand why an amendment which deals with a small number of people, some of whom are the most deserving in our society, and which addresses the matter not even on a permanent basis but as an interim measure, should provoke a constitutional debate so that the whole mind of the House is diverted from the amendment that I tried to introduce.
The amendment that I intended to introduce does not change the Government's amendments. We accept them. We just specify how the measures should apply to nurses. The House will remember that at Committee stage I moved an amendment which was defeated by only six votes—the figures were 94 to 100. That was a much stronger amendment, and we nearly won that Division. At Report stage I moved another amendment on the lines of my present proposal, which was approved by a majority of 20 Members of this House. It seems to me a tragedy that we should be in this position today where I am told that we cannot insist on this amendment. We are discussing a group of people to whom all of us owe the greatest thanks. They work hard and without them all of us at our age have a very poor future. I regret that I cannot move the amendment.
Noble Lords: My Lords, you can.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I regret that I cannot move the amendment.
[Amendment numbered 4A not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 116 page 64, line 3, at end insert—
"(3) Each relevant authority which is a charging authority in relation to the Personal Community charge shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, make arrangements for—

(a) the administration of the Community Charge Additional Element as specified in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 13 below; and

169

(b) the calculation in each year from 1st April 1990 of its Personal Community Charge in relation to the national average charge for that year, for the purposes of determining whether any person in its area may be eligible for the Community Charge Additional Element.".

6 Schedule 13, page 125. line 45, at end insert—
"(5AA) Where a disabled person is entitled to community charge benefit in respect of a day, and section 20(8E)(a) or (b) above applies, the amount to which he is entitled shall be the sum of the community charge additional element and the amount which is the appropriate maximum community charge benefit in his case.".
7 Page 126, line 5, at end insert—
"(5BA) Where a disabled person is entitled to community charge benefit in respect of a day, and section 20(8E)(c) above applies, the amount to which he is entitled shall be found by deducting amount B from amount A, where—

(a) amount A is the sum of the community charge additional element and the appropriate maximum community charge benefit in his case, and

(b) amount B is the prescribed percentage of the difference between the applicable amount and the income of the person concerned in respect of that day.".

8 Page 126, line 5, at end insert—
"(5BB) For the purposes of (5AA) and (5BA) above, a person is a disabled person if he is in receipt of:

(i) income support with disablement premium, or

(ii) income support with higher pensioners' premium, or

(iii) attendance allowance, or

(iv) mobility allowance, or

(v) severe disablement allowance, or

if he is registered blind or partially sighted.".
9 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
Because the amendments involve charges on public funds and affect local taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may he deemed sufficient.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their amendments numbered 5 to 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 9. With the leave of the House I should also like to speak to the amendments and reasons numbered 10, 11, 11A, 11B, 14, 15, 15A and 15B which are all related to the same point.
When we debated that the Local Government Finance Bill should pass from this House, virtually all those who spoke remarked on the good spirit in which our debates on the Bill had been conducted. Your Lordships will recall that there were also many references to the concessions that the Government had made as a result of the arguments that were put forward in your Lordships' House. I believe that the consideration of this Bill has shown the value of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. There is no doubt in my mind that the Bill was greatly improved as it left this House compared with when it arrived.
Those who attended our debates will recall the many important changes that the Government made as a result of the arguments put forward by noble Lords from all sides. Your Lordships will recall how noticeable it is that so many of them concerned the most disadvantaged members of our society; the homeless, the handicapped, those on very low incomes and the organisations that are dedicated to caring for them. That is a testament to the concern of your Lordships' House, but it is also a clear indication of the Government's willingness to listen
170
and, on issues such as these, to be guided by the wisdom and expertise of your Lordships' House.
I prefaced my remarks in the way that I have because I think it is important to set in context the issue now before us. Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage, an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, providing for 100 per cent. rebates for the disabled, was defeated by 20 votes. However, at the Report stage, a somewhat revised series of amendments was approved. It was contended that one of the purposes of your Lordships' House might be to invite the other place to look again at certain aspects of the Bill. The noble Lord gave the other place that opportunity with his amendments. The other place has looked at the matter again and has disagreed with the amendments because they would strike so fundamentally at the basic purpose of the Bill.
I must emphasise that the reasons the Government asked the other place to disagree to the amendments were reasons which were entirely concerned with the policy underlying the Bill. I should also like to stress that the Government's attitude to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is not borne of any lack of concern for the disabled. That much, I hope, is evident from the concessions for the disabled that we have made in the Bill. I would also remind noble Lords that as a result of the social security changes which took effect from April of this year disabled people are on average£4.50 a week better off than they were before. The Government's aim has been to target help where it is needed. Among the main beneficiaries of that policy have been the disabled. The same is true of the community charge rebate system. It too will be specifically designed to give extra help in three important respects to those who are disabled. First, disabled people who have far higher net incomes than their able-bodied counterparts will be eligible for rebates, whether the maximum or any other level of rebate. In 1988–89, for example, that differential is £13.05 a week.
Secondly, for those disabled people who have earnings, the first £15 a week of those earnings are disregarded in calculating their entitlements to rebates. For individuals who are not disabled, the disregard is only £5 a week.
Thirdly, the whole of any mobility allowance and attendance allowance will be disregarded in calculating entitlement to community charge rebate as well as the first £5 a week of any more pension.
Among the amendments which were made to the Bill in your Lordships' House are those which ensure that those who are severely mentally impaired as a result of accidents in adulthood are exempt as well as those handicapped from birth or in childhood. That was another major government concession.
I must also say at this point that I suspect that there may be some misunderstanding about the extent of the exemption for the severely mentally impaired. A number of individual cases have featured in the press and on the radio recently in discussions on this topic. All the cases of which I am aware concern mentally handicapped young people living with their parents. On the facts as I have heard and seen them described, all the young people concerned would he exempt from the community charge. Under no circumstances

171
would they therefore be required to pay anything and no question of a rebate would arise. To them the noble Lord's amendments are superfluous.
So far as concerns those on low incomes who are not exempt, those living in low-spending areas will be slightly in pocket as a result of our proposals. Those living where spending is higher will find that they will have to pay slightly more. That will be true of all those who are community charge payers in any area. In the case of those on low incomes including the low-income disabled, the amounts involved are small. In only five local authority areas would the amount be more than 50p a week even on present spending. But the Government believe that those amounts are crucial to ensuring that local councils are fully accountable to the adults in their area.
Before I sit down I should like to give two further assurances which I hope will underline the Government's concern in these matters. The first involves the level of uprating to be included in income support to reflect the 20 per cent. community charge payments that will be made. That uprating will be carried out this autumn in time for the start of the community charge system in Scotland in 1989. In deciding the amounts to be included within income support, the Government will of course take account of the best estimate available at that time of likely community charges.
The second point on which I wish to reassure your Lordships is this. Much of the concern that has been expressed in your Lordships' House and outside relates in practice to the total amount that needs to be provided for disabled people to live on. I believe that the Government have an excellent record in this respect. I have already referred to the more generous treatment that disabled people receive in the social security and rebate systems. Let me assure your Lordships that the Government have no intention of resting on their laurels. We keep, and will continue to keep, these matters under constant review. That approach of reflecting the needs of disabled people in the social security system is, it seems to me, the appropriate one.
On the basis that the Government are committed to it, I invite your Lordships to agree that we should not pursue the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for altogether laudable motives. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, in view of what he said, I think that I should point out that there is a material misprint on the Marshalled List against the reason numbered 9. Instead of reading that,
"the Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason",
it should read "these amendments" because my noble friend has pointed out that they disagreed with amendments numbered 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I apologise for the spelling mistake in amendment numbered 9. Of course "this" should read "these" and "amendment" should read "amendments".
Moved, That the House do not insist on their amendments numbered 5 to 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 9, as amended.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the previous group of amendments, I refrained from commenting on the constitutional aspects of the matter not least because of my manifest incapacity to do so. On this group of amendments I have raised two amendments which might be thought to have constitutional significance. I think that it is right that I should introduce them properly. First, I wish to point out what a short way they go. Amendments numbered 11B and 15B do not in any way question the judgment of Mr. Speaker, or the right of another place to oppose any amendment on privileged grounds. Nor do they in any way delay the progress of this Bill. They accept the amendments which have already been spoken to by the noble Earl that the House do not insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. So if these two amendments are passed the Bill can go through without a single second's delay.
However, we believe that it is necessary to make not a constitutional but a political protest against what has happened as a result of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House and another place. According to Erskine May, it has been recognised in the past that, although the Commons has a privilege over local rates:
"The Commons now generally waive their claim regarding amendments made to bills that they have sent to the Lords, dealing with municipal, county and local rates and assessments".
That is stated at page 850. The change that has taken place as a result of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House is that a greater part of local government finance is now paid from central resources, and the claim can now be made—in fact is being made by the Commons—that any view that your Lordships take about any part, of local government finance, whether it is the community charge or the other parts, can be subject to the privilege of the House of Commons. That is a major change. I have no idea whether it is a constitutional change, but it is a practical change, because for decades now your Lordships have felt it proper to debate and vote on issues relating to local government finance. We are now under threat that if we do so in a way which does not please another place, privilege can be invoked and your Lordships can be denied the right to do this. The right is not absolute; it is always by agreement of another place. But it is a valuable right because it affects so much of our public life, so much of the business that proceeds through Parliament, and demands and deserves the full consideration of your Lordships.
It is for that reason that I have put down these two amendments which do not seek to contest the right of another place, but regret that Her Majesty's Government are seeking to oppose the amendments not on their merits but on the grounds of Commons financial privilege, notwithstanding, as Erskine May has confirmed, that the Commons has in the past generally waived its privilege on issues relating to local government finance. Indeed—and this has

173
already been referred to in the House this afternoon—it has done so in relation to other amendments made by this House to the Local Government Finance Bill.
On the substance of the issue I yield to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I say from these Benches formally that we are deeply disappointed that the Government have felt it necessary to overturn the view which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, persuaded your Lordships was the right view and, as a result, have put the disabled poor at an unnecessary risk and have raised the possibility of unnecessary financial suffering for this very deserving group of people.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I was under the impression that we were discussing amendments numbered 5 to 8 and that we had not yet reached amendment numbered 11B. I for my part am not proposing to make any comment at this stage on the constitutional aspect, except to say that I recognise that, in view of the reason given by the House of Commons for rejecting our amendments, there can be no question of our challenging the decision taken by the elected Chamber. However, I was interested and very grateful to the Minister for not limiting himself to that reason but for giving an explanation, if I may say so, in rather more convincing terms than has previously been forthcoming for the reasons taken by the House of Commons on my amendments.
On reading the debates in the other place on these amendments I noticed that they did not centre on the powers of the House of Lords but that they centred on the merits of what we decided here. It seemed to me that the Government lost the argument by roughly the same margin as they won it on the vote.
I confess that I was a shade surprised to find that some words of mine were read out, somewhat out of context, and that they were accompanied by references to me which I might be forgiven for thinking could have been more felicitously phrased. But, in accordance with what I understand to be the traditions of this House, I propose to say no more about it.
On the merits though I may perhaps in the circumstances be permitted to say just a few words. I am still puzzled. There is the argument about accountability on which the Government have laid so much stress and to which the noble Earl referred today. The Government say time and again that it is essential that every citizen should have a financial interest in the affairs of his local council. But I find that extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with the fact that a person on maximum rebate who lives in an area with a less than average community charge receives not only the 100 per cent. relief for which I have been asking, but an additional financial bonus as well. It may be small, but it will be very welcome to those who receive it. Exactly what "accountability" means to an individual in that position does not exactly leap to the eye.
174
There are other anomalies, notwithstanding the improvements that we made in the Bill in this House, which have been accepted by another place. However, this provision seems to me to be the oddest of them all. Although I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said about mental handicap, what Ministers have said both in another place and in the media gives the impression that they think that the fact that the severely mentally impaired are exempt means that all the points which some of us have been making on behalf of the mentally handicapped have nothing in them. Alas, my Lords, it means nothing of the kind. It is true that the totally unsatisfactory provisions remaining in the Bill about certifying those suffering from severe mental impairment leave much too much scope for uncertainty. But whatever the numbers of those who in the end are so certified, there will be many mentally handicapped people who will not qualify for exemption but who will still be living at home with their parents, who may themselves be disabled on the borderline of poverty, as in the example I ventured to give to your Lordships at an earlier stage.
Some of the cases to which the BBC has given publicity may in the end be certified as severely mentally impaired. I just do not know. But to generalise from these few cases and to dismiss the many mentally impaired and mentally handicapped people falling short of the definition of "severe mental handicap" seems to me simply to be a refusal to face what amounts to a very serious problem.
We have no answer to the question: where do the Government think the money is coming from year by year for many of those on income support and faced with all the additional problems of disability? Nor have we had any answer to the point that the effect of the Bill is bound to be that more people will go into residential care (if they can find it); in fact, that is a contradiction of the Government's policy of care in the community. It is easy to understand why we have not had an answer to that point: there simply is not one.
I think that I have said enough. I wanted to put those few points on the record because I am sure that the day will come when it will be found how grave are the problems to which today's decision will give rise. I believe that the Government are likely to come to regret the decision for the reasons which some of their supporters have stated with great clarity. Unfortunately, so will numbers of the poorest, most struggling and deprived of our fellow citizens. When this hits them they may well be tempted to feel that common sense, compassion and any real understanding of what it means to be poor and mentally or physically disabled have had to give way to party dogma.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I eschew any attempt to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Allen. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, disclaimed any desire to speak on a constitutional issue, so I do not wish to cross swords with an acknowledged expert on the merits. My position has always rested with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding when he spoke on this subject on Second Reading.

175
I want to add a footnote to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, accused me of being intoxicated by my own omniscience. I do not claim to be omniscient but I claim to be a student of Erskine May. The difficulty about what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that he quoted only one of the references to Erskine May which I believe to be relevant. I do not have them immediatley in my head. Noble Lords will have seen that I have been sitting in my place since the debate began and have not had an opportunity to revert to my bible on these subjects. If the noble Lord will refer to my speech in Committee he will see that I made two references and not one. The first is at page 800 and something—the one to which he referred. I believe that there was an earlier reference which I think is at page 321, though I may be wrong.
The point is this. I believe that his proposed amendment contains a serious misapprehension. It is common ground that the Commons has a right to waive any of its privileges and it has not done so in the present case. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, went wrong, both in his speech and in the text which he was about to propose in respect of Amendment No. 11B, because he looked at only one of the two references and therefore he did not understand what the true practice has been in relation to local taxation.
I believe that if he studies Erskine May a little more fully he will discover that something similar to the following has been the practice. A large number of Acts go through Parliament which in one way or another affect local taxation and local imposts of various kinds, from drainage rates to general rates. Where they occur in local and private Acts of Parliament it is the custom of the House of Commons expressly to waive its privilege. I believe that it has usually done so—that it has done so universally but always expressly. However, where the tax in question is a general impost it has always insisted on its privilege, contrary to what is implied in the noble Lord's amendment.
I think that his proposed amendment is an objectionable one, notwithstanding the fact that it does not seek to challenge the supremacy of the Commons on this basis, because it contains a false statement of the constitutional practice. The fact is that where a general impost is imposed the Commons has always insisted on its amendments, except where it found it convenient expressly to waive them. The general practice to which he referred from the pages of Erskine May was related to private and local taxation where the Commons habitually waives its amendments. That is all I have to say.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this matter but it goes a little further than the subject in front of the House. With respect, perhaps I may refer to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It deals not only with private Acts of Parliament but also Bills sponsored by Private Members.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Yes.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, that is where local government expenditure has been permitted. As the House well knows, all Supply not only needs to be supported by a financial resolution but it must have the Queen's consent by Privy Counsellor. In the same way, any increases in taxation can be moved only on behalf of the Crown; namely, by a Privy Counsellor on behalf of the Government.
Many Bills have been passed affecting both local government revenue and expenditure without a financial resolution. I can call to mind an example which is very much in the context of that which we are discussing. The Bill imposed more charges and affected the disabled to a greater extent. It was put forward in 1970 by the right honourable Alfred Morris and the whole basis of the local authorities' responsibility for the disabled rests on it. There was no question of privilege being claimed in that case.
Noble Lords will remember that recently the House inserted an amendment into a Bill to replace dog licences. That was not objected to by the other place, though I believe that, because it rests on statutory instrument, statutory instrument is unlikely to be made. That is a different point.
I should be the last person to say that the House of Commons does not have the right to object on grounds with which I may or may not agree. I should be the last person to wish to challenge in a conflict the right of the elected Chamber against ourselves. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be wrong if it were thought that Private Members, whether in this House or in another place, should be inhibited because they do not have a financial resolution, which is strictly the privilege of the House of Commons. That may be thought to be so if the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was strictly adhered to.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to point out that the right honourable Alfred Morris was, and still is, a Member of the other place and not of your Lordships' House. What can be done in the other place is of course open to a Private Member. However, it is not within the rights of this House, whether by the Government or a Private Member, to deal with matters of Supply or expenditure, as my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches said a few moments ago.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to comment on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The amendment is curious because it seeks to censure Her Majesty's Government for seeking to oppose the amendment not on its merits but on the grounds of Commons financial privilege. That is a curious reason for seeking to blame the Government. During the course of the debate there has been little dispute or argument that Commons financial privilege covers the matter. Therefore it seems odd that the Government should be blamed if, in those circumstances, they invite your Lordships not to seek to violate it. What else could any government do? What could the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, do if he were on that Bench? Would he seriously invite your Lordships' House to

177
disregard Commons privilege? Of course he would not.
Therefore it is a quite extraordinary procedure to table an amendment censuring Her Majesty's Government for doing what any government plainly have the right, and I suggest the duty, to do in the circumstances. I invite your Lordships' attention to the fact that, whatever the merits, this is clearly a matter within Commons privilege and the other place has indicated that for those reasons it is not prepared to agree to it.
I very much sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, because he worked so hard on this issue: he has had the cup, as it were, dashed from his lips. I shall not seek to argue the merits of the matter, which he put so well and so movingly. I confine myself to the issue of your Lordships' House being asked to approve this quite extraordinary amendment.
In suggesting that your Lordships' House reject this amendment—and reject it firmly because, as I have already said, your Lordships' House knows that no government could make any other recommendation—I make just one further comment. I t is rather ironic that it should be from the Labour Front Bench that proposals are made for this House to exercise powers against the Commons. Your Lordships will recall that at the general elections of 1979 and 1983, so far from recommending such an attitude, the Labour Party came out for the abolition of your Lordships' House. It is a rather startling reversal of that destructive attitude that on this occasion it not only likes to see your Lordships' House in full vigour but also suggests that your Lordships' House should take on another place.
I suppose that since the conversion of Saint Paul on the road to Damascus, one should always welcome repentant sinners. In that sense I express a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I congratulate him on his new-found enthusiasm for your Lordships' House but I suggest that he should not carry that too far because, as his own amendment indicates, it is just when your Lordships' House treads on the Commons' corns by pressing too many issues involving Commons privilege that it is inevitable and perhaps right that another place should react. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord—moderation even in virtue.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like my noble friend on the Front Bench I should like to express deep and immense disappointment that this amendment should have been rejected. It was so ably moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who has spoken to it again today with impressive knowledge and sincerity.
In my view the amendment was rejected for illogical reasons. That rejection portrays an attitude of mind which is totally detached from the realities of the everyday living of disabled people. The Minister said that it offended the basic principles of the Act. The Minister then pointed out that in those areas where the poll tax is below the national average, the
178
disabled will make a small profit. It is also the case that the elderly and disabled who are in rest homes or residential care will be exempt from the poll tax. It seems that the local authority does not have to be accountable to those people but has to be fully accountable to the disabled poor.
The rejection of the amendment ignores the pattern of life of disabled people and the problems they have with the everyday business of living; namely, getting up, getting dressed and going to and from the shops. Added to all that there is now the further worry of the reduction in their income because of the rejection of this amendment. They do not have the time to sit down and decide on the finer points of the parties who are contending for power in the local authority. They often live where they do because that is where the relatives are who give them the necessary support.
I should like to repeat a proposition which I put to the Minister on Report. The rejection of this amendment creates an impossible dilemma for the disabled poor. They either have to pay more out of income support for the vital services which they need or they lose those services in order to have more money left from their income support. We have heard of Catch-22. I believe that there is now another device—Ridley-22.
The Government's intention seems to be that disabled people on income support will somehow be in the van of the campaign to force local authorities to reduce their expenditure on vital services—services which the Griffiths Report Care in the Community clearly said should be centred on and co-ordinated by the local authorities.
On television this weekend there was a practical example of what this will mean. A young man employed in the housing department of a local authority was pressing the authority to alter the access to the housing department, to make the doors wider and to put in ramps and so on so that disabled people could gain access. The local authority said that it would like to do it but could not afford to. If in future it finds that it has the money to do it, and spends the money and thereby increases the poll tax in that area over the national average, it is those disabled whom the improvements are intended to help who will be disadvantaged.
Perhaps I may deal with the obsession of the Secretary of State with accountability. If a disabled person is to be able to take account of the performance of a local authority, he has to be able to vote. I should like to quote briefly from an excellent report, Disabled People and the General Election, which was prepared by the Spastics Society:
"We spoke to disabled people living in the community who had not registered to vote both because of the physical difficulties of voting and because of other people's attitudes to their disability and resulting experiences.…
Other disabled people who were registered to vote were prevented from actually voting by a range of physical problems and by difficulties the system presents for people with mental handicap.…
We spoke to both physically disabled people and people with mental handicap who did vote but only by over-coming a series of obstacles. People had difficulties getting to the polling station, getting into the polling station, getting into the polling booth and marking the ballot paper.…
Our own enquiries about access to polling stations revealed substantial access problems.".

179
Sadly I have to say that this is all part of a pattern. We have had the indefensible delay in the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. An amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Basnett and myself to a previous local government Bill which was intended to slightly improve the employment chances of disabled people with contractors to local authorities. That was rejected by the Government although it was first accepted by this House.
The Minister was careful to refer to the average increase for the disabled under the Social Security Act. He omitted to mention that there are hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are worse off as a result of the Social Security Act. We now have this measure, which will reduce the income of substantial numbers of the disabled poor.
Last autumn I introduced a debate on the needs and problems of people with disabilities. I referred to the fact that besides the North-South divide about which we hear so much there is another divide in society—the disabled divide. That is the gap in the quality of life, expectations and income of people with disabilities compared with the rest of society. The rejection of this amendment has made that gap just that much wider.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wish to make one very brief point on the merits of the amendment to which we are speaking. On the question of the constitutional proprieties, I find myself in very close agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. That is not altogether surprising because in the past we have both held the office of Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
There is one point on the merits where I feel that it is right to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I shall not quote the passage from his speech at an earlier stage in this House which he suggested Mr. Ridley took out of context. I read both Mr. Ridley's speech and that of the Opposition spokesman who quoted rather more of it than did Mr. Ridley. To me it meant the same thing. The noble Lord suggested that the reason for this amendment was that the halt, the blind, the lame and the mentally handicapped could not be expected to take part in the democratic process. As one who fought quite a few elections over a number of years and perhaps saw them from a somewhat different perspective from that of the very, very high office held by the noble Lord in the Home Office, I find that an astonishing proposition. Indeed, it is one which goes contrary to what successive governments of all parties have sought to achieve in addressing themselves to the problems of disabled people.
There are key phrases which we have all used. Certainly when I was Secretary of State for Social Services presiding over the International Year for Disabled People we spoke of the concepts of participation, of maximising an individual's capabilities, of concentrating on abilities rather than disabilities and, in the realms of policy, of doing as much as possible to enable disabled people, no matter what their disability, to live as normal lives as possible in the community.
180
Those of us who have fought elections, both local government and parliamentary, have always been humbled—I certainly have been on many occasions—by the determination of people with very severe handicaps to play their part in the democratic process and to feel that they are citizens exercising their rights to vote. Like Mr. Ridley, I am bound to say that I find it a somewhat strange concept to believe that poor disabled people simply cannot grasp the niceties of the democratic process, that they cannot fill in postal ballot papers and that somehow they are to be regarded as non-citizens.
If I have been unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I shall gladly give way to let him explain what he meant, but I can read his words in no other sense. Of course there are some who are so seriously disabled that they have little option but to rely entirely on other people for support, but a great many of the poor disabled people, whether they be blind, deaf of physically handicapped in some other way, actually do take part. They want to take part, They want to be like other people.
I shall not repeat the figures which my noble friend from the Front Bench gave about the additional financial support which is available, but in relation to the concepts of accountability and of voting, I think it is entirely right that disabled people, subject to income—which is of course provided for throughout this Bill—should be able and encouraged to exercise their full rights under the democratic process.
I found this amendment a difficult one to accept as it seemed to fly in the face of everything towards which one has been working in a variety of different capacities: to allow disabled people to participate and to develop their potential as far as possible so that they should not be treated as a race apart but fully regarded as part of our community and encouraged to play their role. For that reason, on the merits, quite apart from the constitutional question, I believe that we are absolutely right in not insisting on the amendment which was passed earlier.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order in speaking again, but may I say briefly that I stand by what I said at earlier stages of the Bill. Contrary to what the noble Lord seemed to imply, I have not been suggesting that these poor people should be deprived of the vote.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we seem to have got on to Amendment No. 11B, and we even heard Amendment No. 15 being mentioned. Perhaps I may point out that Amendment No. 11B is not an amendment to the Bill. It is an amendment to a government Motion. An amendment to the government Motion can have no legislative effect whatsoever. From a legislative point of view it is merely a protest; it is not an amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringay: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for this confirmation of what I actually said in my speech on this matter.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I very much regret that the Commons has rejected this amendment, and in such

181
a way as to make it impossible for us to challenge its decision. I say that because I believe that the case for the amendment is as strong as it is simple. The equivalent of 100 per cent. rebate would be available for those disabled poor living in an average spending local authority, but less than 100 per cent. recompense would be available to the disabled poor living in a high spending authority.
We know that the high spending authorities inevitably include the poorest areas of the country. 'We know also that very many of those both poor and disabled will be living in the above average spending areas. The Government say that they cannot agree the amendment because it would deprive the poor and disabled in high spending areas of accountability, but one is bound to ask whether those people are likely to determine policy in any event. Should they, the poorest and disabled, be blamed for local high spending policies and be penalised because of them?
The Government say that the disabled are treated better for thresholds for income support than the able-bodied. As far as I am aware, those reliefs do not take into account the amount which will have to be paid by those whose community charge is above average. The reliefs apply to all disabled people in high, average and low spending areas. Presumably they represent what the Government consider disabled people should have as a minimum without taking into account any extra spending which there may be because of the community charge.
The Government say that the income support needs allowance will be higher in depressed areas, but that will not take into account the extra cost incurred through having a rebate which is short of 100 per cent. Again, it presumably represents the Government's view of the minimum required without allowing for extra community charge expenditure.
The Government argument is an argument against any help with the community charge for disabled people, but that point has already been conceded by the Government. Under the amendment claimants will still have to pay their community charge first and then claim. They are not sheltered from that process.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in this House is supported by all the major disablement charities and also by the Royal College of Nursing, which is concerned about the possibility of people being pushed into residential care because of additional expenditure. That would be exactly the opposite of the Government's stated policy and intention.
For all those reasons and for many more, I very much regret that the other place has decided to reject this important amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, allow me to say very briefly that I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and with those of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who has just spoken about the merits of the amendments. I very much regret that the Government have not seen fit to advise the commons to accept them.
182
So far I have not mentioned my views on the constitutional position because I have been disinclined to find myself enmeshed, if that is the right word, in a political storm. I should only say that I have grave reservations about everything that has been said on either side of the House. I slightly regret that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has sought to introduce amendments numbered 11 B and 15B into reason numbered 9. I honestly think that his amendments are separate and should be dealt with separately. What we should be dealing with are the merits of the amendments to which the Commons disagreed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, while I do not wish to intervene, perhaps I may point out that in introducing the amendments the Minister said that he was speaking to the whole list of amendments, including my own. In courtesy to the House, therefore, I thought it right that I should speak to my own amendments.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, indeed, that is so. I wish that it were not so. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not move the amendments or, if he does move them, that he will not press them. I am sympathetic to his point of view, but I do not think that he gains anything by what he is trying to do.
Although we should respect Commons financial privilege with the greatest care, I think it is important that we should also respect our own privileges and freedoms and not allow them to be eroded or diminished in any way. I fear that to a certain extent some of the constitutional arguments have tended that way today. It is worth pointing out that the Bill is not a Supply Bill or a Finance Bill, and it has nothing to do with the Parliament Act in that respect.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, no one ever said that it was.
Lord Henerson of Brompton: My Lords, I am afraid that some people have—not the noble and learned Lord, but other noble Lords who have spoken today and indeed hitherto have said so.
Where I part company with the noble and learned Lord is when he says he is advised that the Commons was bound to disagree to the amendments that the Lords had made. That, he said, is what he foresaw and advised the House would happen, and there is no possible alternative. In fact, there is a possible alternative. The House of Commons can be advised to waive that privilege and agree to Lords amendments. That is a perfectly valid possibility. Not only is it a possibility, but the Commons does it in countless cases. The House of Commons Journals are littered with the waiving of privilege whenever the Government advise the House of Commons to accept Lords amendments, so it is perfectly possible.
Indeed, in this very Bill now before the House the Government have accepted Lords amendments. One has only to look at Amendment No. 13:
"The Commons agree to this amendment and propose the following amendment to it".

183
Of course the Commons can agree to amendments, even to Bills that affect local or indeed national taxation. However, on the whole we do not make amendments to Supply Bills and money Bills, and that is why we do not normally go into Committee on such Bills.
I wish to raise one other procedural matter. When these amendments were being discussed in another place, it was most unfortunate that the Secretary of State quoted the very words of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in this House. What is more, he described them as patronising and offensive. In this House we have two very good rules whereby we protect Members of another place. One is that we do not quote from the verbatim report of another place, unless they be words of Ministers, for very good reason. I therefore deplore that the words of a non-ministerial Back-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, should have been quoted in another place, not just by an ordinary Member of Parliament—if I may describe any Member of Parliament as ordinary —but by a Secretary of State. I think that that is deplorable, and it should not go without protest.
The second rule is that we do not refer to Members of another place by name by way of criticism. The Secretary of State has referred to a Member of this House by name by way of criticism. I think that that too is a matter for regret. I say that not because I wish to criticise any Member of another place but because I think that we ought to expect the same kind of protection from another place in regard to our Members as we give to Members of another place in this House. I thought that it was only right to make that point. Having done so, I shall sit down without any further comments on procedure or privilege.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I think it is a pity that we have been discussing constitutional questions alongside the merits of the amendments. It was perhaps unavoidable. It happened also when I moved an amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill on a much larger scale. It resulted then, as I think that it results now, in the merits of the amendments not being fully debated, which is a pity.
I deplore the rejection of this amendment. The Government appear to be making a fetish of accountability. I think that as a result of the rejection of the amendment things will bear harshly and unfairly on some people who are both poor and disabled and living in highly rated areas. But, my Lords, what is, is; and although I think that the Government are making a mistake here I see no point in debating it at length.
Although I am quite unqualified to do so, I should like to make a comment on the constitutional question. It seems to me, with respect, that all through the discussions of constitutional questions, particularly today, there has been a failure to make a distinction between the two reasons given by the Commons for the rejection of Lords amendments. One reason is that amendments involve "charges upon public funds". A community charge is a charge upon the people and therefore upon public funds, which automatically attracts grants from central
184
government funds, over which the Commons claims privilege against the Lords. That is quite clear from the 1983 edition of Erskine May at pages 755 and 756. I am not a student of Erskine May like my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, but I find it very pleasant light reading in the evening!
The second reason given by another place for rejecting Lords amendments is quite different; namely, that they "affect local taxation". Where that is concerned, I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in everything that he said on the subject, and with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. From a very careful study of Erskine May—and I refreshed my mind today—I find
that since 1838, based on a precedent in 1834, with rare exceptions—"generally" is the word in Erskine May—the Commons has waived the exercise of its sole financial privilege to discuss municipal, county and local rates. Since then, 150 years ago, the Commons has disagreed to Lords amendments based not upon the Commons claim for privilege but upon the merits of the amendments. It seems to me therefore, with respect, that this is a very grey area which it is all too easy to oversimplify.
5 P.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I deal briefly with some of the points that have been made.
I did indeed widen the scope of the debate from the amendments that we are discussing to discuss all the amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the convenience of the House rightly spoke to Amendments Nos. 11B and 15B to the Motion. Those amendments express regret that the Government seek to oppose Lords Amendments Nos. 10 and 14 on the grounds of privilege. The noble Lord's amendment draws attention to the fact that on other occasions, including amendments to this Bill, the other place has waived privilege.
I have to say to the noble Lord that it is indeed possible for the other place to waive privilege and to agree to amendments passed in your Lordships' House. However, when the other place disagrees to amendments from this House that involve privilege then, even if there is a policy reason for that disagreement, the convention is that the reason and the only reason cited is privilege. Those are the circumstances on this occasion. The amendments inserted in the Bill in your Lordships' House were fully debated in the other place. Far from Mr. Speaker ruling privilege—which the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, explained, and said that he had used—there were in fact 12 speakers in the debate, some supporting the deletion of the amendments, others not.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in detail why the Government have reached the view that the amendments were unacceptable. I too have set out the policy reasons for disagreeing with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The debate in both Houses has been in terms of the policy. Privilege was mentioned only when the Deputy Speaker reminded the other place before the debate began that the amendments involved privilege. I hope that clarifies the position.

185
Had the other place decided to agree to the amendments privilege would certainly have been waived, but because the amendments were not agreed to, privilege was, by convention, the reason given.
The noble Lord, Lords Banks, said that under the amendment disabled people would have to pay the charge first and then claim the additional element. That is not provided for in the amendment. In fact the rebate system will provide in most cases that people entitled to rebates get them in the form of a reduction in their bill. The additional element provided for in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, if they had been accepted, would fall to have been paid in the same way. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, read from the report. We all know of circumstances where is has been difficult for disabled people to get to polling booths. I take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding when he said that there are postal ballots. Of course one wants the physical situation to improve but where one knows it is difficult a postal ballot can be arranged.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to every point that he made in his opening remarks. We have debated the substance of these amendments at length and I know that the ground has been covered in great detail more than once. If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to respond to one of his arguments; namely, his view that our proposals will provide a disincentive to care in the community. That was a point raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The Government simply cannot accept that contention.
It is perfectly true that an elderly or disabled person will be exempt from the community charge if he moves into a nursing home or a residential care home. If that same person were to remain resident in the community—if he stayed in his own home for example—and if his income were low, he would be eligible for a rebate of up to 80 per cent. and, if appropriate, to an extra amount of income support to reflect the average 20 per cent. liability. The supposed incentive to move into care would be minute and in many areas it would actually work the other way because, as the noble Lord knows, in an area with a below-average charge an 80 per cent. rebate plus a 20 per cent. uprating will be worth more than a complete exemption.
Morever, if there is any disincentive to care in the community it is one that exists at present. As your Lordships will recall from what I said at earlier stages of the Bill, nursing homes are exempt from rates but ordinary houses are not. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of' Roding that we must include the disabled as much as possible in everyday life and treat them as normally as we can. I believe my noble friend once again made a persuasive speech. I remind your Lordships however that during the passage of this Bill the Government have shown a willingness to listen and to modify their proposals in the light of concerns that have been advanced.
I emphasise again that the severely mentally handicapped will be entirely exempt from the
186
personal community charge. There was, as your Lordships know, a major improvement made to the Bill in respect of those citizens in this House. As regards other disabled persons, the Government continue to believe that the appropriate way of giving help is through the social security and rebate systems. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will have heard what I said in opening the debate about what we have done for the disabled. As a result disabled people will be treated more favourably than others. But surely it is right that local councils should still be accountable to them as well as to others. We believe that is the correct and fair outcome.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will he accept a correction? I believe he said that in the debate in the other place the Deputy Speaker, at the beginning of the debate, said that it was a matter of privilege. It was said halfway through the debate.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if that is true, then of course I fully accept it and retract what I said earlier.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 Schedule 13, page 126, line 5, at end insert—
"(5BC) For the purposes of this section, the community charge additional element shall be calculated by deducting amount D from amount E, where—

(a) E is the difference between the personal community charge in an area and the product of the maximum community charge benefit and the personal community charge of the area, and

(b) D is the difference between the national average personal community charge and the product of the maximum community charge benefit and the national average personal community charge.".

11 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
Because the amendment involves charges on public funds and affects local taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason mat' he deemed sufficient.
The Earl of Caithness 11A The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey 11B Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, as an amendment to the above motion, at end to insert—
"but regrets that Her Majesty's Government are seeking to oppose Lords amendment 10 not on its merits but on the ground of Commons financial privilege, notwithdstanding that the Commons have in the past generally waived their privilege on issues relating to local government finance, and have done so in relation to other amendments made by this House to the Local Government Finance Bill."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move formally Amendment No. 11B because this is the only opportunity I have to respond to the remarks that were made. I do not believe that it would have been in accordance with the procedure of your Lordships' House to intervene more than once. I wish to make as strongly as I can the point so helpfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am making

187
a political protest and not a constitutional one. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, recalled other parts of Erskine May and I certainly would not wish to contradict him on any of them. I draw his attention to one point I made where the noble and learned Lord appeared to be claiming that my reference referred only to private Bills. He may recall from his omniscient knowledge of Erskine May that the Commons has a Standing Order 191 which refers to local rates in private Bills. My references were to public Bills and not merely to private ones.
Erskine May goes on to make what I believe is the important substantive point at page 850:
"The Commons in dealing with amendments by the Lords to bills for the administration of local and other rates and charges, which touched matters of privilege, have been influenced by recognition of the fact that, if the Lords amendments dealt with legislative and not fiscal objects, a rigid adherence on the part of the Commons to their privileges might exclude the Lords from the practical consideration of such Bills".
In essence that is the point I wish to make. Over the decades, going back as far as 150 years, it has been possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood reminded us, for this House to take an active part in consideration of all aspects of local government finance. That possibility is now at risk because of the changes to the system of local government finance. It is that perfectly legitimate political decision—in our view a very wrong one—which we are protesting against.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11, since when an amendment has been moved to insert the words at 11 B on the Marshalled List. [Lord McIntosh of Haringey.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not wish to go over the constitutional points which have been so exhaustively discussed. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this amendment does not affect the Bill. Nevertheless, its terms are a motion of censure. It is the normal form of censure appended to the Queen's Speech when any Opposition wants to challenge the policy of government. If a vote of censure is carried then, if the government are defeated in the other place, they resign. What is being censured is the government's reliance on a privilege which is now accepted as a privilege though it may be expressly, covertly and implicitly waived.
A privilege may be waived so consistently as to disappear entirely. For example, it is the privilege of both Houses not to have their proceedings reported, but that has been waived so consistently that it can no longer be asserted constitutionally. However, this privilege has not been so consistently waived. It has been very frequently waived, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, but not consistently waived.
When I intervened earlier I ventured to quote what was said by Mr. Herbert Samuel during the proceedings on the Parliament Act 1911. This made it quite plain that the privilege was not being permanently waived. It was being kept in existence and could be waived on any particular occasion. Therefore, because this amendment is framed in the terms of a vote of censure and censures the
188
Government for advising the other place to insist on what is accepted as its privilege, I venture to hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what has fallen from my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. Where the Commons has disagreed with this House on a matter which is the subject of privilege, the Government have no option in the Commons but to insist on it on privilege grounds. It is done invariably. It always has been done. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggests that the contrary position could be taken by the Government; that is to say, they could disagree on the merits but not insist on the privilege. To my knowledge that has never been done.
I made four references to my recollection when I first raised the question of constitution on the first amendment in Committee. It is quite unprecedented for a government who disagree in the Commons on a matter which is uncontestedly now a question of privileges not to raise privilege. If they failed to do so they would be failing in their duty to the House of Commons. The privilege is not the privilege of the Government. It is the privilege of the House of Commons.
Where the Commons insists on an amendment, whether on the merits or any other grounds, contrary to what has been moved and passed through this House, it is the duty of any member of the Government to insist on the privilege on that ground and to give no further reasons. It would be absolutely unprecedented so far as I know for a member of any government of any persuasion on any difference on a matter incontestably of privilege to take any other course. I therefore suggest with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, whose ingenuity I applaud but with the propriety of whose amendment I disagree, that he should not press it for the reason I have given.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, on this occasion I am happy to agree with both noble and learned Lords and join them in trying to dissuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, from pressing the amendment to a Division and in asking him to withdraw it.
I would put it like this. Although we know that it is the Government who have prevailed upon the House of Commons to disagree, the form is that it is not the Government who are disagreeing with the House; it is the Commons which is disagreeing. Therefore when the noble Lord regrets,
"that Her Majesty's Government are seeking to oppose Lords amendment 10 not on its merits but on the ground of Commons financial privilege",
it is the Commons which, in accordance with its ancient custom and privilege, is disagreeing.
Although the Commons has argued on the merits it is disagreeing formally when it sends a message to this House on grounds of privilege. I should be very upset indeed if this House were to lend its name to any attempt to interfere with a time-honoured

189
formula that the Commons adopts on this occasion when it offers a hint of privilege and trusts that this hint will be deemed to be sufficient in the eyes of this House. I have great respect for the financial privilege of the House of Commons. I have great respect for the forms which are used between the two Houses and I should not like to see them changed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I share the respect expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for the financial privilege of the House of Commons. It will not be unknown to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I agree with the Labour Party manifesto of 1983. I am in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. However, while it is here we have to make it work, have we not? I confess that my amendments in this respect are my second choice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord says that, but will he explain why it was not included in the last Labour Party manifesto?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, ohne mich is the only way I can answer that.
These amendments were my second choice. I looked again in Erskine May and found, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has quite correctly pointed out, that the hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords and the amendment is not insisted upon. On some occasions, however, when the Commons has rejected amendments on the ground of privilege and has indicated the fact in its formal statement of reasons, the Lords have not insisted on the amendments but have asserted by a resolution that they made no admission in respect of any deduction which might be drawn from the reasons offered by the Commons and did not consent that these reasons should thereafter be drawn into a precedent. There are examples of that in Erskine May from 1890 until 1921.
I did not pursue that tactic because under our rules of debate such a resolution would have been taken after the consideration of the Housing Bill in Committee rather than at the proper stage now. It is quite true that a resolution of that kind would have been more consistent than the amendments I have put down. Indeed, if I had been able to use the wording used by the Marquess of Lansdowne in 1909 they would have been a good deal more elegant.
That option was not open to me. I repeat that what
I am doing here is making a political protest about the absorption of local government finance into our central taxation system. That is what we are complaining about. I believe that the protest has been made, and I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 11B withdrawn.]
On Question, Amendment No. 11A agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
12 Schedule 13, page 147, line 28, at end insert—
".—(1) Section 24 of that Act (duty to provide for rebates from community charges) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (a)—

(i) for the words "local authorities" there shall be substituted the words "levying authorities"; and

(ii) for the words from "community charges" to "this Act)" there shall be substituted the "words "personal community charges and (except in relation to residence in premises which are special designated premises for the purposes of section I l(4B) of this Act) collective community charge contributions".

(3) In paragraph (b) for the words "local authority in respect of each year" there shall be substituted the words "levying authority".
(4) That section as so amended shall be subsection (1) and there shall be added the following subsection—
"(2) This section shall have effect only in respect of the financial year 1989-90.".".
13 The Commons agreed to this amendment and proposed the following amendment to it:
Line 8, leave out "(except in relation to residence in premises which are special designated premises for the purposes of section 11(4B) of this Act)".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13 to Lords Amendment No. 12. The amendment made by another place simply corrects a missed consequential by deleting a reference to special designated premises. That reference was included by amendment on Report in your Lordships' House when it was proposed in certain cases that the collective community charge and collective community charge contributions should be automatically reduced to give the effect of full rebates for all residents in specially designated collective community charge premises.
However, those provisions were superseded by the provision brought forward on Third Reading for complete exemption from both personal and collective community charge liability for residents in short-stay hostels of a prescribed description. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13 to Lords Amendment No. 12—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this disagreement took place in another place without any discussion as to the reasons for it, because of the operation of the guillotine procedure. It is satisfactory, as this amendment in all its stages was a government amendment, to have some explanation as to why the other place disagreed with it, no doubt at the instigation of the Government. However, having had that explanation, I have no reason to disagree with it now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 Schedule 13, page 147, line 28, at end insert—
".After section 24 there shall be inserted the following section—
"24A. Each levying authority shall in relation to the personal community charge and in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State make arrangements for—

191

(a) the adminstration of the Community Charge Additional Element as specified in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and

(b) the calculation in each year from I April 1989 of its personal community charge in relation to the national average charge for that year for the purposes of determining whether any person in its area may be eligible for the Community Charge Additional Element."".

15 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
Because the amendment involves charges on public funds and affects local taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
15A The Earl of Caithness 15A The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 15.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15B not moved.]

Housing Bill
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 97:
Before Clause 46 insert the following new clause:
("Housing Association tenancies.
.—(1) In this Part, 'housing association tenancy' shall have the meaning specified in this section.
(2) A tenancy which is entered into on or after the commencement of this Act shall be a housing association tenancy, where the tenant—

(a) is a new tenant of a housing association; or

(b) is an existing tenant of a housing association to whom a new tenancy is granted; or

(c) is transferring from a tenancy of a local authority, a new town corporation; or an urban development corporation: (all within the meaning of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985), a housing action trust established under Part III of this Act or the Development Board for Rural Wales.

(3) A tenancy under this section shall include each of the following:

(a) the right to a fair rent, which shall be a registered rent under the Rent Act 1977;

(b) the rights of a secure tenant under the Housing Act 1985;

(c) the right to buy, in circumstances where the housing association is able to identify, and secure (whether by purchase, refurbishment or new building), a replacement unit of housing of broadly equivalent size and type of use.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 97 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 99. These amendments refer to the concept of housing association tenancies which we are proposing to put into this part of the Bill. Before any Members of the
192
Committee point to the fact, I am aware that the concept of housing association tenancies is not a new one and that it occurs in Part I of the Bill, notably in Clause 35.
The reason we did not refer to the matter last night when we reached Clause 35 was that it was extremely late at night and it would not have been a good opportunity to secure a full discussion of the very important issues which are raised by housing association tenancies. Moreover, it is actually easier to put forward positive alternatives to the Government's proposals in Part II which deals with housing associations. I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me therefore if I concentrate on the aspects of housing association tenancies which arise in Part II. I recognise that if my amendments are carried—and I say this from the outset—further amendments would be necessary to Clause 35 in Part I; otherwise the Bill would be inconsistent to some degree.
The purpose of our whole approach to Part II of the Bill is to seek to secure that housing associations remain in the public sector and are not spatchcocked into the private sector because the Government have the intention in Part I of the Bill, and indeed in other parts, of improving the conditions for private rented accommodation. We have been through the issue of private rented accommodation at considerable length in Committee over the past few days and we are now moving on to the housing association sector.
What I want to suggest o the Committee is that is is not appropriate in this Bill, or anywhere else, for housing associations to be brought into the thrust of the Government's arguments which take place on other parts of the Bill. Housing associations, as indeed the Government have recognised on many occasions, provide services especially for tenants with low incomes and also for tenants in need who would not otherwise be able to find accommodation. In other words, they are complementary to the public sector of the housing market, rather than being comparable to the private rented sector.
The Government have recognised that and they claim that Part II of the Bill maintains that situation. Indeed, as regards existing housing association tenancies that is undoubtedly true. Existing housing association tenants, provided that they stay in the same dwelling or at least within the same housing association, continue to be protected tenants, to have the benefit of protected tenancy status and to have the benefit of fair rents.
The problem arises, as indeed it does in the private sector, where new tenancies are necessary either because the housing association tenant is moving, because he is moving out of the housing association sector and a completely new tenancy is being created or indeed because new housing association accommodation will become available after the passage of the Bill. The problem is that such new tenancies will be subject to the assured tenancy conditions and that the fair rent provisions will no longer apply.
The Government recognise that that is a problem. They point out that the housing associations should be expected to provide additional rights for housing association tenants in such conditions. Indeed, the

193
whole of the tenants' guarantee procedures, which have been set out and which were discussed by the Minister on Second Reading (and which also apply to applicants for the transfer of local authority housing under Part IV) seek to provide further protection both in terms of security of tenure and in terms of fair rents for new housing association tenancies.
The problem is that this tenants' guarantee does not match up to the tenants' charter which has been produced by the National Federation of Housing Associations and, above all, it is not statutory. The Government have firmly resisted its becoming statutory. I must say that it is most difficult for me to understand quite why that should be the case, if they share with us the view that it would be highly desirable for housing association tenancies to continue to have additional protection over and above that which will be available under the assured tenancy procedure.
If we are talking about voluntary agreements between housing associations and their tenants, which is what the tenants' guarantee in effect means, the only remedy that the tenant will have against the breach of that voluntary agreement will be to sue for breach of contract. Unfortunately there are examples, although I am not lawyer enough to be able to quote them with any conviction, where the courts have found that the statute law, which is the law that will be introduced for such tenancies when the Bill is enacted, takes precedence over any agreement that might be made between a housing association and its tenant. That is our concern. I am thinking especially of what the Minister said at Second Reading on 11th July at col. 675. He has confirmed that housing associations exist mainly for those with lower incomes and those with special housing needs. If that is to be the case and of that provision is to be enforced, it is necessary that housing associations should not be in the private rent regime. They should have fair rents. I shall deal with that point when I speak to Amendment No. 98. It is necessary that their tenants should have the rights of a secure tenant which exist under the Housing Act 1985. It is necessary—some noble Lords may be surprised that I should say this—that they should have the right to buy, which is now accepted in all parties as being an important part of tenants' rights, where the housing association can identify and secure a replacement unit of housing or broadly equivalent size and type of use.
We propose an extension of tenants' rights. We propose measures which will keep the housing association movement where it wishes to be—still in the public sector providing mainly for those with lower incomes and special needs. We welcome the emphasis given to the housing association movement by the Bill. That emphasis, we believe, can only be made truly effective if our amendments are agreed to and we maintain the special and important role of housing associations in our housing structure. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I support the amendment. As I said on Second Reading, I accept that the Bill is
194
far better today than when it was introduced in another place. For that we thank the outgoing Minister whom we wish well in his new place. Proposals relating to housing association tenancies have not much changed. At the outset, when the National Federation of Housing Associations published its document Rents, risks, rights it made clear its wish that housing association tenancies should continue. It said then and the situation remains the same:
"As the Government's proposals stand at present, new housing association tenants would be treated very differently from existing tenants and from both new and existing council tenants".
That is the problem which housing associations will face throughout the country unless we make some concessions on the amendment. It cannot be right to have one set of tenants who have protection and whose rents are controlled to a certain extent and new tenants who do not have those rights.
Housing associations have co-operated with one another and with local authorities to assist tenants who need to move. Housing associations operate a mobility scheme called HALO. Local authority assistance is usually by way of reciprocal arrangements whereby the housing association takes a nominated tenant from the local council in return for the council rehousing the association's tenant. Those arrangements of mutual co-operation are threatened by Clause 35, referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The Government recognise that tenants would naturally be reluctant to abandon their secure tenances for assured tenancies. The Under-Secretary of State said:
"It is unlikely that housing associations will encourage their tenants to switch accommodation in order to deprive them of their statutory rights".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/88; col. 603.]
I think I am right in saying that if tenants move within that housing association they retain their statutory rights. If they move to an Isle of Wight housing association from a London association they do not retain them. They would have done so if they had already been a tenant or had moved within that association. That is what we are up against. On Tuesday of the week before last the national federation pressed again for statutory rights for its tenants. The national council voted on 12th July to continue its campaign in your Lordships' House for a statutory housing association tenancy to ensure that future tenants will enjoy rights similar to those enjoyed by existing tenants and to ensure also—this comes later—that future rent levels are affordable by housing association tenants.
When he introduced the discussion, the outgoing national federation director, Mr. Richard Best, a power in the housing association movement whom many of us are sorry to see leave, stated that it was his view that the legislation in its present state was considerably better than the consultation papers and the original form of the Bill. He said that while the terms of the tenants' guarantee were a step forward, they could be changed at a later date a a new tenant could be offered worse conditions. Thus it was right to continue to pursue a statutory housing association tenancy in your Lordships' House. He said:

195
"The Housing Corporation says it will incorporate what we want in a mandatory tenancy but we must take the lead to avoid a wishy washy situation".
I hope that that will convince your Lordships that we believe this to be an area which will cause immense problems and bureaucracy for the housing associations which, when charitable, are run by management committees made up of volunteers who receive no payment for their services. I beg the House to consider the amendments seriously and to support them.
Lord Hylton: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for not having been here to hear his opening words when he moved the amendment. The amendment will be welcome, first, to the management committees of existing housing associations whether charitable or non-charitable. Numerous people give their services entirely free. Until now they have been distinct from local authorities, on the one hand, and private and commercial landlords on the other. That is how they wish to go on. The amendment will also be welcomed by housing associations' existing tenants.
As to the present local authority tenants who, under the terms of the Bill, may be moved into the housing association sector, the amendment, if adopted, will make their choice very much clearer. It is on those grounds that I recommend the amendment to the Government. I am sure that they will take the matter seriously.
Lord Moyne: I should like to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is my ally on many aspects of the Bill. He said that he thought that housing association tenants should have the right to buy. I think that was an obiter dictum. I do not think that it is contained in the amendment. I felt that that point should not go unchallenged. I speak as a trustee of a charitable trust which is organised to look after its tenants and could not have a patchwork of owners receiving the same services. The tenants have the right to buy houses outside. They receive full benefits from the Government for so doing. They are not disadvantaged. When they leave, the houses are available for other tenants within the organisation.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: It is not strictly related to what my noble friend said, but yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said:
"I should like to stress to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve that housing associations can at present charge premiums for tenancies and that some do"—[Official Report, 25/7/88; col. 66.]
I was hesitant when the noble Earl said that. I happen to be a member of a housing association. Will the Minister check whether that statement is correct? I understood that housing associations were debarred from fixing a premium and that if one does, it is subject to disciplinary action by the Housing Corporation. We are discussing the clause on housing association tenancies and I feel sure that the position ought to be clarified.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Government are aware of the concerns in some parts of the housing association movement which I believe underlie these
196
two amendments and about which noble Lords have expressed concern this afternoon. Let us be clear: they are concerns about future tenancies granted by housing associations because existing tenancies will of course continue in their present form, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded us. We are dealing therefore with the reletting of dwellings where an existing tenancy comes to an end or the letting of a newly developed property.
The concerns expressed are twofold. First there is a general concern that future tenants of housing associations should have terms of tenancy which offer more than the basic statutory rights available under the assured tenancy regime and ideally should be the same as under the existing secure tenancy regime. Then there is the more specific concern that the level of rents charged under new tenancies should be controlled so as to remain within the means of people who are most in need of social rented housing.
The Government respect these sentiments. Let me make it quite clear, first on tenants' rights generally, that we expect housing associations to continue in their honourable tradition of being good and socially responsible landlords. Secondly, we expect them to let their housing at rents which are within the reach of people in low-paid employment. In terms of broad objectives, therefore, there is little between the Government and their critics. Where we differ—and the reason why the Government must resist these amendments—is in the degree to which these matters should be fixed in statute and in the danger which the amendments pose to the greatly enhanced role which we would like to see the housing association movement play.
We think it would be wrong to move away from the basic provision in this Bill setting up the new assured tenancy regime. To recreate, as these amendments do, a statutory form of housing association tenancy would be to recreate also much of the complexity of the landlord and tenant legislation that we are trying to simplify. We have provided instead for tenancies granted by registered housing associations, both existing tenancies and new ones, for something known as the tenants' guarantee. Under Clause 49 of the Bill, the Housing Corporation will be empowered to issue guidance to all registered housing associations on matters of housing management practice. The corporation, which is already consulting interested parties on what such guidance should contain, will also have the power, as part of its normal monitoring function, to ensure that associations comply with the guidance.
The draft of the guidance already produced by the corporation adds on to the basic assured tenancy regime a number of additional rights for housing association tenants. There is in the guidance, for example, the right to take in lodgers or sublet part of the property, the right to carry out improvements, and the right to exchange with a tenant elsewhere if this has been agreed between the parties involved. This sort of approach, which will be enforceable by the corporation, is a much more practical and flexible approach to responsible landlord-tenant relations than would be the approach of erecting a whole new apparatus of statutory controls, which could never fit

197
every individual circumstance and would probably become quickly out of date.
On the question of rent levels, everything about housing associations' honourable traditions argues against their charging tenants a penny more than they have to. But again we have taken the precaution, through the avenue of Clause 49, of ensuring that they do not do so. The draft of the tenants' guarantee makes clear that rents for assured tenancies granted by registered housing associations must be within the reach of people in low-paid employment. That too will be enforced by the Housing Corporation. The corporation will be able to make its own judgments about individual cases in different localities; and there is certainly no need for it to be tied by some rigid statutory formula. I shall come to that issue when we debate Amendment No. 98. For the reasons I have given I must ask the Committee therefore not to accept these two amendments.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, that I understand that what my noble friend said yesterday is quite correct that housing associations can charge premiums for tenancies but it might be helpful if I arranged for a letter to be sent to the noble Baroness with more details.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I find very difficult to accept. I telephoned the Housing Corporation this morning after I had contacted my housing association. I received the advice from the Housing Corporation. I was given the reply which I gave to the Minister, that it would be a matter of discipline by the corporation if any housing associations were found doing this. If the noble Lord knows of any housing associations which are charging premiums to tenants, I think that is important. I received the answer from the Housing Corporation at about a quarter-to 11 this morning.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My understanding is what I said, and perhaps it would be best for me to write to the noble Baroness clarifying the situation, if that would be helpful.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wonder whether my noble friend would answer a question. I have not discussed it previously with him and it might be outside his knowledge at this time. In that case perhaps he could kindly write to me. He has just mentioned that the people who rent from housing associations can take in lodgers. We have a very great problem so far as concerns widows; they are not allowed to take in male lodgers. If they do there is a great possibility that they will lose their rent book because someone will accuse them of cohabiting. This is quite a serious problem. I do not expect an answer from my noble friend today, but perhaps he could very kindly write to me. Widows find that there is discrimination against them when it is supposed that "lodgers" means both sexes.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall certainly look into that situation. We propose that tenants should have
198
the right to take in lodgers. I shall have to look into the detail of whether that applies to widows and write to my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box on this Bill, but I can hardly be expected to welcome what he has said. I think he has taken a very narrow view of the purport of these amendments and of the impact of the legislation on the housing association movement.
He has quite rightly quoted one part of the tenants' guarantee and referred to the fact that the Housing Corporation will be expected to enforce agreements under the tenants' guarantee. However the Housing Corporation is not statute law. It is a quango, and as a result of this Bill it will he one of the biggest quangos in the country, We shall be seeking to show the Committee the degree to which the powers of the Housing Corporation have increased, are increasing and ought to be not diminished but at least made subject to democratic control. Perhaps I should not stray on to that issue at the moment.
I must insist that even a guarantee which is supported by the Housing Corporation does not provide the same degree of protection as statute. It is not as if, as the noble Lord asserts, we are talking about a whole new structure of protection. It is not a whole new structure. The protection already exists under the 1977 Rent Act and under the 1985 Act. There are perfectly good precedents for the kind of structure for fair rents and secure tenancy for all the things we want to do. We are not going into new territory in the law. We are simply proposing to maintain for all housing association tenants what the Government have agreed will be maintained for some housing association tenants. That cannot be thought of as something wildly extravagant, innovatory or anything which is contrary to the intentions of the Government in putting forward this Bill.
It is common sense that housing associations will not wish to have varying kinds of tenancies on an irrational and indiscriminate basis in the housing that they control. How can they manage housing where some tenants are governed by secure tenancies and fair rents while their next door neighbours and the people above and below them are governed by assured tenancies and are, in effect, on market rents? That cannot be the proper way for housing associations to work as businesses, quite apart from the fact that has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, that the housing associations are run by volunteers.
Those volunteers run the associations because they consider that the associations offer a worthwhile contribution to the housing of those with lower incomes and special housing needs. If that objective is taken away from them, these housing associations will become businesses rather than a housing movement. That will progressively damage their ability to provide a distinctive form of housing for those most in need. I am sorry to say that the Minister's arguments are completely unconvincing. I think it is necessary that I should seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.51 p.m. 5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Alport, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mountevans, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

David, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rugby, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sheffield, Bp.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grimond, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Walston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hayter, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hylton, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winterbottom, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kennet, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caithness, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Allerton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ampthill L

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cox, B.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Borthwick, L.

Crathorne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Broadbridge, L.

Deedes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elibank, L.

200

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Morris, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Moyola, L.

Gray, L.

Munster, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Greenway, L.

Nelson, E.

Gridley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L

Orkney, E.

Hanson, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Havers, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hesketh, L.

Polwarth, L.

Hives, L.

Pym, L.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Renton, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Germans, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shannon, E.

Joseph, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Somers, L.

Kimberley, E.

Stockton, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Layton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Lyell, L.

Terrington, L.

McFadzean, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trafford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Manton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marley, L.

Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Monk Bretton, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 98:
Before Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Affordable rents
.—(1) Where a landlord has granted a Housing Association tenancy in accordance with this Part. it shall be the duty of the landlord to apply to the rent officer on the commencement of that tenancy and on every second anniversary of the commencement of that tenancy for a determination of an affordable rent as set out in subsection (3) below.
(2) The rent officer shall determine an affordable rent for the tenancy and shall indicate to the landlord the amount by which he considers the rent should rise on each anniversary of the tenancy up to the date of the next determination of rent.
(3) In determining an affordable rent, the rent officer shall have regard to

(i) the lower quartile of the average male manual workers' earnings for that part of the country and shall ensure that at no time shall the affordable rent exceed 20 per cent of this figure.

(ii) the age, size, location and state of repair of the property.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 98 stands on its own. However, it is related to the issues which we have been considering. It refers specifically to the concept of an affordable rent. That concept is framed in the spirit of the Government's intentions for the housing association movement which have been mentioned a number of times in the past hour. We are

201
concerned that the housing association movement should provide mainly for those with lower incomes and special housing needs. The question is how that intention can be secured if new tenancies—in other words, an increasing proportion of housing association tenancies as the years go by—are not subject to the fair rent provision but are subject to the provisions for rents in the private rented sector.
In that respect, as in respect of security, housing associations will progressively become more and more like the private rented sector and less and less concerned with the type of service they provide at the moment. That must be a fact. I do not think that the Government will seek to deny that, because the law is framed in that way. The process may be delayed by tenants' guarantees. However, there is no assurance that it will be delayed in that way because the power to enforce those matters rests not in the hands of Parliament or the courts (except in cases of breach of contract) but in the hands of a quango and a very large number of housing associations which will be dragged in a direction in which they do not wish to go.
The deregulation of housing associations regarding security of tenure has been discussed. The deregulation as regards rent is an extremely important matter. Therefore, we have put down Amendment No. 98 which seeks to ensure that there is, in new housing association tenancies, an affordable rent which will ensure that the Government's intention of looking after those with low incomes is achieved.
We have defined low incomes in terms of the lower quartile of the average male manual worker's earnings for that part of the country. We have suggested that the rent should not exceed more than 20 per cent. of that figure. We have also recognised that rent ought to reflect the age, size, location and state of repair of the property. That is common sense. This is a housing market, even if it is one which must be regulated to some extent.
We may be wrong in our definition. I shall be interested to see whether the Government have a better alternative. It seems to make good sense. However, I do not hold to every word and comma of the definition that we have come to. I think the objective is clear. It is one which we retain so far as rents are concerned, and it is the single most important aspect so far as most tenants are concerned. We must maintain housing associations in the public sector where they will continue to provide the distinctive service which they provide now.
In April of this year, there was an extended and well-publicised debate about housing benefit. The National Federation of Housing Associations put to the Government at that time a number of proposals for rethinking housing benefit in order to ensure that even under existing law we would not have a significant number of people suffering as a result of the new housing benefit regulations. They were particularly concerned, not with those who get 100 per cent. of the rent paid, but with the next category who are subject to a taper and who get a proportion of their rent paid.
The argument was not won by the National Federation of Housing Associations. The Government resisted the amendments. As a result, a large number of people receiving substantially below the average manual worker's wage and up to that average wage are paying considerably more than 20 per cent. of their net income on rent. I shall not weary the House with examples. However, they are available in publications of the federation. They show that, for example, a single qualified nurse at the age of 23 and living in a one-bedroomed flat in London may well be paying 40 per cent. of her income on rent under the housing benefit regulations.
It is possible to produce many examples to show that far too many people are paying far more of their net income in rent than should be permitted and is consistent with a decent standard of living. They must provide for all the other necessities of life. Housing is a necessity and it is something on which people choose to spend a significant part of their income if they can afford it. However, for those in the greatest need there must be a restriction on the proportion of net income paid on rent. Our concept of affordable rent, with all the defects which may be found in drafting, is the right way to approach the matter. I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I rise to support the amendment. Housing associations will be faced yet again with two regimes. Existing tenants will have rents fixed by agreement with a rent officer. However, new tenants will pay what is loosely called "an affordable rent". That will be based on a market rent. We are already seeing what some of those rents are likely to be. Figures have been published recently by the National Federation of Housing Associations. I believe that the Department of the Environment might well agree those figures.
Such figures depend on the amount of housing association grant. However, if we take as an example a family with two children under the age of 11 living in a newly-built flat in Cambridgeshire with a HAG grant limited to 65 per cent. and with a net household income including child benefit of £151.59, the weekly rent would be£661.
For some reason, the Isle of Wight is included in the West of England federation area. At a recent meeting of the federation held in Bath, I was given figures which showed that single adults in the West of England were facing increases of up to £10 per week on rent. That was based on a HAG grant of about 70 per cent. I gave statistics to the House at Second Reading and I do not wish to bore your Lordships unduly. However, the average wage in the West of England is below the average wage in the North-East. It is one of the lowest wage areas in the country. In a recent survey, out of 750 returns 99 per cent. of the incomes recorded were below the national average. The average income of housing association tenants as a whole in the West of England was £74 per week. The replies to the survey came mainly from the large housing associations. Vast numbers of those tenants were on benefit of one sort or another.
I believe that the Government began by speaking of a HAG grant of 30 per cent. The figure then went

203
to 50 per cent. We have ended up with a figure of between 60 and 70 per cent. For some reason which I do not understand, even if the HAG grant drops a bit, rents do not necessarily go up that much. Perhaps the Minister can explain that. However, he has only had one day in the job and I shall not expect him to do so. Nevertheless, the housing association movement is very worried. People who are ill-able to afford them may well face substantial increases. At the end of the day, the whole matter will depend on the amount of housing benefit. That is the crucial issue.
The role of the rent officer has been a good one. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made an excellent speech on that subject at Second Reading. The rent officer is on the spot and he has facts and figures at his disposal. Rents have been coming up to much more sensible levels than was previously the case. In many places people are paying between 20 and 25 per cent. of their income on housing. Why are we not to be allowed to use the knowledge and resources of the rent officer for all new tenancies under the housing association movement? It beats me. I do not understand it. That is why I very much support the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have already debated the proposal that there should be a separate housing association tenancy, and this amendment is related to that earlier proposal. The purpose of noble Lords who have moved the amendment is quite clear. They would like us to provide explicitly on the face of the Bill that rents should be affordable by the client groups for which housing associations have traditionally catered. Indeed, the purpose of the amendment is to supplant the concept of the fair rent which at present applies to housing association tenancies with the concept of an "affordable rent". In character, as I read their amendment, an affordable rent would be very similar to a fair rent inasmuch as both seek to keep rents below market level.
As I said in the earlier debate, and as I expect I shall say in the debate on later amendments, the Government's position is that we intend rents for housing association tenants to be within the means of those for whom the associations have traditionally provided. There is nothing between myself and the noble Lords in that respect and it is an object which I am sure that all Members of the Committee will share. Housing associations exist for a purpose. That purpose is to provide good quality housing for those in various groups who could not obtain access to such housing without assistance. That is why we shall continue to pay housing association grant.
However, the fair rent system, around which the whole edifice of housing association finance is at present constructed, is no longer credible. Its operation for housing associations is to produce rents unrelated to development costs below the level which many tenants could afford and wholly dependent on decisions by a rent officer whose decisions are taken without reference to their implications for the financing of the scheme in question.
Our approach is different. We say that rents should be determined by housing associations, subject to the terms of the tenancy agreements with their tenants
204
and supervision of the Housing Corporation (through the tenants' guarantee) as to the terms which those tenancy agreements contain. Setting rents is part of the managerial responsibility of housing associations and it is right that they should deal directly with tenants on that issue. In doing so one of the factors they must take into account is the wording of the housing benefit system. But registered housing associations—and this is the most important point—will still receive very substantial government grants towards the cost of their schemes. For mixed funded public and private sector schemes (on which I shall say a little more in a moment) in the current year the grants range from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. Those grant levels are intended to enable the associations to provide housing for their traditional client groups. That is what housing associations—exist to do and are keen to do.
Therefore noble Lords need have no fear that associations will try to put up rents beyond the level which their tenants can afford. Even if an association tried to do that—which would be quite contrary to the purpose for which it existed—it would be circumscribed by the terms of its tenancy agreement, and if it went outside those terms it coud be taken to court. The tenants' guarantee, policed by the Housing Corporation, will make it clear that rents must remain within reach of lower paid workers.
Nevertheless, as I said earlier, we believe there is a case for rents to rise somewhat above present levels. This will not affect existing tenants, since they will retain their right to a fair rent even if they move to another property owned by the same association. But for new tenants we accept that some increase makes sense. There is no reason why public subsidy should be greater than it needs to be. Besides that, however, we are looking to housing associations to expand their role in future by greater use of mixed funding, in other words from public and private sectors. There is a later amendment on this subject which we shall no doubt debate. Suffice it to say now that mixed funding at a 60 per cent. average grant rate—which is what we are applying in the current year—enables two-thirds again as many new or rehabilitated dwellings to be provided for the same input of government grant as is possible where grant at 100 per cent. is available.
To make mixed funding work, it is necessary to give associations more control over their rents than they have under the fair rent system. I do not believe that the support of private investors could seriously be expected if the setting of rents where left to the rent officer. What certainty could there be that associations could service their debts?
In case Members of the Committee think that housing associations will have great difficulty in operating under mixed funding—and I know that this is sometimes alleged—let me say that the early signs from a pilot programme last year, and a larger programme being run in the current year, are that there is a great deal of interest in mixed funding from within the housing association world. These are not associations which are aiming to charge unrealistic rents. On the contrary, they know that with the current grant regime they have no need to do anything of the kind. With the tenants' guarantee,

205
they know that they could not do so even if they wanted to.
I therefore believe that this amendment is fundamentally misconceived. It would return us to a situation very like the present, where housing association grant would bear all the strain of housing association costs and associations would be left with very little managerial discretion as regards their rents. This is inimical to proper accountability for public funds and to the great expansion of housing association activity which we expect through the mixed funded programmes. Above all, it is quite unnecessary to protect tenants' interests. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the Minister give the Committee more information regarding mixed funding and the housing associations which are most likely to take it up? As my noble friend and others have said, most housing associations are small organisations which make accommodation available to meet specific needs. One would expect that even under this Bill most housing associations catering for such needs will not want to expand to become large housing associations.
Therefore one concludes that the mixed funding is more likely to be applicable to the larger housing associations. If my premise is correct, would that mean that in the long run the scheme will apply not so much to the lower income or disabled groups for whom housing associations cater at present but will be more of an upmarket housing association scheme?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We shall be discussing mixed funding in more detail when we come to Amendment No. 108. I shall be delighted to answer the noble Baroness's question then. However, we do not expect all housing associations to opt for mixed funding, but certainly a great many of them.
Lord Hylton: At Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when replying to the debate (at col. 676 of Hansard for llth July) and speaking about the proposed tenants' guarantee, said:
"Rents must remain within the reach of those in lower paid employment".
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say words to that effect when replying to the amendment.
If that is the Government's intention I believe that they must pay attention to the amendment even though its wording may be defective and even though it may be a mistake to involve the rent officer in considering, for example, the precise levels of manual workers' earnings. I believe that the amendment draws our attention to a situation which requires further thought.
Perhaps I may explain that a little further. We have on the one hand the Department of the Environment and the Housing Corporation which are concerned about rent levels. As the noble Lord has explained, they are very concerned about the impact of rent levels on the future development of the housing association movement and on new building,
206
rehabilitation and all that goes with it. On the other hand we have another group of government departments which are concerned with housing benefit, namely the Departments of Health and of Social Security. Then there are all the complications of tapers and how one withdraws housing benefit as people's income rises. There are the injustices, the poverty trap, the disincentive to earn a little more, and matters of that kind. So there is not always perfect liaison between those two areas of government departments.
Then there is a third ingredient; namely, financial control, which is normally exercised through the Treasury. It only requires a small change in economic and financial circumstances for a severe clamp to be put on the amount of money that is allowed to be paid over in the form of housing benefit.
At the present time we are in the fortunate position of having a considerable gap left between the Committee stage and the next stages of this Bill. I suggest that the time could fruitfully be employed in harmonising the different and conflicting interests within the Government—let alone within the different sectors of the voluntary housing movement—so that at the next stage we can have spelt out on the face of the Bill a much better system for the future of housing association rents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government say it and the tenants' guarantee says it:
"housing associations are expected to set and maintain their rents at levels within the reach of those in low paid employment".
So far so good; but do they mean it? Do the Government mean it and can the housing associations, with the tenants' guarantee, in fact enforce that requirement?
Perhaps we should look at what the tenants' guarantee further states:
"In addition they are expected to take account of the size, amenities, situation and condition of the accommodation"—
fine; that is what we seek in our amendment—
"and the need to cover the costs after subsidy of loan charges, and management and maintenance, including the requirement to make prudent provision for future repairs".
There is one respect in which the housing association movement is not and cannot be different from any other part of the housing market. If a housing association has a portfolio consisting almost entirely of new properties built at very high costs and with high debt charges, its return on capital for a given level of rent will be very much lower than if it has a portfolio of older properties built at lower costs with debt charges either much lower or already amortised. The concept of the economic rent in terms of a return on capital employed, whether in the housing association sector, the local authority sector or the private rented sector, is a nonsense. It depends on when one built and at what cost; or when and at what cost one buys.
Therefore, there will be very powerful pressure on housing associations, as on the private rented sector, to seek to set rents at the replacement level; in other words, at the highest possible level, which is the level at which they would have to expend in order to build new property. Unfortunately, that is reflected in the

207
tenants' guarantee. It is what gives the lie to the Government's intention in making provision for that as a part of the rent structure for housing associations.
If the Government were to accept our amendments there would be a clear choice and judgment to be made by housing associations: they must link their rents to the needs of those who will live in their houses and they must make the judgment between one property and another on the basis of the age, condition and location of those properties. That seems to us to be common sense, but to seek to bring the rent regime of housing associations into the same situation as the private housing sector on the grounds that there must be an adequate return on capital (which is implied by the mixed funding requirement) does not make economic sense, cannot be supported and will not ensure the survival of the housing association movement as a distinctive sector of the housing market.
I regret to say that the Government's arguments against this amendment are as weak as the arguments which they put against the preceding amendment, and the Committee ought to decide on them.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 98) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Banks, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Milverton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Stallard, L.

Gregson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

208

Wells-Pestell, L.

Winstanley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Willis, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allerton, L.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill L

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kimberley, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Bedstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Marley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Craigavon, V.

Polwarth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Radnor, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Renwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Germans, E.

Elibank, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Shannon, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stockton, E.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Terrington, L.

Hanson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Havers, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hayter, L.

Trafford, L.

Headfort, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vinson, L.

Holderness, L.

Westbury, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Ironside, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.33 p.m.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Housing for Wales]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 34, line 39, after ("1985") insert ("(in this Part referred to as the 1985 Act")").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 101, 103, 104, 109 and 171.
Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 103, 104 are quite simply drafting amendments to tidy up references to the Housing Associations Act 1985 in Part II of the Bill. I trust that the Committee will find them wholly unobjectionable.
Amendment No. 109 is a consequential amendment to repeal Clause 52(4) when the Land Registration Act 1988 is enacted. Clause 52 replaces Section 52 of the Housing Associations Act 1985. It transfers to the Housing Corporation powers to reduce, suspend or recover certain grants paid to registered housing associations. The grants concerned are capital and revenue deficit grants paid under Clauses 50 and 51 and housing association grant paid under Section 41 of the 1985 Act or any enactment replaced by that section.
Clause 52(1) empowers the corporation to determine the relevant events in which its powers of recovery may be exercised. Such determinations will be subject to consultation with bodies representing housing assocations and to the approval of the Secretary of State as required under Clause 53. However, in order to exercise its powers, the corporation must be able to ascertain that a relevant event has occurred. Clause 52(3) requires housing associations in receipt of grant to notify the corporation of any relevant event giving rise to the exercise of this power.
There may be circumstances where the corporation needs information from the Land Registry in order to establish whether a relevant event, such as the disposal of grant-aided property, has occurred. Under the current legislation it is necessary for the Chief Land Registrar to have statutory authority in order to provide information to another body. Clause 52(4) provides this authority. However, Section 3 of the Land Registration Act 1988 provides for an open registry and, when this provision comes into force, the registrar will no longer need this specific authority. Amendment No. 109 therefore provides for the repeal of Clause 52(4) from the date Section 3 of the Land Registration Act comes into force.
Finally Amendment No. 171 is simply a drafting amendment to correct a defective reference to the Housing Associations Act 1985 in the schedule of minor and consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Transfer to Housing for Wales of regulation etc. of housing associations based in Wales]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 35, line 8. leave out ("Housing Associations Act 1985") and insert ("1985 Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 102:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Composition of Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales.
.—(1) Not later than one year after the commencement of this Part of the Act, the Secretary of State shall bring forward regulations for changing the composition of the Boards of the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales.
(2) Such proposals shall include—

(a) provision for the Board to consist of a majority of respresentative members, who shall be representative of housing associations and their tenants' local authorities; community groups, and other voluntary organisations;

(b) provisions for the inclusion of an equitable proportion of women and respresentatives of minority ethnic groups; and

(c) provision for the Board to appoint its Chair and Chief Executive without reference to the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: I have already made threatening noises about the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation is itself threatening to become the biggest and least accountable quango in British public life. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that at the moment there are about 4 to 5 million local authority tenancies and about 500,000 housing association tenancies. It will be seen that the potential for the expansion of the Housing Corporation in terms of the number of dwellings for which it has responsibility is enormous. If the remainder of the Bill, which provides for the transfer of local authority properties over to housing associations, is achieved, the potential for increased responsibilities for the Housing Corporation, simply because of the rise in the number of dwellings for which it is responsible is enormous.
Over a period of 10 years, the housing corporation could easily become 10 times its present size for that reason alone. However, the Bill is not only extending the number of tenancies for which the Housing Corporation is responsible. It is also changing its role and increasing its responsibilities very dramatically. The fact that is is being broken down into an English Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales is a bit of minor tinkering compared with the other changes that are taking place.
The existing functions of the Housing Corporation are set out in Section 75 of the Housing Associations Act. The Housing Corporation is responsible for promoting registered housing associations, facilitating their functions, publicising their aims, maintaining a register of and supervising housing associations—note the word "supervising"—and acting as agent for the Secretary of State in the payment of grant. This function will certainly not decrease. It will probably increase because the conditions of grant will change and become more complex. The final power is not used very much. It is providing dwellings for sale and rent.
The Bill as originally drafted provided for substantially increased powers for the Housing Corporation. It is said that capital grant decisions and payments should be taken away from local authorities and that the Housing Corporation should act as agent for the Secretary of State in housing

211
association schemes; and that the Housing Corporation should be responsible for revenue deficit grant decisions and for payments. Of course the Bill provided for the approval of landlords for Part IV of the Bill under the so-called tenants' choice, where estates and properties are taken away from local authorities and given to applicants, who will very largely be housing associations. That also comes under the responsibility of the Housing Corporation.
As the Bill has proceeded through Parliament, additional powers have been given to the Housing Corporation of which perhaps the most important is Clause 49. That is why we have proposed the amendment at this place in the Bill. The corporation is now enabled to give guidance on the management of accommodation by registered housing associations. We referred to this matter when considering the tenants' guarantee so that, for example, the assessment of housing demand and the means of meeting that demand can become and will become part of the responsibility of the Housing Corporation.
Allocations policy, which has been dealt with largely by local authorities, now becomes the responsibility of the Housing Corporation. The terms of tenancy and the principles on which rent levels should be determined under the tenants' guarantee become the responsibility of the Housing Corporation. Standards of maintenance and repair become the responsibility of the Housing Corporation. The whole issue of consultation and communication with tenants which one would have thought would be far better done by people much closer to those tenants—the housing associations themselves—than by some national quango based in London all become the responsibility of the Housing Corporation, or rather guidance and control of housing associations in respect of these functions.
We have the prospect of the Housing Corporation being not just 10 times the present size, but probably 20 or even 30 times the present size when all the provisions of the Bill have been implemented. I say again without fear of contradiction that we have the prospect of the biggest and the most unaccountable quango this Government have ever produced, taking away from local democracy and parliamentary control most of the important decisions in our housing policy—not just in development but in management of public housing. This is a quite unacceptable degree of expansion for a body which is simply nominated by the Secretary of State with no control outside Whitehall or Marsham Street of its membership, detailed powers or staffing. Our aim through Amendment No. 102—I am also speaking to Amendment No. 111A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport—is to find some way of bringing a semblance of democratic representation, not necessarily democratic control, into the Housing Corporation before it runs away with us and takes over not just Tottenham Court Road but housing throughout the whole of the country.
The amendment provides that a majority of the board should consist of members representative of housing associations and their tenants, local authorities, community groups and other voluntary
212
organisations. There should be an equitable proportion of women and representatives of minority ethnic groups. The board itself, not the Secretary of State, should appoint the chair and the chief executive. What we do not say is that the Secretary of State shall be deprived of any ability to make appointments to the Housing Corporation. That would clearly be quite wrong. The Secretary of State has in the past appointed people—I pay tribute to them—of considerable distinction in the housing field to the Housing Corporation. It is correct that he should continue to have the power to do so. But it is not acceptable that that body, which will grow to such an extent with so little control, should not be to a substantial extent representative of the housing associations, tenants, local authorities, community groups and other voluntary organisations with whose work it will be so intimately concerned.
We cannot believe that the Government seriously want to have the Housing Corporation growing in this way without recognising the role that it has to play and its responsibilities to the people whom it is designed to serve. We are in serious danger of having housing management in this country and a good part of housing development out of the hands of Parliament and out of the hands of the people who will be using and providing services. That cannot be right. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, once again I rise to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I suppose that if he were thinking of some comparable body, the London Residuary Body might come to mind. It has an enormous financial responsibility that does not seem ever to be coming to an end. However, I agree with everything he said. There is a massive increase in the Bill of the powers of the Housing Corporation. It must be democratised to a reasonable degree.
I should like to pay my tribute to the work in housing associations in my area of Lady Benson who is a member of the existing board. It is rumoured that Lady Benson may not remain. We hope that that is not true because she has been assiduous, very hard working and popular. Anything I say is not meant to reflect on her at all.
Amendment No. 111A which is grouped with Amendment No. 102 takes the democratisation of the Housing Corporation a step further by suggesting it be set up on a regional basis. In fact it already operates on a regional basis to a large extent. There are eight regions within the English area of the Housing Corporation operating from Exeter, Leicester, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds and it would be simple for it to structure itself properly on a regional basis to give much more power at regional level. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, let us have local people on the board of the Housing Corporation from local housing associations, nominated, elected and appointed thereto. For the first time the Housing Corporation in its annual report has reported on a regional basis; so let us follow it down that path and make it efficient. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 111A.

213
The national federation is also organised on a regional basis. So it would be proper for the housing associations and the Housing Corporation to work together within the regions. I truly believe that this ought to have the support of the Government because they are giving the corporation quite staggering powers with a budget of something like £1 billion which will clearly grow much higher. The housing association movement is set to increase substantially as well; so let us do the natural thing. Let us widen the responsibilities and widen the democratisation of the corporation so that local people have a much closer liaison with it.
I totally support what the Government have done in Wales. I feel sure that the Secretary of State had some part in that. To have hived off the corporation's work in Wales to its own Welsh housing movement is quite correct. But let us also do something for the regions in England. Why do we not do it? I support the amendment.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I believe it is entirely logical to discuss the Housing Corporation which, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, has such a vital part to play. I can speak only of the excellent work that I have seen. I doubt whether I can vote for the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will say a little about what the Minister has borne in mind and will bear in mind in making appointments. I feel that the amendment is too rigid. It might lead to the appointment of "statutory women" who are not as good as ordinary women. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us a little of what the Minister is thinking along these lines, although maybe not wishing to have his hands tied exactly to the letter of the new constitution.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Housing Corporation has come a long way since it was first set up in the 1960s by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. By and large, I believe everyone would agree that it has done a pretty good job. Indeed its current annual report is an impressive document. It is a pity that the Government have not seized the opportunity of the Bill to consider how the Housing Corporation should be constituted. Therefore I am personally grateful to the proposers of the two amendments.
I prefer Amendment No. 111A with its emphasis on regionalism to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has already referred. He explained how the corporation works through regions and has a considerable measure of administrative devolution to them. We welcome that but it needs to be taken a step further beyond merely the devolution of scrutiny, office work and the adminstration of funds and paper. Therefore, I should welcome separate boards in the eight regions.
I conclude by pointing out that the Housing Corporation expects the committees of registered housing associations to be both representative and accountable. It likes to see on the committees representatives of local authorities or parish councils. It likes to see tenants represented. It likes to see community and voluntary bodies playing a full part in the decisions which a housing association
214
committee must take. If the corporation is insisting on that kind of accountability and local community responsibility at the level where new building, improvement and maintenance of houses is taking place, the same principles should apply within the funding and administrative body—-that is to say, the Housing Corporation. Surely, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Lord Swinfen: While I appreciate the need for representation on the board of the Housing Corporation by the housing associations (which are using the money being given to them by the corporation), we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the corporation is spending taxpayers' money. Therefore it needs to be under ministerial and government control. Regarding both amendments, I cannot agree with the appointment of a chair. A chairman is the leader of the board. As far as I can see the movers of both amendments wish to appoint an inanimate object for the board to perch upon.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My noble friend Lord Swinfen put the last point extremely well. I was going to say something along similar lines, but I do not think that I need now do so. I am sure that Amendment No. 102 has the best interests of the housing association movement at heart. The Government also have those interests at heart. Indeed, they would not be seeking so actively to increase the role of the housing associations if they did not have such a commitment. I am afraid that it is to misunderstand the role of the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales to suppose that the amendment could help to secure the effects which we want.
It is of course an important function of the corporation to promote development and activity by housing associations. But that is only a part of its role. The corporation is also responsible for the management of a very large capital programme, worth £737 million in England in the current year. It must take detailed investment decisions, within the policy priorities indicated by the Government, about where and how that money is spent, a point made by my noble friend. The corporation also acts on the Government's behalf as banker to the housing association movement, making loans to associations from advances drawn down from the National Loans Fund. The amount outstanding at the beginning of this financial year stood at nearly £2,000 million for England and Wales. Then the corporation has the role of supervising and monitoring the activities and behaviour of individual housing associations, to ensure that the highest standards are set and maintained. This is a vital function, bearing in mind the large amounts of taxpayers' money involved in supporting housing association development through Exchequer grant: over £750 million of grant was approved by the corporation last financial year.
In order to maintain its confidence in the proper regulation of the corporation's functions, the Government could not accept, therefore, that they should not have the power to appoint the chairman of the corporation, or to approve the appointment of the chief executive. In the same way, it would also be

215
wrong, in the Government's view, for the discretion of the Secretary of State to appoint board members to be constrained in such a way that a majority of the board had to be composed of representatives from specified interest groups. It is precisely because of the desirability of avoiding conflicts of interest that the Secretary of State is required by the 1985 Act to satisfy himself, before appointing a member of the board, that he or she has no financial or other interest likely to have a prejudical effect on their role as a member.
In practice I think that the discretion of the Secretary of State over appointments has been exercised most wisely. Members of the Committee who have spoken this evening have complimented some of the members of the present board. There is nothing about the composition of the present board of the housing corporation, for example, which points to any shortage of experience of the housing association world. A majority of the members are, or have been, actively involved in running an association. And yet the board is still rich in many other skills and fields of experience important to the work of the corporation: architecture, the law, housing finance and public administration. And fields of experience such as financial expertise will be of vital importance in the move to expand housing association activity by attracting sources of funding in the private sector. That might give an indication to my noble friend Lord Moyne. The corporation is fully aware of the need to consult with representative bodies and does so effectively at present. This Bill will add further obligations to consult representative bodies where appropriate.
The amendment also seeks to limit the discretion of the Secretary of State by providing that a proportion of board members be of a certain gender or ethnic origin. In practice again the Secretary of State is very much aware of the need to act equitably in the making of public appointments and will do his utmost to continue so to act. But it would be unnecessarily restrictive of his discretion to legislate in the way proposed. It could also mean in practice that, at any particular time when a vacancy arose, he might be prevented from appointing a person who otherwise had precisely the skills or experience most suited to fill the vacancy. For all these reasons the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 102.
Turning to Amendment No. 111A, I have again to say that the proposals contained in it would not have effects which were in the best interests of the housing association movement. The main effect of the amendment would be to do away with the Housing Corporation as the central co-ordinating and regulatory body in England. It would be divided into eight or more regional bodies. This cumbersome structure would result in a great deal of extra administration and duplicated effort, without any obvious potential for any compensating gains in terms of greater efficiency or a better end-product. It would also mean that functions such as planning for investment priorities nationally, and the regulation and supervision of housing associations generally, would have to be shifted to central government. One of the purposes of Part II of this Bill is to delegate
216
more of the functions of the Department of the Environment to the Housing Corporation. The reverse of this would happen under this amendment, with many more functions ending up in the Department of the Environment. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, wants that.
Again, in practice it is a fact that the Housing Corporation is most sensitive to the needs of different regions. It delegates much of its executive work to its existing network of regional offices and its regional managers frequently consult with interested parties locally. The corporation would in fact like to delegate more decision-making to its regional managers. This process will not be improved upon by the approach advocated in the amendment.
I hope that I can give some reassurance to Members who have expressed concern at the potential growth of the Housing Corporation, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is true that it will take on important new functions under the Bill. However, many of those are only a natural extension of the activities which the corporation is already carrying out as the agent of the Secretary of State, or as the body responsible for ensuring high standards of probity in the housing association movement. There is emphatically no danger of the corporation being expanded to 10 or 20 times its size, as has been alleged.
Perhaps I may turn to the main point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, namely, that it is an undemocratic and unelected body. At the end of the day the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament and has to answer in another place for what goes on. Therefore, democratic accountability is there.
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened with great interest to the response of the Minister. On the growth of the Housing Corporation he has made an assertion and has not given any evidence to indicate that it will do anything less than grow in proportion to the number of properties with which it deals. He has not given me any indication that it will not grow more because of additional responsibilities placed upon it.
The Minister's speech was interesting because it concentrated on some aspects of the amendments rather than the principle of accountability. In particular he criticised a provision in the amendments that a majority of the members of the board would be appointed as representative of the various bodies specified in the amendment. Therefore, is he prepared to take the proposal away and look again at the prospect of a minority of the members of the board being appointed as representative of those interests and the remainder being appointed by the Secretary of State?
Before the noble Lord responds to that, perhaps I may ask him whether he would be encouraged to think again about that if we withdrew the suggestion that the chairman and the chief executive should be appointed by the board rather than by the Secretary of State. I am reluctant to do that because I believe that the appointment by the board of the chief executive in particular is of great importance. But if

217
we could make progress in the representativeness of at least a minority of the members of the corporation we might be willing to moderate the suggestions put forward in this amendment. I do not know whether he feels able to respond in any way to those suggestions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: At this moment I am not able to respond very positively to the suggestion. If the noble Lord tables what I would call a slightly less draconian amendment, we should have to look at it on its merits. But I cannot give any assurance that we would look at it particularly favourably.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not expect any more than that. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will no doubt read what has been said. I believe that he is the Minster responsible for housing, and he may be in a position to be more positive. Although the detail may be questionable, I believe that the thrust of the amendment is still valid.
Similarly, as regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, which I said I was speaking to and failed to commend adequately, it does not seem to me that the objections made by the Minister have great force. For example, it would be perfectly possible for these regional housing corporations in England to set themselves up with a chairman and committee which could cover the whole of England and which would fulfil the coordinating functions by which the Minister sets such great store. None of those regions would be significantly smaller than Wales; and were it not for the difference between the Principality and the regions of England, which on this Bench in particular I dare not minimise, it would be equally good sense for the regions of England to have their own housing corporations, in the same way as the Principality of Wales. I do not believe that that question was adequately answered, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will feel free to come back to this at a later stage if necessary.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to comment on the noble Lord's suggestion. I have no objection to the Secretary of State appointing the chairman of the Housing Corporation, but I believe that it should be up to the board to appoint the chief executive. The hoard should appoint its chief executive and the regional boards should appoint their chief executives. I should like to put that on record.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are faced with a body which will grow very substantially despite the Minister's denial. We are faced with a body which, quite unlike the Training Commission, which is an analogy that we must make, does not have any representation from outside interests except by the goodwill of the Secretary of State. After all, the Training Commission, and the Manpower Services Commission before it, is the prime example in this country of the tripartite composition of public bodies which is such a strong feature of the European Community, in which we are becoming increasingly involved as 1992 approaches very quickly.
218
The analogy of the composition of the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Commission, with employer and union representatives as well as government representatives, is not threatening to the Government. This tripartite membership has led to conflict on occasion but has enabled the Manpower Services Commission to do a more effective job in securing the co-operation of employers and trade unions in its work.
I seriously suggest to the Minister that the Housing Corporation will be stronger if those who live under its sway, are dependent on its finance and need to influence its policy have a statutory right of membership on the body. It is not something which is outside the existing experience of the Government or government policy in other departments in other spheres. I strongly commend this view to the Committee. I hope that at a later stage it will be possible to come back with amendments which put at rest some of the fears expressed from the Government Front Bench. However, because there are a number of matters which need to be thought about again in detail on the ideal composition of the Housing Corporation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Permissible purposes, objects or powers]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.
103:
Page 35, line 41, leave out ("Housing Associations Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act")") and insert ("1985 Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Guidance as to management of accommodation by registered housing associations]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.104:
Page 37, line 21, leave out ("Housing Associations Act 1985") and insert ("1985 Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Housing association grants]:
[Amendment No. 105 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 38, line 31, at end insert ("Such determination shall specify the manner in which housing association grant shall be paid in connection with housing activities where a local authority has provided promotion and assistance in accordance with section 58 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to express my gratitude for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who had tabled an identical amendment to Amendment No. 105. Since my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, was tabled after theirs, I believe we should have withdrawn our amendment and appended our names to theirs, but they were

219
good enough to do it the other way round, which is why I move the amendment.
I believe that everybody is agreed that the ability of local authorities to continue to provide loan finance for grant-aided housing association projects is important. The Government have indicated that they wish that to continue, and housing associations like to think that there is more than one source of funding for new projects. In that way they are not simply dependent on a single source and not threatened if for any reason they fall out with one particular funding body.
It is also true that local authorities have an understanding of local housing needs because of their much greater involvement with housing in the area. Therefore they are able to put the money at their disposal into housing association projects which are more likely to fulfil local housing needs. I think it would be generally agreed that it is a good thing that that should continue. Sections 41 and 46 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 provide that both local authorities and the housing associations can act as agents for the Secretary of State in passing on housing association grant.
In this Bill Clause 50 takes over and gives the Housing Corporation the sole power to make housing association grants. It must be admitted that there have been difficulties in the 1985 Act. When the local authorities are proposing to make grants the Department of the Environment insists on carrying out its own double scrutiny and on looking at schemes in Marsham Street which have already been looked at by the local authority. Whatever the reasons for that may be—
I do not think it is appropriate to go into them now—the fact is that the approval procedure for local authority grants to housing associations has been slower and more cumbersome than for the Housing Corporation, because principally the Government have been more willing to give latitude to the Housing Corporation than to local authorities. Therefore, schemes which are funded by the Housing Corporation tend to go through more quickly than local authority funded schemes.
Clause 50 is certainly wide enough to allow the corporation to pay housing association grant, because only the corporation can pay housing association grant on local authority funded schemes as well as on housing corporation funded schemes. In May the Government said that that was the intention and that it was their policy that housing association grant would continue to be paid on local authority funded schemes as well as on Housing Corporation funded schemes. But it is not good enough for that to be a statement of intent for the Government, because the Government could very well reverse the statement of intent and change quite dramatically the situation which now exists and which would continue under the statement of intent.
In this amendment we are giving statutory effect to the statement which the Government made in May about restoring to local authorities the statutory ability to provide funding to grant-aided housing association schemes, which it is now proposed to replace by a statement of intent.
I think the noble Lord will be able to say in reply that our objectives are the same as those of the Government. I hope he will recognise that to have it on the face of the Bill is a real improvement, a real protection. Undoubtedly, we shall have to do something about the speed of approval of local authority schemes, but to maintain a diversity of funding is a very sound principle. Such a principle, which increases the ability of housing associations to respond effectively to local needs, is of real benefit to housing associations and is recognised by the housing association movement as being of real benefit. I believe that the amendment will therefore commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: I wish to support the amendment. It is the result of long conversations which we have had with the National Federation of Housing Associations, and it seems to me that it is in accordance with that which the Government want. It is more in the nature of a tidying-up amendment than anything else. Otherwise, there is nothing fundamental about it.
Lord Ross of Newport: Obviously I also speak in support of this amendment. I know from the housing association movement that relations with local authorities have been close and good. Certainly, in days gone by local authority funding was probably regarded rather more highly than that from the Housing Corporation. That has changed as years have gone by, as money has become very tight within local authorities.
I understood from a statement made by the Minister in another place recently that it was not the intention of the Government totally to freeze out local authority funding. I very much hope that we shall hear more on that from the Minister now.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that I shall be able to say rather more. There has been a long tradition of local authority support for housing associations, which we greatly value. However, it is widely recognised that the present arrangements for paying housing association grant (HAG) on local authority sponsored schemes are very unsatisfactory, involving much delay and confusion of accountability. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the difficulties that were encountered.
Because of those problems we had indeed wondered whether it would not be better to discontinue entirely the availability of HAG on such schemes under the new regime. However, my honourable friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 23rd May our decision to authorise the Housing Corporation to pay grant on schemes which local authorities decide to support with loans. The idea is that the local authority alone should be responsible for deciding whether public resources should be committed to a scheme while the corporation alone should be responsible for vetting it for grant. This should get us away from the problems of overbureaucratic scrutiny which have dogged the present arrangements.

221
The details of the system are being thoroughly discussed with the local authority associations, representatives of the housing associations, and the Housing Corporation; and if the proposed amendment has been prompted by any particular worries about how the new arrangements will work these can be looked at in the discussions.
Clause 50 as it stands enables the corporation to pay HAG on schemes supported by local authorities, as by any other lender. I hope I can dispel any concern there may be that the corporation would not be evenhanded in its treatment of local authority sponsored schemes. First, there will be no question of the corporation seeking to ration the schemes. HAG on schemes assisted by local authorities will be outside the corporation's cash-limited programme. While the grant will actually come from the corporation, the entire cost of the scheme, including the grant, will be a charge on the local authority capital allocation. So it will be for the local authority to decide what schemes should go forward, and any scheme which satisfies the HAG rules will automatically attract HAG. The HAG rules themselves will be for the corporation to specify, but they will be in accordance with principles which have to be approved by the Secretary of State and the Treasury and on which the housing association movement has to be consulted. So the corporation would certainly not be allowed—even if it had any inclination—to put bias on the working of the system against local authority sponsored schemes.
The amendment would require the arrangements for payment of housing association grant for local authority sponsored housing schemes to be specified in the corporation's determinations.
I can, however, assure noble Lords that such an amendment is not necessary. Clauses 50 and 53 already provide for the corporation to specify such matters as the grant procedures and the method for calculating and paying grant for the full range of eligible schemes, including those sponsored by local authorities. This will be done in accordance with such principles as the corporation may determine with the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and in most cases the Treasury.
More importantly, I do not think it desirable that Clause 50 should make specific reference to local authority sponsored schemes in this way. There are numerous categories of schemes and arrangements for funding that will need to be covered in the determinations. Indeed, the corporation's determinations will need to be very comprehensive in their coverage. They will need to spell out not only the procedures that will be necessary for schemes using different manners of financing but also those required for each type of scheme, of which there is a wide variety. For instance, the arrangements for schemes for rent developed as part of a programme by a large, financially strong housing association will be different from those for similar schemes developed on a one-off basis by a small, relatively weak association. The arrangements for home ownership schemes will be different again.
To mention just local authority sponsored schemes when there are so many other matters, many of them
222
no less important, would be to unbalance the clause and make it very difficulty to work. However, with the explanations and assurances I have given, in particular that we see a considerable future role for local authorities to promote and fund housing association projects, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that the Minister has done little more than repeat the assurances given by his colleagues in May. We never doubted that it was the Government's intent as of May or July 1988 to continue to have local authorities playing an important role in the funding of new housing association projects. That is not the issue in question. We are saying that, while intent can change, more effort is required to change statutes. We think that the intent should be enshrined in statute rather than left to the whim of governments, who may be less favourably inclined to local authorities than the present Government—if that were possible.
I am intrigued by the concept that the local authority will provide the basic funding and the Housing Corporation will be responsible for the allocation of housing association grant. I do not think that that concept has got through to all those who have been consulted. It certainly has not been put to me as the pattern to be implemented in the future.
The Minister has said much that demands serious attention before we consider what to do at a later stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 38, line 34, at end insert ("except that no condition, whether imposed by the Corporation or by the Secretary of State under this Chapter, may specify that any surplus remaining after the payment of grant and incurring of expenditure on it shall be paid to any source").
The noble Lord said: This is intended as a paving amendment to Clause 55. If it is agreed to, I suppose that it would make something of a nonsense of Clause 55. Clause 55 allows the Secretary of State to direct housing associations to set up rent surplus funds, from which he can then claw back surpluses accruing from higher rents. As the Minister knows well, the National Federation of Housing Associations has for long felt that this should be dropped.
As to what the amendment adds to the Bill, it is proposed that there should be no restrictions on a grant made by a housing association, which should not be made subject to repayments of any kind. Housing associations will increasingly face problems as the years go by because for housing stock—particularly that requiring rehabilitation—maintenance and repairs will become more costly and grants will be reduced from 90 per cent. to 70 per cent. so that fewer funds will come from the Housing Corporation. It is doubtful whether it will be possible to get much out of the private sector. I know the Government say that they wish to see more funding from the private sector. However, the private sector is not likely to be very enamoured of housing associations that have little cash in the bank.

223
Therefore, it will be necessary to build up the surpluses.
My own association wrote to the Minister in May. It wanted to use the grant redemption fund (which is now to be known as the rent surplus fund) to build up its reserves. It suggested also that the rent surplus fund might be used to alleviate what it regards as excessive rent increases in order to establish a more equitable rent system. That met with little favour from the Minister. We were told that how the rent surplus fund would work was still a matter of discussion between the Department of the Environment, the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations. It remains the wish of the NFHA to persuade the Government to abolish it.
As I said, this is a paving amendment to Clause 55, and proposes that grants should not have particular requirements tied to them. When a grant is made, it should be used for a particular purpose and the rent surplus fund should remain in the vaults of the housing associations to use as they think fit. If the Government want the housing association movement to thrive, they should not threaten that money will be claimed back, sometimes with interest—that is what Clause 55 says. While it is true that the Government claim that money clawed back in fact goes back into the housing association movement, the housing associations would much prefer to run their own affairs and be allowed to build up their own surpluses. It is necessary—the Government have
accepted this—for the housing associations to set up sinking funds for repairs. If they do not know whether they will be allowed to retain their surpluses as they build up slowly—and indeed, not many have a great deal in the way of surplus, so let us get that straight—how on earth can they plan ahead sensibly a sinking fund for repairs? I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support the amendment. It asks the Government to trust housing associations. There is no disguising that the national federation, representing all its members, has had a dislike of the previous arrangements. What the Government propose is a similar arrangement but under a different name. I ask the Minister to be serious about putting into effect the Government's expressed wish to expand the housing association movement. I do not dispute that the Government wish to expand and strengthen housing associations because they have for a long time recognised the value of this third arm in housing—municipally-owned housing, the owner-occupied sector and housing association and co-operative forms of management and ownership. Nor do I dispute their integrity or question their motives, but we are talking of hard practicalities.
Housing associations are responsible bodies. They too wish to have some independence. By good management and skill—and often by luck—they
build up surplus funds. However, if the Government can call these in at will, the desire of the housing associations to be more enterprising than they might otherwise be will be sapped. Housing associations must be able to build up their money reserves and,
224
when they want to be enterprising and undertake a major programme of renovation and repair, have some funds of their own. We all want some independence. The Minister, his family, his wife and his friends surely like to feel that they are free from interference. We plead with the Government not to perpetuate what has been a bone of contention in the past between the housing association movement, the Minister and his advisers and the Housing Corporation.
Many risks are involved. With the best managed housing associations in the world, not all will be best managed. Some are feckless and some are poorly managed professionally. It is a broad church. Given that they seriously want to expand and provide the opportunity for participation and modest ownership, we ask that these groups of people, some of whom are professional and some of whom are volunteers, be given a little confidence.
We want the Government also to inject a little certainty for housing corporations about the future. It is not good for them always to be beholden to the whim of government or a housing corporation. What about bureaucracy and the costs involved? What about the need for small housing associations to maintain financial control and be able to evaluate profit and loss and aggregated profit on properties in order to put the surplus into a fund, with all the paperwork that is involved? In the end the Government will be taking away money from those who have made it, they will make the money go round so that, in the fullness of time, the money taken from the housing association will come back and go round yet again.
The Government might fairly say that their job and that of the Housing Corporation is to manage the whole of the movement. The Minister should listen, and this Minister might, to the people at the sharp end—those concerned with the housing associations. They are saying "Goodness gracious, give us a little freedom and the opportunity to manage our own affairs." The Government may wish to see some private finance injected into the housing associations, but that will be inhibited unless they are allowed to build up, retain and use the surpluses that they make from managing their business.
We believe that the Government have an opportunity under the new arrangements to demonstrate that they have confidence, as we have on this side of the Chamber, in the housing association movement. The sums involved are modest. I do not have precise figures but I am told by the national federation that they are modest in the totality of the scheme. The Minister mentioned a figure earlier of £730 million which is managed and recycled by the Housing Corporation. Here we are talking about a few thousand pounds. We are not talking about a few thousand pounds to waste; it can be circumscribed in a number of ways. I very much hope that the Minister will say kind words which might enable the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Moyne: I shall speak to Amendment No. 107 and the Motion to omit Clause 55 from the Bill at the

225
same time. I am not clear as to the effect of missing out Clause 55 or of truncating it by Amendment No. 107. I am not clear whether the old grant redemption fund would still apply and whether the whole of the surpluses would have to be handed back as at present.
On Second Reading I asked my noble friend for an assurance that he would at least allow part of the rent surplus funds to be retained as sinking funds for major repairs. That assurance was generously given, though without commitment as to the proportion. I felt that half a loaf was better than no bread, if it was to be a half, but I was asking for a whole loaf.
My noble friend was kind enough to say that I had not yet persuaded the Government that the whole surplus should be retained. I venture to hope that my argument that those who have made talents fructify should be allowed to retain the results for further fruition, combined with the persuasive arguments expressed today, may induce the Government to consider introducing an amendment of their own on Report by which proportions will be fixed. Let us say that it should be half for the sinking fund and half for further investment in bricks and mortar. A slice for the Housing Corporation, to which the movement owes so much, would not be unreasonable but would confuse the existing pattern by which the corporation is financed by central government.
I believe that it will he best to fix proportions in the Bill rather than to leave them for endless discussion and negotiation. On the assurance that such an amendment will be considered by the Government, I hope that these amendments might be withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not entirely clear whether the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Newport and Lord Graham of Edmonton, were speaking to Clause 55 stand part.
Lord Ross of Newport: I was speaking to the amendment and I pointed out that the inevitable result of passing this amendment means that Clause 55 will have to be drastically rewritten.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: If I may, I shall answer both debates and include Clause 55 stand part at the same time. I must tell the noble Lord that I do not believe that his amendment would have the effect that he wishes. It seems that it is intended to emasculate Clause 55 by preventing the Housing Corporation from making payments of grant conditional on the later repayment of surpluses. Clause 55 is self-contained and the duties that it imposes on associations are not dependent on conditions having been made on the payment of grant. Therefore, the amendment would have no effect on the operation of the rent surplus fund arrangements in Clause 55.
Turning to Clause 55 itself, which I believe to be the main point of the debate, in order to understand its purpose it is necessary to go back some way into history and also to delve into the technical details of the current method of financing housing association development. Since 1974 the greater part of the cost of an approved housing association project (typically 85 per cent. of it) has been met by housing association grant. HAG is paid as a lump sum when the project
226
has been completed. and its amount is calculated so as to bridge the gap that would otherwise arise between the associations' reasonable expenditure on the project and its estimated income—that is, chiefly the income it can obtain from rents, which, as we have seen, are at present pegged to the fair rent level determined by the rent officer.
The important point to note is that this is a single calculation, based on the associations' estimated costs and income at a particular point in time. But unfortunately both of these things will tend to change over the years. If costs and income rise broadly in line with each other, there is no difficulty. But all past experience is that they tend not to, for one very simple reason. The 15 per cent. or so of the project cost which is not paid by HAG is normally financed by a loan. That loan normally takes the form of a conventional mortgage.
It is characteristic of the conventional mortgage that annual repayments stay constant in cash terms over the years (leaving aside the effect of fluctuations in interest rates) and many housing association loans were in any event taken out at fixed interest rates, whatever is happening to the general level of prices and earnings in the economy. Loan charges are an important element of associations' costs. Since prices and earnings continue to rise, though mercifully no longer at the tremendous rate we experienced in the 1970s, and since this rise is reflected in the level of fair rents, it follows that associations' costs arising from a particular project tend to grow less fast than their rent income.
The Public Accounts Committee of another place drew attention some years ago to the uncovenanted bonus which associations were receiving in this way over and above the very generous grant they were given towards the capital cost of their schemes. On its recommendation a corrective mechanism, called the grant redemption fund or GRF, was introduced in 1980. This is designed to recover any surplus rental income which accrues on grant-aided projects as rents rise faster than costs. It is often, and quite unfairly, represented as a tax on the housing association movement. It is of course nothing of the kind. It is there merely to ensure that an association is not put in a more favourable position than was intended when the grant was first paid to it. Nor is this merely a one-way street. There is separate provision for revenue deficit grant to be paid to associations which for some reason outside of their control incur an overall deficit on their operations.
The GRF is a complicated arrangement, deeply and understandably unpopular with associations. Nor has it been very succesful. By a variety of accounting procedures, associations have managed to minimise their GRF liability. One of our objectives in designing the financing arrangements for new housing association schemes under the Bill and under the current pilot programme of schemes funded by a mixture of public and private finance has therefore been to tackle at source the problem the GRF was brought into force to deal with. The key to this is the nature of the loan involved. Our troubles arise, as I have explained, from the use of conventional mortgages. If instead associations raise the money for the balance of the scheme cost through one or more

227
of the available sources of low-start money, index-linked loans, deferred interest loans, deep discounted stock issues or whatever, the burden of loan charges will be less formidable in the early years and will broadly keep pace with their other costs and their rental income thereafter. Initial input of grant can therefore be lower than it would otherwise need to be, and no corrective machinery will be required thereafter.
However, the greater part of the associations' stock was funded under the present grant regime, and the problem has not gone away. Indeed in one respect it is more significant than before. Associations will no longer be constrained by fair rent controls on re-lettings to new tenants of their existing stock. We would expect them to take the opportunity to increase their rents on those dwellings to levels comparable with those they will be charging on schemes funded under the new grant regime. Their capacity to generate surplus rental income will therefore be increased.
At the same time, however, new uses for associations' rental income will arise. Two are particularly important. First, we think it right that associations should increasingly look to their own resources to fund major repairs to their stock. At present 100 per cent. grant is available for this purpose. But the supply of course has to be rationed and inevitably a fair amount of bureaucracy is entailed. It would be far better for associations to set aside a proportion of their rental income each year to provide for their future repair needs. Secondly, many associations have little or nothing in the way of reserves to draw upon in the event of unexpected costs arising. It is desirable that they should build up rather more of a cushion for themselves in future, not least as the new grant arrangements will require associations to accept a greater responsibility for the cost of their schemes, and of the financial consequences of these, than they do today. A healthy reserves position will also be encouraging to potential private lenders.
These new demands on associations' rental income, particularly as regards major repairs, will be substantial in the early years and any successor arrangement of the GRF must take proper account of them. But they will affect different associations to different degrees. Those most fortunately placed may well before long find themselves with surplus rental capacity significantly exceeding their needs, whereas for many others it will be many years before they can fund all their major repair requirements for themselves. It is necessary therefore to ensure that the taxpayer continues to enjoy the protection which the Public Accounts Committee called for, though equally necessary to devise new machinery to fit the new situation and to remedy the difficulties of the existing GRF arrangements.
Clause 55 therefore provides for a rent surplus fund, or RSF, which will replace the GRF. This gives the Secretary of State far greater flexibility in determining the rules under which recoverable surpluses will be computed than exists under the GRF provisions, and my department is already discussing intensively with the Housing Corporation
228
and the National Federation of Housing Associations how the RSF might operate. Among other things, it is intended that new schemes funded with low-start loans should be excluded from the RSF altogether; that generous allowance should be made in the calculation for the funding of future major repairs; and that associations should also be able to retain a proportion of their additional income in order, for example, to strengthen their reserves.
It is only to be expected that the housing association movement would press for Clause 55 to be removed altogether. A number of associations have indeed worked themselves into a great lather of indignation over this issue. Any recipient of grant would of course prefer to retain the money indefinitely, even if circumstances changed greatly for the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that only a few thousands pounds were involved in the grant redemption fund. I fear that he has been misinformed. Receipts from the grant redemption fund amount not to a mere few thousand pounds but to many millions.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Per association.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I readily concede that it is a modest sum in comparison with the total resources available for grants and loans to associations from——
Lord Graham of Edmonton: When I was talking about a few thousand pounds, the figure was per association. I was making the point that the administrative costs and the bureaucracy involved could well be disproportionate. Of course millions of pounds are involved globally but I was referring to the figure per association.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord Moyne made the point that the proportion of rent surplus which associations can retain should be fixed on the face of the Bill. I can understand his preference for a bird in the hand rather than two, or perhaps merely a half, in the bush. I have to say, however, that our first thoughts in this matter might not turn out to be our last thoughts. Were we to provide for a specific percentage in the Bill we might all too soon conclude that it was the wrong percentage—either too generous or too mean. We would then have to await a suitable opportunity for amending legislation.
I have given a rather lengthy explanation of why we believe Clause 55 should stay in the Bill. I hope that, with what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 107 and that Members of the Committee will not feel it necessary to press for the exclusion of Clause 55 from the Bill when we get to that stage.
Lord Moyne: I accept what my noble friend said about flexibility in the future, but I was puzzled by him saying that certain things might be in excess of

229
needs. A charitable housing association "needs" to build as many houses as possible. I cannot see how anything can be in excess of their needs.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Answer that one.
Lord Ross of Newport: We have had a lengthy reply and many of us will want to study it because it was given at a fair old pace. I am an auctioneer and I speak far too quickly. When I left the other place the Hansard writers said "Thank God". That is entirely right because I spoke at 260 words a minute. The Minister was not very bad.
He gave us some hope in that negotiations are still going on and he appreciates that at least some of the funding should remain in the hands of the housing associations both to build up sinking funds and to build up their own reserves so that they can perhaps attract more finance from the private sector.
I know that many housing associations would say that there is far too much bureaucracy from the corporation when they are buying land and in regard to when they can actually build on it. They buy the land one year and perhaps build on it two years later. If only they could build up sufficient funds they might be able to get some of these schemes off the ground much earlier. There is definitely a great loss of money in that respect when land is lying idle and one cannot put bricks and mortar on it.
However, I recognise that the matter is still continuing. It is two months or so before we come back at Report stage. Perhaps we may reconsider it and get a more up-to-date report from the Minister on that occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 39, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) In exercising the powers under this section, the Corporation shall commit no more than one quarter of its Approved Development Programme to housing association housing activities partly funded by loans from the private sector until three years after the commencement of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to limit the speed at which housing association funding is moved to mixed funding—part private sector money—by limiting the proportion of the Housing Corporation's funds which can be used for these types of scheme. Such a limit would enable the move to be genuinely experimental and a proper assessment to be made of the impact on rents and the financial risks to associations. I take the view that as it stands the Bill would in some way inhibit the housing associations from fulfilling their traditional role.
The National Federation of Housing Associations, while being willing to work with the Government and the Housing Corporation to draw private sector money into housing association funding, has expressed concern at particular aspects, which can be summarised as follows. Rents: these should remain at a level affordable for the existing low income groups
230
housed by housing associations. This matter is dealt with more fully in the amendment on rents. However, I make the point now that the role adopted over a number of years by the National Federation of Housing Associations in caring for people at the lower end of the scale could be jeopardised quite severely by the proposals in the Bill. On risks, the payment of housing association grant up front at the beginning of a scheme means that housing associations would bear all the risks of an overspend because of unforeseen costs.
The Government have now responded to that by introducing a form of risk sharing between associations and the corporation for associations which are unable to bear the full risk. Small associations, including black and ethnic minority associations and co-ops, are unlikely to have an asset base which would attract private investment. They are a continuing substantial part of the approved development programme remaining for full public funding. Those associations will either never get off the ground or their future development will be thwarted. In some areas that type of association has started to fill a vacuum which we believe no one else would have been able to pick up or even have attempted to pick up.
As regards the speed of change, the National Federation of Housing Associations is concerned that change should be gradual. The effects on rents and small associations need to be carefully assessed, as does the ability of housing associations to attract private finance on reasonable terms and to bear the risk that the Government are asking them to take. Of course for private finance there must be an attraction, and there will have to be some underpinning before private finance will be attracted. That is why I think that the situation as it stands at present in the Bill would have the opposite effect to this idea. I believe it could irreparably damage, in some respects beyond recovery, the role of some of the associations.
However, the amendment concerns itself with the speed of change. In another place the Minister of State for Housing always referred to the mixed funding scheme as experimental, indicating that the approach must be a careful one and the effects of mixed funding closely monitored. Further, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to this year's pilot mixed funding programme on 11th July (at col. 675 of Hansard). However, the indications are that despite such assurances the DoE and the Housing Corporation are pressing ahead at speed with the mixed funding scheme, without waiting for its effects to be properly assessed.
There are dangers as well as opportunities for housing associations in working with private finance. At present there is too little experience available, especially for smaller organisations, for the change to mixed funding to be other than the experimental approach indicated in both places.
As a former chairman of a large municipal housing authority, I recall that when the housing associations first started to appear—I am talking about the housing associations as we see them today—there was a great deal of suspicion, and to some extent resentment, among some of the local authorities concerned with housing about their role. However,

231
time has shown that housing associations, as I and my colleagues believe, are fulfilling a vital role which is complementary to the public sector. We believe that it should be on an expanding basis because it can certainly be more trusted by virtue of historical events than some of the bad practices which have gone on in the private sector. I think that it should be receiving all the encouragement that the Government can give it if they are really serious about providing housing for rent for people at the lower end of the scale.
From what the Minister said last night in reply to some of the amendments, there will be very little housing in the private rented sector which will be available to the bottom end of the social scale when the Bill becomes enacted. I am not using exactly the same words but I am explaining the sentiments behind what the Minister said to the Committee last night. He conceded that the lower end of the scale—namely, the homeless—would not to any substantial extent be affected by what is before us.
I am making the case on behalf of my colleagues and other Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber, and perhaps some noble Lords on the Government Benches, that the housing associations have a proven record. They are delivering the goods. We believe that the Bill as it is presently structured will inhibit them in doing a job which is welcomed by the community and we think they should be allowed to get on with that job without any such inhibition. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: An important underlying objective this Bill is to make it easier for housing associations to co-operate with the private sector in the development of new housing schemes. The reason for that is quite clear. If public and private sectors can co-operate, where up to now only the public sector has been involved, we will be able to make our public sector resources stretch further, and get far more homes for the same money. Let me briefly explain the background.
At present it is housing association grant which bears nearly all the burden of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. Where a new scheme is developed, a very large proportion of the capital costs is met by grant, and a residual public sector loan is left, to be serviced by rental income calculated by the rent officer under the fair rent system. So there is no private sector financial involvement. And yet housing is pre-eminently a field in which the private sector has always been well prepared to invest. This has not, it is true, been the case in recent decades in the field of housing for rent for the reasons that we have already discussed in relation to Part I of the Bill and I do not wish to repeat those arguments. They are to do with the notorious complexity of landlord and tenant law, and not least the unrealistic nature of the current fair rent system.
However, with a more rational tenancy and rental regime there is no reason why the private sector should not be prepared to invest in rented housing. This does not just mean private sector provision of new accommodation at market rents. Important
232
though that is, we fully recognise the continuing need for substantial public sector input to provide accommodation within the means of the less well off. We will continue to provide for this through the housing associations. But the mere fact that there is an input of grant is no reason to suppose that the private sector will be unable or unwilling to invest.
On the contrary, we have seen in the last year or so the first steps towards a mixed funded programme of private sector loan and public sector grant run by the Housing Corporation. Under last year's initial programme, £30 million was made available and housing associations were able to bid for mixed funded projects to make use of those resources. I am pleased to say that this £30 million was fully committed before the end of the financial year.
In the current year the corporation has set aside £58 million of its approved development programme for a continuance and enlargement of mixed funding. New and more generous rates of grant are now available, ranging from 50 per cent. in low cost areas to 75 per cent. in high cost areas. The corporation received no less than £700 million of bids to take up these resources, and it has in fact committed over £100 million to help ensure a complete spend. That is all very encouraging. What is more, it is all happening in advance of this legislation, which will ensure that new lettings are granted on assured tenancy terms. Once the legislation has received Royal Assent, we are confident that there will be further interest from housing associations in the mixed funded programme.
At the levels of grant we have announced for this year we are confident that associations will be able to provide accommodation well within the means of their traditional client groups. We are not contemplating market rents or anything like that. Mixed funded schemes will be a continuance of existing programmes providing for those who need subsidised housing. We will monitor the grant rates to ensure that that is what is being achieved. I hope that will give some reassurance to the noble Lord.
I turn now to the noble Lord's amendment. It seeks to limit the scope for mixed funding to a maximum of one-quarter of the Housing Corporation's total investment programme for the next three years. Why should one do that? At an average grant rate of 60 per cent., which is the average applying this year, mixed funding delivers two-thirds more dwellings for the same input of grant as 100 per cent. public sector funding. That is a major prize for the housing associations to grasp, and many of them are trying to grasp it with enthusiasm. We wish to give them all the encouragement we can to go further down that path as rapidly as possible. I see no case for imposing any artificial restrictions of the kind the amendment seeks to impose.
Members of the Committee are concerned that a shift in emphasis towards mixed funding may mean that there is no place in future for traditionally funded schemes. That is not so. We recognise, and have always recognised, that there are certain kinds of schemes, and also certain associations, which for a variety of reasons will find it difficult to attract mixed funding. That may apply, for example, to some types of special needs schemes. And in some cases

233
associations will he too new or will lack the resources to participate in mixed funding. They will need to be able to offer some security to private lenders. At the present stage in their development, they may just not have any to offer. For such reasons, I repeat, we accept the continuing need for public sector loans as well as grant to be available. In some cases, schemes will continue to be wholly dependent—or almost—upon government grant.
We should expect the Housing Corporation to continue to provide a substantial level of assistance to schemes, or to associations in the categories I have just described. However, I repeat the point I made earlier. It would be an artificial restriction on the Housing Corporation to limit its contribution to mixed funding to just one quarter of its approved development programme. It would be wrong to suppose that the build-up towards higher levels of mixed funding must be as slow as the amendment proposes. We cannot at this stage be certain of the level of mixed funding which can be achieved or how quickly. We should like it to be the most which is compatible with the corporation continuing to fulfil its basic role; that is, to provide, through the housing associations, good quality housing for a variety of groups which could not afford it without subsidy.
With those assurances and for those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before my noble friend responds, I am bound to say that that was an extraordinarily sanguine response to the amendment. It reminds me of the bursar of the Oxford college who wanted to criticise the college's investment policy on the grounds that the previous 200 years had been totally exceptional in economic policy. When the Minister says that there has been plenty of money for investment in housing except in the past few decades, he seems to be whistling in the dark. During the past few decades, in particular, the whole climate of investment in housing has been changed because we have subsidised private ownership on a large scale through tax relief on mortgages. The Minister did not even refer to that major consideration in housing investment in his response to my noble friend.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I did however refer to figures for the past year and the current year and how it looked as though investment was coming in for the programme.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I wish that I could receive what the Minister said with some gratitude. I wish that what he said would help reach the Government's objective. I am certain that it will not do so. This part of the Bill is based upon attracting private funding. It may have gone over the Minister's head, although it did not go over mine because I have been involved in large and medium scale housing development in the past, but what one can build and fund often depends on the interest that one pays. I do not know how
234
housing associations can plan when we have the bank rate yo-yo-ing.
The Government believe that private money will be made available to housing associations at an interest rate that will enable them to fund developments and redevelopments at only reasonably increased rents. I consider that the Government are whistling in the dark. I do not believe that there is any possibility of that happening because private funding, whatever the Minister says, is not a charitable institution. I do not have any money to invest, but if I were to place some money with a financial institution—a bank or unit trust—it would not suddenly decide that I had given it for charitable purposes and start to make it available to housing associations at such a low interest rate that it almost guaranteed protection to housing association tenants.
I have attended a number of conferences; I do not know whether Ministers have. How to attract private capital into the market for houses to rent is an involved and important subject. It is so unattractive that there are few examples of financial institutions becoming involved. The rents that would have to be charged would be outside the reach of the families that the Government are supposed to be dedicated to assisting. The Minister's response gave me about as much hope as the lancers had during the Charge of the Light Brigade. They did not achieve their objective. It was a noble charge, but few returned. That is the type of thing that will happen with housing associations. They have a tremendous role to play. They are a proven success which should be built upon. We must almost discount the idea that the private sector will play a large part in funding housing associations for the type of people whom the Opposition, and the Government through their Ministers, profess continually to want to help most—the people at the bottom of the social market who have a variety of problems.
Local authorities have almost stopped building council houses because of the huge cut in funding. There is almost a stalemate. Some of the slack may have been taken up by housing association programmes. I hope that the Government will reconsider the effects of what they say the Bill will do. I believe that it will do the opposite. It will be a discouragement. It will retard the further substantial development of the housing association movement that we should all like to see. I should like to read what the Minister has said. I am sure that I have drawn the correct conclusion that the proposals contained in the Bill will do nothing to help that worthwhile and charitable movement expand the role that it has established to help the people who need the type of housing that it can produce.
I should like to read the Minister's long answer and perhaps discuss it with my colleagues and people from the housing associations to see whether I or the Minister have drawn the wrong conclusion. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and perhaps come back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Recovery etc. of grants]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 40, line 9, at end insert ("but this subsection shall cease to have effect on the day appointed under section 3(2) of the Land Registration Act 1988 for the coming into force of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 100. I beg to move.
Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 53 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Duty of Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales in relation to racial discrimination]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 110.
Page 44, line 22, after ("Corporation") insert ("and to a registered housing association").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Clause 56 applies Section 71 of the Race Relations Act to the Housing Corporation. The amendment seeks to extend it to registered housing associations. I think it will be for the benefit of the Committee and those outside the House who read the debate if I gave a little background. Section 71 states that:
"it shall be the duty of every local authority to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need—

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and

(b) to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups".

We are seeking in Amendment No. 110 to add on page 44 at line 22 that the subsection shall apply to the corporation and to a registered housing association just as it applies to a local authority. We ask the Government to take into account that many of the housing associations which will be formed according to the Government's intention and desire are likely to be formed from housing authority stock. In other words, it is council housing. Under the law councils are obliged to refer to and uphold Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. We are saying that in those circumstances a comparable duty ought to be laid on housing associations to undertake the duty I read out earlier, to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations among persons of different racial groups.
The Minister and the Committee are well aware that many housing associations in areas of inner city stress have high ethnic minority populations. I confess that the performance of some of those housing associations on equal opportunities is patchy, not just in regard to housing but also to employment, management committee representation and racial harassment.
We wish to lay down the duties. To be fair, the Minister is pushing at an open door if he consults the National Federation of Housing Associations. It has taken initiatives, which I applaud, as the Minister might very well do. The NFHA has issued guidance
236
to member associations through its race and housing publications, which have been accepted by the Housing Corporation. This complements the Section 71 duties in that it advises associations operating in areas where the black community exceeds 2 per cent. to establish and monitor ethnic minority records for housing allocations, to establish and monitor ethnic minority records for employment, to ensure that ethnic minorities have fair access to their housing, to have regard to the need for translated material for tenants, to establish links with ethnic minority communities, to ensure that their management committee representation reflects the ethnic make-up of the community and to adopt a policy on racial harassment.
We are saying to the Government that there is a need in the area of race to be positive. The national federation has gone as far as it can. We make no pretence. The power of the law, the power of the Government and of what is said in this Chamber could very well do a great deal more than that. We want to see the elimination of discrimination. If the Government are serious, housing associations, whether existing ones or those established by local authorities for the purpose, should be the main vehicles for diversifying existing council housing. It is only logical that similar duties for promoting good race relations should apply to the successor landlords as to the local authority.
I invite the Minister to answer some questions. The Government feel that it is right that councils should have laid upon them the duty to follow the 1976 Race Relations Act, in particular Section 71. If the Government ask their tenants, "Do you want to change your landlord?" and the tenants say yes, is it not right, fair and logical that the obligations to observe the duties under Section 71 of the 1976 Race Relations Act should be passed to the new landlord? In this instance we are talking about a new landlord who could very well be a housing association. We want to see that housing associations are brought into that provision.
If the Government see housing associations as the main providers of social rented housing in the future, it is logical that the Section 71 duties should apply to those housing associations first as they apply to local authorities at present. I am sure that the Minister understands what I am saying, will tell me that he sympathises, that the matter is already being taken care of and there is no need for this amendment. This suggestion has the full support of the national federation, which is doing its best. It wants the Government to match the efforts of the federation. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord has rightly drawn our attention to the importance of the ethnic dimension in housing provision. We believe that this Bill will do much to remedy some of the problems of discrimination which have been referred to, partly by extending the scope of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to the Housing Corporation and housing action trusts. I ought at once to mention that Clause 56 was introduced by the Government in another place following moderately and persuasively

237
argued representations by the Opposition. We were most grateful for their constructive suggestions, even though we felt unable at the time, as we still do, to go quite as far as we were asked to do.
We are not, however, persuaded that it would be appropriate further to extend the scope of Section 71 by accepting this amendment. There is a strong promotional flavour to Section 71, so that bodies to which it applies have a duty not only to perform their functions in a non-discriminatory way but to take wider steps to secure good race relations and equal opportunities. This is not something we think it is right to impose on bodies which are voluntary in constitution, often small in size, and with a relatively narrow range of activities.
That is not of course to say that we consider it unimportant for associations, or other smaller landlords, to conduct their affairs in a just and nondiscriminatory fashion They are already subject to provisions in the 1976 Act which make it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of services and accommodation and the granting of membership. They will also be subject to monitoring by the Housing Corporation, which will be operating with the strengthened responsibility for ensuring nondiscriminatory behaviour given to it by Clause 56.
Nor is that all. In a new clause which we have tabled and which the Committee will be considering in due course we are proposing to give the Commission for Racial Equality a power under which it could produce a code of practice on rented housing. The code would give guidance on the implications of the Race Relations Act for rented housing and, as we see it, would have wide application to those concerned with the provision of such housing in both the private and public sectors. Registered housing associations would of course be covered, and it would be a requirement of the tenants' guarantee that they observed the code.
In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will accept that the behaviour of associations in the race relations field will be quite adequately controlled without the needto apply the very wide-ranging provisions of Section 71.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have just told my noble friend Lord McIntosh that that was a fair offer. It is certainly the best that I shall get tonight. The Minister said that he recognised the problems that existed and that steps were being taken to produce a code of practice. In those circumstances, it would be churlish if we did not wait to see whether the code achieved our objectives.
I shall repeat here what I have said in other places. The record as regards seeking to eliminate discrimination and racial harassment is infinitely better in housing associations and local authorities than in great wedges of the private sector. One has only to have attended previous debates on the Bill to recognise that. I appreciate that the Minister who is replying to the debate this evening may not have attended all of the previous debates, but he is aware of the situation. Some horrendous cases have come to light which are due not only to bigotry and prejudice, but also to racial harassment.
238
I accept the Government's bona fides in this matter. Anything that they feel will improve the situation and provide people in wretched housing circumstances with the feeling that the Government care and want to take some action or provide the weapons to take some action is welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 56 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interpretation of Part II and amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 45, line 39, at end insert—
("(aa) amending the provision in Part I of the 1985 Act concerning payments and benefits to committee members, etc").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 111 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. However, other Members of the Committee will be taking part in the debate on those amendments.
Amendment No. 111 seeks to amend Section 15 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 as regards payments and benefits to committee members and others so that housing association employees and their close relatives, and tenant representative committee members and their close relatives, are not barred from receiving payments and benefits. The disqualification would still apply to non-tenant representative committee members and officers of the association who may be employees.
In putting forward this amendment I must say that the intention behind the original provision was to prevent any abuse of position by committee members, officers or employees of housing associations. In particular, it was designed to prevent consultants and contractors who carried out work for a particular association serving on its committee and, in effect, awarding themselves commissions and contracts. As a tenancy is held to be a benefit within the terms of Section 15, it was also intended to prevent tenancies being allocated incorrectly. I think the word "incorrectly" is a euphemism. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand what is meant by that.
The wide scope of Section 15 has, however, claimed some unfortunate victims. That was probably never envisaged when the provisions were drafted. For example, a recent case was recorded by the NFHA of the aged mother of a housing manager of a national housing association being unable to accept the tenancy of a sheltered unit owned by the same association to which she was nominated by her local authority. That was despite the fact that the tenancy was in a different part of the country from where the housing manager operated. So the proscription within Section 15 would catch such a circumstance. I am sure that kind of circumstance was never intended to arise.
Another case detailed a receptionist of an association who married one of its contractors and had to choose between resigning or her husband being unable to continue working for the association. Again I am certain that the true intention of Section 15 was not designed to lead to such cases. I am told by the national federation that other similar examples can be illustrated. The problem is unlikely to abate if housing associations, either new or existing, see an increase in their stock. That is what the Government want and what we want. So the dilemma will increase.
The problem of encouraging tenant participation is made more difficult by Section 15. Few tenants are likely to want to serve on a management committee, particularly if the association has any sizeable stock in the area, if they know their membership of the committee will ban any close relative from becoming a tenant of the association. While no one would wish to return to the unregulated situation which existed prior to 1974, the rapid growth of housing associations in the years since then and the possibility of future expansion has meant that the provisions of Section 15 have affected many more people than could have been anticipated earlier.
If the Government will not agree to the amendment as it stands, it would be helpful if they would address themselves to the problem and invite us to consult the housing federation with them in order to produce a better amendment. The Government should bear in mind the growing dilemma for which they will, in part, be responsible. The Minister may however have some other way of satisfying what is, I think, a genuine non-partisan problem. It is a dilemma which is born out of the success of the housing association movement. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This is an important issue. I wish to speak to the Government's Amendment No. 113 in response to some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made. We believe that our amendment responds to a number of the respresentations which the Government have received from the housing association movement. It extends to England, Wales and Scotland. In so far as it extends to Scotland, it reproduces an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to which the Chamber has already given its approval.
The amendment relaxes the restrictions set out in Section 15 of the Housing Associations Act 1985. That section prohibits housing associations from making any payment or granting any benefit to their committee members, officers or employees, present or recent; their close relatives, or businesses run by people in these categories. There are a few exceptions, the most important being ordinary salaries and expenses of members and staff, and tenancies granted by co-operative housing associations, but Section 15, as the noble Lord has said, is essentially a blanket provision.
The purpose of Section 15 is to prevent abuse. It was first introduced in 1980, following a concern by the Public Accounts Committee that a number of associations were operating unfairly, not to say
240
corruptly. I could give examples, but I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that there were examples of abuse. The safeguards in Section 15 have worked very effectively to control abuse and it is essential that we maintain that effectiveness. The Government are determined that housing associations should continue to have a reputation for probity and sound management, and for fairness in their letting procedures. But the blanket nature of Section 15 has been shown to inhibit some perfectly legitimate activities by associations, and I know that concern has been expressed that it conflicts with the move towards tenants' participation in the management of their own homes.
The current position in Scotland is in fact slightly different from that in the rest of Great Britain, as some changes were introduced there in 1986. These changes, which are now embodied in paragraph 9 of Schedule 6, allow the granting of tenancies to committee members of designated community-based associations, and to their close relatives. This power to designate has hitherto been exercised by the Housing Corporation in Scotland and will pass to Scottish Homes in due course.
That is the background against which we have to consider how the controls over the making of payments and the granting of tenancies and other benefits should be most usefully and prudently amended. Opposition Amendment No. 114, in the Government's view, goes too far by removing all restrictions on the granting of tenancies and other benefits to housing association employees, and to committee members who are also tenants and who represent tenants. I do not wish to impugn the integrity of the movement or of any of the individuals working within it, many of them in a voluntary capacity; but we do need to learn from the experience of the past, and tread very cautiously in this area.
The government amendment before the Committee seeks to strike a balance between the need for caution on the one hand and the need for flexibility on the other; and it recognises that experience in Scotland has been different from that in the rest of Great Britain. I know that my Scottish colleagues believe that the amendments in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1986, which I mentioned a few moments ago, do not go far enough. The amendment therefore enables Scottish Homes to designate classes of case in which the restrictions in Section 15 of the 1985 Act will not apply and associations will be able to make payments or grant benefits which would not otherwise be permitted. The power it gives to Scottish Homes is essentially a development of that which has been available to the Housing Corporation in Scotland since 1986, and it will enable Scottish Homes to balance the case for relaxation of existing controls against the continuing need for safeguards against abuse.
The amendment gives essentially the same power to the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales. But it is not the Government's experience that Section 15 has been as troublesome in England and Wales as in Scotland, and it was only in relation to Scotland, where community-based associations are more common, that it was amended in 1986. We

241
therefore intend that the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales should be required to consult the movement before determining the classes of case to which relaxation of Section 15 is to apply; and that such determinations should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. I believe that this somewhat more cautious approach in England and Wales is justified by the historical background to Section 15 and by our lack of experience in administering relaxations.
I believe that government Amendment No. 113 meets the concerns which have been expressed about the restrictiveness of Section 15. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and accept Amendment No. 113 in due course.
Lord Ross of Newport: I recognise that we are in a very tricky area and that mistakes can easily be made. I hope that the Official Opposition will accept Amendment No. 113, which seems to me to go a long way to meet the concerns expressed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been helpful in acknowledging the problem which we have brought before the Committee. I believe that he appreciates the way that oppositions work. We are told that there is a problem. We do not bring it forward before studying and understanding it. Part of the exercise is to get on the record and into the public domain matters which may have been amicably discussed and negotiated between the advisers of Ministers and those outside. The ante is higher, as it were, so that we must be more careful.
I am grateful to the Minister for Amendment No. 113. As he said, it does not go as far as our amendment. Amendment No. 113 says:
"Except in the case of housing associations registered in the register maintained by Scottish Homes, payments made or benefits granted by an association in such class or classes of case as may be specified in a determination made by the Corporation with the approval of the Secretary of State".
Will consultations take place with, for instance, the National Federation of Housing Associations so that when the cases are codified under the Act there will be some common ground and they will include the matters which we believe are causing problems? We are not asking the Minister for a commitment. We are asking for consultations to make sure that he has it right.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I said in my speech that the Housing Corporation would be required to consult the movement before determining the classes of case to which Section 15 is to apply. I can assure the noble Lord that those consultations will take place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: On that basis, I am perfectly satisfied. We cannot ask for more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 111A not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.
112:
Page 110, line 31, leave out ("under section 2(2)(a)") and insert ("or a loan under section 2(2)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 112 and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115. They are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.113:
Page 111, line 34, at end insert—
("8A.—(1) In section 15 (payments and benefits to committee members, etc.) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"(f) except in the case of housing associations registered in the register maintained by Scottish Homes, payments made or benefits granted by an association in such class or classes of case as may be specified in a determination made by the Corporation with the approval of the Secretary of State;
(g) in the case of housing associations registered in the register maintained by Scottish Homes, payments made or benefits granted by such an association with the approval of Scottish Homes (which approval may be given only in relation to a class or classes of case)."
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3) The Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales may make different determinations for the purposes of subsection (2)(f) above and, before making such a determination, the Corporation shall consult such bodies appearing to it to be representative of housing associations as it considers appropriate; and after making such a determination the Corporation shall publish the determination in such manner as it considers appropriate for bringing it to the notice of the associations concerned." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 111, line 46, leave out from ("dwellings") to ("and") in line 48.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment in speaking to Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.
116:
Page 115, line 21, at end insert—
("22A. After section 33 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Provision of services between the Corporations.
33A. Any of the Corporations may enter into an agreement with the others or either of them for the provision of services of any description by the one to the other or others on such terms, as to payment or otherwise, as the parties to the agreement consider appropriate." ").
The noble Lord said: I believe that noble Lords will agree that Amendment No. 116 is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: For once, I agree with the noble Lord. The amendment does not require

243
explanation. I congratulate the noble Lord and the draftsman for doing something which is visible to the naked eye.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments, and with a Privilege amendment, it was ordered that the amendments be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.

  ROAD TRAFFIC LAW: NORTH REPORT
  ROAD TRAFFIC LAW: NORTH REPORT
  EXHAUST EMISSIONS: SMALL CARS
  EXHAUST EMISSIONS: SMALL CARS
  EXHAUST EMISSIONS: SMALL CARS— UK EXPORTS TO US
  EXHAUST EMISSIONS: SMALL CARS— UK EXPORTS TO US
  HOUSE OF FRASER HOLDINGS PLC: INSPECTOR'S REPORT
  HOUSE OF FRASER HOLDINGS PLC: INSPECTOR'S REPORT
  SPEECH THERAPISTS
  SPEECH THERAPISTS
  DHSS: PUBLIC VIOLENCE TO STAFF
  DHSS: PUBLIC VIOLENCE TO STAFF
  MISS SHARON CAMPBELL
  MISS SHARON CAMPBELL
  LUNAR HOUSE: MAIL DELAYS
  LUNAR HOUSE: MAIL DELAYS
  PASSENGERS PLACED IN DETENTION
  PASSENGERS PLACED IN DETENTION
  PARADES: POLICING
  PARADES: POLICING
  DNA PROFILING IN IMMIGRATION WORK
  DNA PROFILING IN IMMIGRATION WORK
  UK-USA TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT
  UK-USA TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT
  SCOTTISH CIVIL COURT PROCEDURES
  SCOTTISH CIVIL COURT PROCEDURES