Sitting of 27 July 1988

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH WATERWAYS (NO. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)
Considered; to be read the Third time.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration read.
To be considered tomorrow.
HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for reform of local government in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no specific plans at present affecting the future of local government in Scotland.
    Mr. McAllion: The last time the Tories met in conference in Scotland the Minister told them that any reform of local government could be justified only if it led to greater economy and efficiency and if it made local government more responsive to the needs of the Scottish people. Does the Minister accept that his poll tax reforms are less economical, as the collection will cost £28 million more every year than the present rating system? As they are demonstrably less efficient than rates as a mean of tax gathering, and as they respond to neither the needs nor the wishes of the Scottish people, who have overwhelmingly rejected them and despise them as a sop to the rich—which they are—does the Minister accept that he should either resign or stand condemned as a monumental hypocrite, which Opposition Members know him to be?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "hypocrite".
    Mr. McAllion: Under your instructions, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "hypocrite".
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The purpose of the community charge was to introduce accountability. Reform of the rating system would not inevitably necessitate the reduction of local government to one tier. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish Tory party conference. I am well aware of the representations from that party and many others, including representations from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who said on 27 January:
    "there is a case for a move towards a one-tier, all-purpose local authority below an assembly"—[Official Report, 27 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 327.]
    We are anxious to encourage informed debate on this subject and we will look very carefully at any constructive proposals and particularly at the quality of the evidence. All such proposals will receive the most careful consideration.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to the second point made by my hon. Friend, does he agree that while there might be a case for a modest change, the move to a single-tier system is simply a superficial gimmick which would increase costs and inevitably lead to a great deal of disruption? Does he further agree that the watchwords for Scottish local authorities should be "cost-effectiveness" and "increased accountability" through the community charge, not spurious schemes for structured reform?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. If a case can be made for the reform of local government, it must be on the basis of more effective and accountable local authorities within the existing constitutional arrangements.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the increasing interference by this over-centralising Government into the affairs of local government, is it any wonder that an increasing number of people in Scotland are concluding that the best way to restore and improve local democracy in Scotland would be to set up a Scottish parliament with economic as well as legislative powers, including the power to introduce a one-tier system of local government?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have no plans for devolution. We do not want more government; we want better government.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister is really serious about striving towards greater accountability in the context of the poll tax or the reform of local government, will he consider the introduction of a sensible system of proportional representation? Is it fair that in the district elections in Edinburgh in May the Conservatives won only 23 seats, the Labour party won 33 seats and both parties secured only 36·5 per cent. of the poll?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an interesting case. More people in Edinburgh voted Conservative than Labour. However, I cannot give any undertaking to support proportional representation. We prefer the system in which people may vote for a person with a direct tie to his constituency and not to strengthen the party list system.

    Ravenscraig Steelworks
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions have taken place between

    387
    his Department and the British Steel Corporation concerning the future of the strip mill capacity at Ravenscraig steelworks; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Following a meeting on 14 July, Sir Robert Scholey wrote to me confirming that, at present, there is no reason for the corporation to make plans to close the Ravenscraig hot strip mill.
    Mr. Buchan: Has the Secretary of State seen the headline in today's Glasgow Herald, which says
    "MacGregor offers to look at Ravenscraig"?
    That is the most ominous headline that one has read in the past decade. I hope that, after the discussions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make it clear that the Scottish steel industry is not up for trafficking, that the buck stops with him and that he will carry the responsibility. I noticed that he was described as one of the best Secretaries of State for Scotland that we have ever had——
    Mr. Home Robertson: Who by?
    Mr. Buchan: By the Prime Minister. That is the kiss of death from the black widow if ever there was one.
    Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has rejected the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about the splitting up of the British Steel Corporation. The BSC is performing extremely effectively at present and, to be completely fair, credit must be given to its management, who have found markets that will purchase the product made by the excellent work force at Ravenscraig. Such excellent teamwork offers the best short-term and long-term prospects for Ravenscraig.
    Sir Hector Monro: Bearing in mind Ravenscraig's success in recent years, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any reduction in output in any part of the plant will have a detrimental effect on the Scottish economy? Will he do all that he can to encourage the British Steel Corporation to invest in Ravenscraig, to ensure the plant's long-term future?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not know whether a reduction in output would have a significant effect on the Scottish economy, as only 4 per cent. of the British Steel Corporation's products are utilised within Scotland. Ravenscraig's major importance is the employment that it produces for Lanarkshire. Investment has been made in the strip mill in recent years, and I believe that the Arthur Young report, which is often referred to by Opposition Members, said that there was no economic case for new investment in Ravenscraig at the present time.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that the restrictive strategy of the British Steel Corporation is a continuing threat to Ravenscraig? It seeks to restrict capacity and output to force up prices to the limit that European competition will bear. While the immediate threat to the hot mill will depend on when the next dip in demand occurs, the threat to Ravenscraig will remain until the Government take action to impose on Britain's steel industry a genuinely competitive regime to which Ravenscraig can properly contribute.
    Mr. Rifkind: The actions of British Steel's management have, in part, led to the hot strip mill, which some months
    388
    ago was operating at reduced capacity, working flat out. Clearly, that steel could not be produced unless there were markets for it. It is to the credit of the management that those markets have been identified. Over the past few years the Government and the British Steel Corporation have insisted on rationalisation and modernisation of the industry, which is why we have a steel industry which, instead of making a loss of over £1 billion a year, as it did in 1979, is making a healthy profit. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a profitable steel corporation is a much better prospect for the long-term future of all its plants, including Ravenscraig, than one that makes a loss of billions of pounds a year.
    Mr. Salmond: How will Ravenscraig's prospects be affected by the elevation of a sudeten Scot—the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who has joined the Government and therefore left Scottish Question Time, for which we are thankful? Will not the anti-Scottish bias that is so evident among the British Steel Corporation's senior management now be accompanied by anti-Scottish bias in the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: Only the Scottish National party could interpret the appointment of a Scot to the United Kingdom Government as being to the disadvantage of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman has a lower opinion of his compatriots than have Conservative Members.
    Mrs. Fyfe: What calculations has the Minister made of the number of non-steel jobs that will be lost if Ravenscraig is closed?
    Mr. Rifkind: Various calculations have been made, but as there is not the slightest prospect of Ravenscraig closing, certainly in the near future—or, I believe in the longer future—such questions are purely hypothetical. I have emphasised that Ravenscraig is of major importance to the economy of Lancashire. Clearly, there would be grave implications for the economy of the locality if Ravenscraig were to close. The combination of Government policy and the qualities of the industry's work force and management mean that there are no reasons to consider the closure of the strip mill or, in the next few years, Ravenscraig itself.
    If the Labour party's policies had been pursued, Ravenscraig could not have hoped to be competitive in world markets, especially as quotas have now disappeared in the European Community.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who is deploying his excellent talents for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this year alone Ravenscraig has broken 16 production records, and that it has received £12 million of investment over the past three years? If that is kept up, will it not be the best guarantee of the continuation of Ravenscraig?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Department of Trade and Industry's gain is a loss for Scottish Question Time, I will confirm what my hon. Friend said in the latter part of his question, and repeat the important rider that it would be of little value for Ravenscraig to have this superb maximum output if Sir Robert Scholey and his colleagues in management had not been working to find markets for

    389
    that output. That combined effort by Sir Robert Scholey, his management team and the work force at Ravenscraig, has substantially increased not only the short-term but the longer-time prospects of Ravenscraig.
    Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State might not have been so optimistic about the increased Scottish presence in the Department of Trade and Industry had he had the pleasure of reading the articles about Scotland written by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) for his local press, and the dismissive and wounding comments that he made about expenditure in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State be a little more specific and go a little further than he has so far? As he knows, the guarantee for the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig lasts only until 1989, and in view of his correspondence with Sir Robert Scholey and his suggestion that closure was not a possibility in the near future, will he give the guarantee that he conspicuously refused to give in the recent Scottish Grand Committee debate, and make it clear that there is no possibility of the mill closing in 1989 when the transitional protection ends?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was drawing attention to the level of Government expenditure in the constituency of Glasgow, Garscadden, compared with Government expenditure in Mid-Worcestershire. I can fairly say for my hon. Friend's point of view that there may have been a difference between the two totals to the disadvantage of his constituents.
    As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have already said that the view of the British Steel Corporation is that it has no reason to plan for the closure of the hot strip mill. Clearly, it is for BSC and the market that it supplies to determine the prospects for all parts of BSC. I am not in the business of giving guarantees on matters for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. I have not had, I do not have and I will not have ministerial responsibility for this matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in expressing delight that, because of the combined efforts of management and work force, there is no economic reason for anyone to wish to consider the closure of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig.

    Housing Standards
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to a wider definition and assessment of houses which are below tolerable standard.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend is currently reviewing the statutory tolerable standard as part of the proposed reform of the home improvement system.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why is it taking the Secretary of State so long to review this matter when so much hardship is being caused to many home owners and council tenants in Scotland by the fact that their houses, which have leaking roofs and crumbling stone work, and are riddled with damp, do not come below a "tolerable standard" in his eyes? Why will he not accept the need for a housing condition survey, such as England and Wales have, to ensure that there is available to the House and the public of Scotland an appraisal of the terrible conditions in which so many Scots are housed today?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A housing conditions survey would cost about £5 million and that sum would have to come out of housing resources. Frankly, I would rather that local authorities had that sum now, and we believe that it would be better utilised on that basis.
    It is important to remember that the primary responsibility for assessing housing needs rests with the local authorities, which have the greatest need for local information.
    We propose to change the definition of "tolerable standard" and the new standard will include a fixed bath, shower or wash hand basin and the requirement that the house should be free from serious disrepair. We shall consider any representations about consultation.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the district council of Kincardine and Deeside has frozen all applications for home improvement grant? That has caused considerable confusion, especially as it has occurred so early in the financial year. Will my hon. Friend use his good offices and those of the Scottish Development Department to resolve the difficulties and confusion that have arisen so that those who have a genuine wish to improve their houses—some of which are below the tolerable standard—are given the proper opportunity to do so?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This year £625,000 was awarded as the non-housing revenue account capital allocation to Kincardine and Deeside Council, which represents 87 per cent. of its bid and is above the Scottish average. The problem for the district council is that it appears that it has over-committed the resources made available to it. We have already made it clear that officials will be glad to discuss the problems with the council as soon as it wishes.
    The resources available for housing were allocated in March, but if additional resources are identified later in the year the needs of all local authorities will be taken into account.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister aware that 250,000 Scottish people now live in damp and intolerable housing conditions? Is the Government's decision not to raise housing standards based on the fact that they cannot cope with present Scottish housing conditions?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is extremely desirable that local authorities should carry out their own housing surveys. We are helping them to do so by sending out an information pack and a detailed brief on how best to conduct those surveys. The results of those surveys can be used in targeting resources to those areas that local authorities consider as priority areas.
    The hon. Gentleman exaggerated when he quoted the figure. The information from local authorities suggests that, on 31 March 1987, a total of 119,000 local authority houses required treatment for condensation; 38,100 required treatment for dampness and 78,400 required treatment for dampness and condensation. They are somewhat different from the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted.
    Mr. Darling: If the Minister does not want to spend money on conducting a survey, will he make money available to councils, such as Edinburgh district, where all applications for home improvement grants have been frozen? Is he aware that that council has received more

    391
    than 8,000 applications, some of which date back to 1983, which cannot be dealt with because of the Government's constant policy changes and because the Government will not make money available for essential repairs? That is causing misery and anger to a growing number of people.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The bid put in by Edinburgh district council this year for non-HRA spending was for £31 million and every penny of that bid was awarded to it. Since that time the district council has estimated that the cost of clearing the backlog of repairs is about £19 million more than it estimated a few months ago. Obviously we are giving careful consideration to that matter as well as to the problems of Glasgow. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering what can be done to assist those affected by Edinburgh council's astonishing miscalculation of the figures. We hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the total number of houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard has fallen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Only the figures. That number has fallen from 121,000 in 1979, under the Labour Government, to 54,000 in March 1987. If those figures are correct—I suspect that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm that they are—will he assure the House that the question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) was not planted?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures have fallen substantially, from 121,000 to 54,000. We rely on the latest figures from local authorities. Dundee, for example, recently said that it had 1,000 more below tolerable standard—BTS— houses. That is why the figure is 54,000 today.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister live up to his responsibilities for once and acknowledge that a house affected by severe condensation, or a house with no bath or shower, is not a suitable or tolerable habitation for any Scottish family? Will he acknowledge that the official statistics, which were parroted by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris)—he is supposed to know about these things—are a scandalously complacent under-estimate of the number of squalid and unhealthy houses in which far too many Scots are compelled to live? Many of those houses are to be found in the Minister's precious private rented sector. What will he do about the shortfall in funds that local authorities need to deal with this scandalous problem?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is highly desirable that local authorities undertake the surveys for which we have given them the expert information. Then they can identify how best to target resources on priority areas.

    Nurses
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has given to health boards with regard to the regrading of nurses.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning nurse regarding.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The Scottish Home and Health Department issued written guidance covering
    392
    organisational and implementation arrangements to health boards on 13 May. Copies have been placed in the House Library.
    I have received five letters on the subject and I shall be meeting representatives of the Royal College of Nursing on 8 August to discuss this.
    Mr. Doran: We have become used to cynical manipulation of the figures, particularly by Conservative Members, when we discuss the Health Service. Is the Minister aware that a substantial proportion of the nurses who were supposed to receive the recently announced pay award of 15·9 per cent., of which the Government made great play, will get less than half that trumpeted amount? What calculations has he made of how the award will be distributed? How many of those who will receive it will get less than the advertised amount?
    Mr. Forsyth: Speaking of the manipulation of figures, the hon. Gentleman should be accurate. The figure is 15·3 per cent., not 15·9 per cent. I am sure that he wants me to be accurate.
    The hon. Gentleman probably knows that a review of grading is going on, and it is not possible at this stage to give the precise amount that each nurse will receive according to her grade. To ensure that every nurse gets some increase there has been an interim award of 4 per cent. The average increase will be 15·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should reflect that the Government whom he supported cut nurses' pay by more than 20 per cent.
    Mr. McAvoy: In view of the Minister's announcement of his meeting with the nurses, will he give a commitment that he will make every possible effort to give positive reassurance to the nurses at that meeting that the principles of regrading will be honoured?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall be happy to give that assurance, of which I think the Royal College of Nursing is aware. We have taken steps to ensure that the health boards are given guidance and that management has enough training and expertise to carry out the grading review as quickly as possible. We expect it to be achieved by the end of October. A nursing sister with substantial clinical responsibilities on the ward will find that her real pay has improved by more than 50 per cent. since 1979 as a result of the Government's commitment to the Health Service and to nursing within it.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that a 44 per cent. increase in the real pay of nurses in Scotland since 1979, the regrading exercise, the pay increase and the hospital building programme north of the border show a real commitment to developing a high quality Health Service in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Health Service has never been better funded and now has the biggest capital investment programme in its history. It has never had more doctors and nurses, and they have never been better paid. That is because of the success of the Government's economic policies in delivering the resources to provide that care. The last Labour Government failed the Health Service because their economic policies failed the nation.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister has rattled off success stories in Scotland. Will he tell the House why it is that the nurses' representatives in the Health Service in Scotland

    393
    do not accept the Minister's statement? Will he also give a guarantee that the actual cost of the regrading will be met by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when it has been concluded? Will he answer the original question and tell us what guidelines he is giving?
    Mr. Forsyth: The vast majority of nurses who eschew strike action are members of the Royal College of Nursing. The hon. Gentleman is referring to remarks made by the Confederation of Health Service Employees in Scotland. I deplore the campaign of rumour and innuendo that the confederation has mounted. It has suggested that nurses will be made redundant as a result of the regrading exercise. That is completely untrue. It has suggested that nurses' pay will be cut, which is also untrue. I can only imagine that such trade unions are piqued by the success of the Royal College of Nursing in delivering better terms and conditions for its members while not taking any part in strike action.
    Sir Hector Monro: Bearing in mind that the Labour Government cut nurses' pay in real terms, does my hon. Friend agree that the present pay award has been well received by nurses? Is it not ludicrous that the Opposition should ask for an open cheque for the payment of the very large award that we have made, bearing in mind that the sum was recommended by an independent review body?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The 15·3 per cent. increase in the nurses' pay bill was calculated not by the Government, but by the review body. The Government gave a commitment to fund that cost, which amounts to £803 million for the United Kingdom and to £92 million for Scotland. That is a substantial additional resource for the Health Service, and a responsible Opposition should welcome that and give the Government credit for what they have achieved.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Minister will know that to fund the review body awards, including that for the nurses in the regrading exercise, he allocated £21·6 million to the Greater Glasgow health board. Has he read the minute of the finance and general purposes committee of the Greater Glasgow health board of Tuesday 3 May? Item 53 is headed "National Health Service pay body awards 1988–89" and paragraph 2 reads——
    Mr. Speaker: Paraphrase it, please.
    Mr. Galbraith: It was expected that the amount allocated—£21·6 million—would be £6 million less than the cost of the pay review body award. The minute goes on to say that the board would have to find the extra £6 million from its own reserves. Is that what the Minister means when he talks about fully funding the nurses' pay award? Why does the Minister constantly maintain that he will fund it fully, when he knows that he will not?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the sums were based on the estimates that were made by the review body. I must confess that I have not read the minute to which he referred. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had no representations from the Greater Glasgow health board to that effect. Also, the board has taken the unusual step of refuting some of the scaremongering that has come from the trade unions and others. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to associate himself with such action.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the new Scottish performance indicators package for National Health Service managers is expected to have on waiting lists.
    Mr. Rifkind: The indicators will help to identify areas where management action is required to improve performance and to speed up the waiting list reductions, which have been stimulated by the extra money that I have made available.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although the performance indicator package is welcome, we still have a long way to go? The National Health Service is still flying blind, in as much as the cost of inputs is largely unknown and the value of outputs is largely unassessed. We need to go rather further than we have.
    Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of a pamphlet that has been published today entitled "The NHS—a suitable case for treatment", which was written by the No Turning Back Group of Conservative Members and edited by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)?[Interruption.] I know that that name has the same effect on Opposition Members as mirrors do on vampires, and therefore that it will appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The essence of the argument is that we shall not solve the problems of the National Health Service until we move towards an internal market where hospitals——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Make it brief, please.
    Mr. Hamilton: —sell their services to the district health authorities. It is only in that way that we shall improve the Health Service in the long term.
    Mr. Rifkind: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenious way of publicising the document to which he referred. Naturally, I look forward to reading and studying its recommendations. The concept of an internal market within the Health Service is of increasing interest among those who work within it as a way of ensuring better service for the patients with the resources that are available.
    Dr. Moonie: I am sure that the Secretary of State, unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), is well aware that a package of statistics will not improve waiting lists in Scotland. Does he agree that one way in which they can be improved is to back the findings of the Select Committee on Social Services, which has a majority of Conservative Members, and provide the resources that we have identified the NHS needs to perform its work adequately?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Office does just that. For example, in the course of the current year we have allocated an extra £2 million to deal with waiting lists, the very subject with which his question deals, and, as a consequence, the number of patients treated in 1988–89 has been increased by 16,000 out-patients, 6,000 in-patients and over 3,000 day cases. We are seeking to undo the damage caused by the industrial action in the NHS in Scotland in earlier years, which led to an increase in waiting lists of some 30,000.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the further advice which his Department is issuing to Scottish poll tax payers in order to facilitate knowledge of exempted categories.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): When registration officers send out the notifications in October and November to those whose names are on the register they will also send a supplementary notice detailing all the exemptions. This will enable people who may benefit from the exemptions to approach the registration officer about their entitlement to exemption.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that at this stage there is room for alteration of the exemptions? During the recess, will he suggest that one way to be exempt from payment is to put one's father or mother into a local authority nursing home rather than retain him or her in the family home? Will he promulgate that? In addition, will he say clearly that one of the tricks that the Government have deplored is to remove from the rating system certain fishing owners, at a cost of £1·5 million, while those who desire exemption because of severe mental handicap will have to go through the humiliation of registering that fact, through their offspring, patients or relations, with a general practitioner in order to have it recorded that they are "unfit" to perform civic functions? Does the Minister accept that the whole question of exemptions blows a hole in accountability and that a Government who had one scintilla of Christian conscience would not promote such a piece of legislation?
    Mr. Lang: Some of the exemptions remain to be prescribed in regulations, but I see no reason for expecting any of the exemptions, or indeed any of the regulations, to lead to any change in the domestic residential arrangements of any family. The value of the fishing rates concession is equal to one fiftieth of 1 per cent. of total local authority current expenditure.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in this week's Glasgow Herald, on 22 July, that 12 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament have said publicly that they will not pay the community charge? Therefore, will he give the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said in the same edition that there was no split in the Scottish Labour party on that issue, an opportunity to come here and explain how he squares the circle?
    Mr. Lang: I have read the article to which my hon. Friend refers. A battle is raging within the Labour party over the community charge, between those who think that they should obey the law and the 12 members of the law-breaking tendency. There is also one special class which embraces the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr.Godman), who intend to obey the law, but whose wife does not. I have to tell him that the joint and several liability provision will cater for that.

    Gaelic Language (TV Programmes)
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of increased Gaelic language programmes on television in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Anns na dha no tri bhliadhnaichean a chaidh seachad tha sinn air tagraidhean fhaighinn o bhuill uasal,comhairlean ionadail agus buidhnean Gaidhlig.—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would prefer——
    Mr. Speaker: What does that mean?
    Mr. Forsyth: I did not realise that you did not have the Gaelic. It means:
    "In recent years a number of representations have been received from hon. Members, local authorities and organisations representing the Gaelic community."
    My right hon. and learned Friend and I recognise the contribution which the media can make to the preservation of the Gaelic language and we have consistently encouraged the broadcasting authorities to provide a reasonable range of Gaelic programmes.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for his sterling efforts. May I assure him that he does not sound any more acceptable to the Opposition in Gaelic than he does in English? Will he take this opportunity to welcome the recent publication by Comunn Na Gaidhlig—that is the correct pronunciation—"Towards a Gaelic Television Service"? Will he say what input, if any, the Scottish Office will have to the Government's White Paper on broadcasting, particularly the degree of influence it could exert to redress the imbalance with the United Kingdom so that Gaelic in Scotland can enjoy the same sort of broadcasting support as Welsh does in Wales? It is high irony that STV and Grampian are contributing towards the Welsh broadcasting service, but we do not have specifically designated funding in that way in Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: I cannot anticipate what will be in the White Paper. We have received copies of the document to which he referred and we shall study its proposals with interest. The hon. Gentleman might acknowledge that the BBC and the independent television companies in Scotland are planning to increase the time that they make available for broadcasting. I know that there is still concern. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had a recent Adjournment debate and summarised that concern. We are sympathetic and we urge the Gaelic-speaking community to continue to put pressure on the broadcasting authorities, because it is a matter for them.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that in Wales a considerable part of the Channel 4 take-up is given over to the language. The numbers are larger and the issues are difficult, but it is a matter that we shall bear in mind.
    Mr. Macdonald: I congratulate the Minister on his admirable Gaelic and say "Meala naidheachd airson bruidhinn Gaidhlig agus rinn thu uamhasadh math."
    Mr. Speaker: What does that mean?
    Mr. Macdonald: Those are the kindest words I have ever spoken to the Minister.
    I appreciate what the Minister said in his reply, but he must be aware by now that the broadcasting companies have made it clear that they cannot possibly increase Gaelic provision within their present financial constraints. Is it not the Government's responsibility to increase the financial allocation to the broadcasting authorities to enable them to provide a Gaelic television service or to map out other ways in which it might be done?
    Mr. Forsyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
    He asked about support for the broadcasting authorities. I understand that the problem is more one of scheduling and that the commitment is there on the part of the broadcasting authorities to do more. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will note what the hon. Gentleman said.
    On the matter of giving specific financial support for Gaelic, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have increased the support for education authorities for the current year to £500,000 from £300,000. In addition, we are making available nearly £200,000 for grant-aid to organisations that work in support of Gaelic. I should mention that Grampian television is planning a series of programmes to support standard grade Gaelic. Gaelic is strengthening as a language and it has our support.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend accept that 95 per cent. of Scottish people do not know a word of Gaelic and that they want television programmes that they can enjoy and understand in the lingua franca?
    Mr. Forsyth: What my hon. Friend says is true. There are 80,000 Gaels in Scotland, which is about 2 per cent. of the population. However, there are concentrations in particular communities. I see no conflict between giving stimulus and support to the Gaelic language and providing the required wider programming interests through the broadcasting authorities. I believe that the development of new technology will enable more broadcasting to be achievable, and that is a matter to which I hope the broadcasting authorities are turning their minds.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet (a) the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland), (b) the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), (c) Chambers of Commerce and (d) the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the implementation of a uniform business rate.
    Mr. Lang: The reform of business rates has been discussed with a number of Scottish business interests. No further meetings are planned at present.
    Mr. Worthington: I find it amazing that the Minister continues to be complacent as always when he knows, as he has said in the past, that the Scottish business community is substantially disadvantaged, so that a Marks and Spencer store in Falkirk pays £166,000 in rates and a Marks and Spencer store of similar size in York pays £32,000. It is universally agreed that, after the revaluation in 1990, Scottish business will be further disadvantaged. Neither I nor the business community can understand why the Government wish to impose a higher tax on Scottish business than will be paid in England and Wales. Why is the Minister being so complacent?
    Mr. Lang: The complacency is on the other side, when one reflects that the hon. Gentleman was once finance convenor of Strathclyde region. One of the disadvantages that Scottish businesses face is as a result of the depredations of high-spending Labour-controlled local authorities. However, I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that Scottish businesses will derive consider-able benefit from the index-linking provisions in the
    398
    Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. If those provisions had been in force for the past five years, Scottish businesses would have had to pay £200 million less in rates than they have had to do.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Millan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: The prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland are extremely favourable, Manufacturing output in the final quarter of 1987 was 4·7 per cent. up on the previous quarter and I expect further strong growth this year.
    Mr. Millan: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to manufacturing industry in Scotland that it should have available to it an efficient and economic electricity supply? Is he aware that today's Energy Select Committee's report on the Government's proposals for electricity privatisation is a devastating indictment of the proposals, showing them to be ill-thought-out and thoroughly muddled? It also shows that the so-called competition by comparison that the Government have claimed would keep down costs in Scotland is largely meaningless, that the proposals pose real dangers to Scottish consumers and, particularly, that Scottish consumers, including industrial consumers, may very well finish up by subsidising the export of Scottish electricity to England. Why does the Secretary of State not drop the proposals?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have not yet had an opportunity to read the Select Committee's conclusions, but I understand that they question the value of continuing with vertical integration in Scotland whereby generation, production and distribution are in the same company's control. As the right hon. Gentleman shares the Government's view that vertical integration has been to the benefit of the Scottish economy, and as that will continue, I am surprised that he did not refer to that.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Secretary of State accept that the adverse effect of the high value of the pound and of high interest rates is bound to be considerable on manufacturing in Scotland in general and on the woollen trade in the Borders in particular? Does he not receive a warning from this morning's trade figures, which show that we are on target, not for the Chancellor's £4 billion deficit at the end of the year, but, possibly, for a £10 billion deficit? Does the Secretary of State accept, therefore, that the Government's economic policy appears to be constructed on a pack of credit cards?
    Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, if we returned to the levels of inflation that existed when he was in a pact with the Labour Government, the prospects for Scottish industry would be disastrous. Scottish industry and manufacturers are going through a period of unprecedented growth, which they recognise as being favourable to their interests and those of their employees. The alternative economic prescriptions that the right hon. Gentleman supported during the period of the last Labour Government would create a gloomy future for the textile industry in his constituency, as well as for Scottish industry as a whole.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent marked and welcome improvement in the performance of Scottish manufacturing industry comes through a growing awareness among the Scots people that the way to success and to compete against the rest of the United Kingdom is not through the Socialist dependency preached by all three Opposition parties, but through hard work, free enterprise and individual promotion—in other words, Thatcherism?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes.
    Mr. Dewar: May I help the Secretary of State by telling him that the Select Committee on Energy did not make the comment that he has reported to the House. Instead, it made the interesting point that vertical integration has been favoured in Scotland and not in England, and that no arguments, except that of historical convenience, have been adduced by the Government to justify that difference of approach. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he cannot shrug off a Committee with a solid Tory majority, which has condemned in the most stringent terms as ill-thought-out and ill-considered the Government's plans to privatise the electricity industry? It makes the telling point that no real effort has been made by the Government to establish or argue that there will be any advantage for the consumer. It condemns in the most forthright way the atmosphere of hostility that has, for example, conditioned the Government's approach to the coal industry. Is it not clear that the Secretary of State will have to rethink his position following the devastating job that has been done by the Select Committee?
    Mr. Rifkind: I recall that before every previous privatisation there have been those who have made exactly the same predictions, which have been found to be entirely incorrect when the results have been announced. Since the Government have announced their proposals for privatisation in Scotland—those for the electricity industry and the Scottish Bus Group, for example—we have found a tremendous increase in interest among the employees of the industries. Their main interest lies in the opportunity for them and their fellow workers to enhance their participation in the industries that are important to them.

    Type 23 Frigate Order
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the Scottish economy of the recent order for three type 23 frigates from Yarrow Shipbuilders.
    Mr. Lang: The order, together with existing work on frigates in the yard, will safeguard over 4,000 jobs at Yarrows well into the 1990s, with proportionate spin-off to the local and national economy. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the equivalent of 10,000 jobs, including those at Yarrows, will be sustained in the defence industry throughout the United Kingdom over the next four to five years.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the news that the jobs have been safeguarded is yet another sympton of the buoyancy of the Glasgow economy, which has led to the Glasgow commercial property market being one of the most vibrant in the United Kingdom? Does he further
    400
    agree that the order makes it highly likely that Yarrow will be at the forefront of those tendering for the fourth frigate in 1989?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the order and the success that it brings to the Clyde. It was won in fair and open competition. It is a tribute to the work force and its skills and to the forward-looking investment programme of the management at Yarrow.
    Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware of the excellent design assistance that has been given to Yarrow by the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride? Will he share in the outrage that has been expressed throughout Scotland at the proposed sell-off of the NEL, and the secretive way in which it has been introduced?
    Mr. Lang: I welcome the interest that has been shown in the national engineering laboratory by the number of applications that have been submitted. I believe that that will achieve a secure future for the laboratory.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Minister spoken at any stage to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that further defence jobs of this nature come to Scotland? The defence procurement budget acts as a massive subsidy to the south-east and south-west of England. Would it not be more appropriate if more of the budget were spent in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady is talking bigoted nonsense. Yarrow has seven Royal Navy ships on order or under construction. I wonder how many ships there would be in the Royal Navy of an independent Scotland.

    Regional Development Grant
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to speed up the process of settling applications and claims for payment of regional grants.
    Mr. Lang: A large intake of applications and claims were received in the period just before the scheme was closed to new applications. Additional staff have, therefore, been deployed in the regional development grants office in Glasgow. The number of cases dealt with is running at record levels, but some delay to applicants is unfortunately inevitable.
    Mr. McKelvey: The Minister will recall that I wrote on behalf of Forbes and Whiteford Ltd. in my constituency —a small but successful firm—which has been held up for several months. Its application has been forwarded and it is waiting on the cheque. I appreciate that extra staff have been employed in the office to issue the cheques, but does the Minister share my anxiety that if small firms do not receive the money that they need up front for their small expansions there will be job losses? The number might be small, but they will be vital jobs that we require in areas such as Kilmarnock. Will further staff be deployed so that we can reduce the waiting time to weeks rather than months?
    Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I appreciate the difficulties confronting small firms. More than one year's applications were received by the Department within about three months. The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is being considered at this time.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Would not more of the same reach the right parts faster if it were not for the regional policies of the TGWU, which seems to put the interests of its members in the prosperous south ahead of those of the unemployed in Dundee, but whose sponsorship money Opposition Members still seem keen to take?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is also a cause of considerable regret that while the TUC supports the introduction of the employment training scheme, the STUC is resisting the scheme, which is designed to help the long-term unemployed in Scotland.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Minister not accept that the RDG fiasco is another example of the mismanagement of the Scottish economy? Will he tell the House how many applications are still outstanding and when the backlog is likely to be cleared?
    Mr. Lang: A considerable number of grants are outstanding. It is impossible to give the hon. Gentleman an exact figure, because of the movement that is taking place. I can tell him that over the past four months 2,000 cases have been cleared and that the clearance rate will accelerate further at the end of the holiday season.

    Scottish Bus Group and CalMac
    Mr. Lambie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held concerning the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group and the future of CalMac; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has met the chairman and deputy chairman and the board of the Scottish Transport Group. I have met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the joint Scottish shipping services advisory committees. My right hon. and learned Friend is presently considering the future arrangements for CalMac and the pattern of privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.
    Mr. Lambie: In view of the Secretary of State's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) concerning the need for employee participation, will the Secretary of State provide general preferential arrangements for employee bids for the Scottish Bus Group?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. We regard it as particularly important that management and employees are given the opportunity to acquire a stake in their own business, and consideration will be given to how best to encourage that. We are aware that a considerable measure of interest is already being shown by employees, as well as by management, in possible management/employee buy-outs. I hope that privatisation in this case will see a significant increase in employee participation.
    Mr Allan Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Transport Group and many of the people involved in the industry sincerely believe that privatisation should be on the basis of the existing companies and not on a structure which, perhaps, has purely theoretical merit? Will he assure the House that he will take those representations seriously? Does he agree that bus privatisation will present a major opportunity for Scots and Scottish institutions to take a stake in an important indigenous industry?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Certainly. The Secretary of State's decision was based on the advice of the Scottish merchant bank advisers, Quayle Munro, and has the prime purpose of increasing competition in the Scottish bus market to the benefit of the consumer and to boost enterprise and, in particular, employee participation.

    National Farmers Union
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to discuss the current state of agriculture in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend last met the president at the Royal Highland show.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State is aware of the disappointment in Scottish agriculture at the relatively small devaluation of the green pound—not least in the beef sector, where a date for it to take effect has not even been announced. Additionally, there are ever-increasing financial burdens as a result of higher interest rates. On the next occasion that the Secretary of State meets the president of the Scottish NFU, does he propose bridging what the president recently described as a yawning credibility gap between the Government's protestations that British farmers must not be disadvantaged and their inability to deliver?
    Mr. Forsyth: The position on the green pound is that we achieved a settlement that was very good compared with other countries; only two other countries within the Community did better. As to agriculture's financial position, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the latest bank figures show a fall in the burden of debt carried by farmers in Scotland. In the year to May 1988 it was down 3·5 per cent. in current money terms and down 7 per cent. in real terms. The figures show increasingly careful financial management among other farmers, which is welcome.
    Mr. Eadie: When the Minister met the president of the National Farmers Union, did he have an opportunity to discuss the massive cutbacks in research and development in agriculture? I believe that the total figure is about £75 million. Can the Minister tell the House how many jobs in Scotland will be involved in the cutback, and will he put in the Official Report all the institutions in Scotland that will suffer a cutback in employment?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seeks to present a transfer of responsibility for funding from the state to industry as a cutback, for reasons best known to himself. The overall position on future levels of public spending on agricultural research and development is, as he knows, still under consideration, and no final decisions have been made.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the particular difficulties facing the pig industry in Scotland, particularly in areas such as Grampian, where it is an important part of the agricultural economy? Is he further aware that the problem is caused largely by the increase in overseas protein prices? This follows a very

    403
    difficult period in relation to monetary compensation amounts. There is deep concern in the pigmeat sector in Scotland, as indeed there is throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Forsyth: As my right hon. Friend will know, one of the causes of concern in the pigmeat sector involved the
    404
    removal of MCAs. He will also know that the recent settlement met our major objectives. It improves the competitive position of United Kingdom pig farmers relative to nine of the 12 member states, and virtually eliminates the pigmeat MCA gap.

Revenue Support Grant (Scotland)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement about local authority expenditure and revenue support grant in Scotland for 1989–90.
I propose that the provision for local authority current expenditure in 1989–90 should be £3,930 million. This level of provision is 8 per cent. more than provision for the current year, and £240 million over provision for 1989–90 as set out in the public expenditure White Paper. The figure is also 4·6 per cent. above authorities' adjusted budgets for 1988–89. It includes full provision for the extra administrative costs of operating the community charge, as estimated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I propose that aggregate Exchequer grant should be set at £2,500 million. This is £129·5 million or 5·5 per cent. more than the settlement allowed for this year, and local authorities in Scotland and local taxpayers should accordingly find it a very satisfactory settlement. In reaching it I have taken into account the views that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed to my hon. Friend when it met him on 8 July. The settlement is based on authorities' own budgets for the present year. Grant has been increased by more than the rate of inflation. If authorities do not increase their real level of spending next year, community charges should therefore be set at levels no higher than those that we have illustrated for this year.
I hope that authorities will respond very positively to the settlement in preparing their budgets for next year.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I thought that there was a distinctly smug air about the Secretary of State as he made his announcement. Perhaps he has been influenced by the version of what he said that appeared in this morning's Scottish press, presumably busily leaked by his own information department.
Those reports have inevitably given a misleading gloss on the facts. As I understand it—perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm this—he has taken the 1988–89 budget and added 4·6 per cent. to cover inflation. Does he accept that pay settlements in the local authority pay sector have been running above that, and that when that is combined with the additional burdens to be met—such as poll tax administration, the establishment of school boards, the AIDS campaign and a number of other matters—the increase is wholly inadequate? Would it not be fair to say that an increase of 6 per cent. is necessary to guarantee the present level of services and the increased demands to which I have referred?
The statement refers to an increase in grant. Is it not a fact that there is a fall in the grant percentage from 55·4 per cent. in the current year of the Government's assessment of local government expenditure before penalty to under 55 per cent. in 1989–90? Is it not correct that if the grant percentage figure for the year that we are discussing had been maintained at the same level as last year, £30 million of additional grant would be available to local authorities?
Is not the Secretary of State being hopelessly complacent about the implications of the settlement for the poll tax? Will it not lead either to a further reduction in services or probably to an increase of about £30 per
406
head for the average individual poll tax payer? Does he not accept that it now looks, unless there is a very big reduction in the services offered to often needy groups, as though the average individual poll tax in Scotland will be around the £300 mark, not the £250 mark that Ministers have been talking about?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is no reason to welcome the new revenue support grant? Judging by today's announcement, it represents another chapter in an all too familiar and dreary story. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate the damage that has been done by persistent and sustained cuts in the settlement, which have led to the grant percentage falling in the last eight years from 68·5 per cent. to the present miserable level, representing a cumulative loss of £3,000 million to the people of Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: In the last two or three years, as the Government have announced generous rate support grant settlements, the hon. Gentleman's attempts to identify bad news from good news have become increasingly unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the provision is up by 4·6 per cent., but I think he will appreciate that what is more important to local authorities than provision, which is indicative of what the Government feel that local authorities ought to spend, is the level of grant. That is up by 5·5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman asked about community charge administration. COSLA's estimate of the costs of administering the community charge is £25 million. In the current year and next year that amount is to be fully accommodated within the settlement that I have made.
The grant percentage includes factors such as loan charges and capital from current revenue. I do not have the precise figures immediately available to me, but that is the cash that local authorities have received. Apart from grant going up by more than the rate of inflation, the fact is that, because grant penalties will no longer apply, every pound of grant that goes to the local authorities will remain with them. We shall not see, as has been the case under successive Governments, a proportion of the grant being returned to the Governments because of excessive spending. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that fact.
I cannot for one moment understand the basis of the hon. Gentleman's predictions about community charge levels. I appreciate that the Labour party has its own reasons for making as much as possible out of the issue by scaremongering. However, as a result of the generous grant settlement that I described in my statement, unless local authorities choose to increase their real spending, community charges should be set at levels that are no higher than those that we have illustrated for this year.
Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Does he accept that the additional money that is being made available to local authorities will stop them criticising the so-called cuts? Does he agree that local authorities will be able to increase their expenditure while maintaining the level of community charge at no more that 5 per cent. above current rates?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is substantially correct. The level of the community charge will vary from locality to locality, depending on the present level of spending. Only if a local authority chooses to increase its real level of

407
spending will it be necessary to impose an additional burden on the community charge payer. The point of reforming the local government finance system is to introduce accountability between a local authority and the community in its area. If the community wishes additional services to be provided, it will have to contribute more towards their cost. That is the basis of responsible and democratic local government.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Even for local authorities to maintain their existing level of services, assuming that the police and fire authority pay increases have to be taken from it, will the Secretary of State confirm that any pay awards above 46 per cent. in the year 1988–89 will require to be found either through additions to the poll tax or by decreasing services?
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that local authorities will take that into account. One of the problems in the past few months has been that local authorities in Scotland agreed on an increase in teachers' salaries which was considerably higher than the Government recommended and more than was agreed for teachers in other parts of the United Kingdom. If local authorities, at their own discretion, choose to increase teachers' salaries by more than the Government are recommending and more than is being applied elsewhere, that will be an additional burden on those local communities, and that must be brought home to them.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his generous settlement. Can he confirm that it is more generous than those for England and Wales?
Mr. Rifkind: I said that the increase in grant will be £129·5 million, which represents a 5·5 per cent. increase in grant compared with last year. The increase in grant for England was 4·6 per cent. and for Wales 51· per cent.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect on what he has been saying? Will he come clean and admit that the proportion of revenue expenditure incurred by local authorities subvented by central Government has diminished considerably during his period of office? Does he accept that he is talking about an uptake of 100 per cent., but no one really expects a 100 per cent. payment of community charge, especially if we relate it to people like me who will not pay? The proportion is likely to be between 80 and 90 per cent. Therefore, the level of community charge in Scotland will be close to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said—in excess of £300. Will he confirm that?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman pays rates at the moment. If he refuses to pay the community charge, he is saying that he wishes to do well out of the change. He is refusing to make his contribution to the cost of local government and is expecting other people to bear the burden of that. If the hon. Gentleman describes that as a position of principle, he has some very odd principles.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in their reaction to his statement today Opposition Members have brought their traditional whingeing and whining to a fine art? Is not an increase in
408
provision of 8 per cent. and an increase in grant of 5·5 per cent. generosity almost to the point of excess? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that the Government are still in favour of controlling public expenditure. However, does he agree that the increases will knock on the head the wholly irresponsible so-called forecasts about the community charge to which the Scottish electors were treated before the district elections?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very generous settlement. If he feels that it is too generous, and if he would like Eastwood district council to be excluded from its benefits, I shall be happy to consider that.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is it not the case that this so-called generous settlement should be put in the context of the withdrawal of £2,000 million from local government by the Government since they came to office? While we are grateful for small financial mercies, is this not an admission that COSLA and the local authorities got their sums right in regard to expenses for implementing the poll tax and the Government got it wrong? When will the Government start listening to the men and women who run local authorities rather than imposing centralist solutions?
Mr. Rifkind: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make up his mind. He started by saying that the Government were acknowledging that COSLA had got it right, yet he concluded by asking when the Government would start to listen to COSLA. The hon. Gentleman cannot make both points simultaneously, otherwise he will end up even more confused than usual; but perhaps in the case of his political party that is a perfectly legitimate position for him to adopt.
Mr. Tony Marlow: It seems that the Government are offering more individually to the constituents of Scotland than they are to my constituents and that money is being transferred from my people to the people of Scotland. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how he feels that this will reduce the invidious and malignant influence of Socialism on Scotland and, if not, what does he suggest?
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have announced generous rate support grant settlements, as have I. It is not unusual for there to be slight differences between the three territories, and I do not think that any dramatic conclusions should be drawn from any differences. The real message is that the Government are playing their full part responsibly to meet the needs of local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman employing double standards when he attacks the public and hon. Members for saying that they will not pay the poll tax, or the so-called community charge? Is that not hypocrisy, bearing in mind the fact that the Government justify legalised corruption in the form of tax avoidance, which goes on among the rich? Is it not time that the working class fought back by not paying this Tory tax, which does not have any backing in Scotland or, I believe, in England?
Mr. Rifkind:I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues in the Labour party and the

409
Scottish National party who wish to campaign for a policy of ignoring laws of which they do not approve will find that they are going against the grain of Scottish opinion and will be treated with contempt by the Scottish people. No hon. Member campaigned during the last general election on a manifesto commitment to break the law. The hon. Gentleman did not tell his electorate that that is what he intended to do and I think that he would have got a pretty raw answer if he did.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, as a result of this settlement, a far higher percentage of local authority expenditure in Scotland will be grant aided than is the case in England? Does he agree that the lesson of the settlement is that those who make irresponsible wage settlements should not expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer? Does he agree that it is high time that Scottish local authorities sought greater value for money through competitive tendering?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend about competitive tendering. He is right to say that the various countries of the United Kingdom receive different amounts of grant from the Government. It is not some arbitrary matter. It reflects the different needs of those countries and the revenue which can be expected from the local community if a comparable burden is put on the system of taxation. At one extreme is the Western Isles, where a high proportion of expenditure is met by grant. In other parts of Scotland, where economic circumstances are different, much less expenditure is met by grant. That principle applies throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)? When determining revenue support grant, what estimate has been made of the number of people who cannot or will not pay poll tax, bearing in mind the fact that an increasing number of people seem to be coming to the conclusion—the justifiable conclusion—that the only way in which to stop the poll tax is for enough people to say, "We refuse to pay"?
Mr. Rifkind: I notice that those who hold that view have decided to campaign on the interesting slogan, "Can pay but won't." It appears that the campaign is based not on hardship or allegations of inability to pay but on purely political prejudice. This and, I suspect, any other responsible Government do not make estimates based on the likelihood of the hon. Gentleman and his friends refusing to obey the law.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Would these professions of poverty not be more credible if more Scottish councils showed themselves more willing to save money by contracting services out and going to competitive tender?
Mr. Rifkind: Local authorities throughout the United Kingdom are increasingly being required to do that. The process consistently shows substantial benefits for the local community, and it enables local authorities to provide better services for the community at reduced cost. That is something which all right-minded people support. Competitive tendering makes sense for local authorities and the Health Service. Everybody does it with their own
410
personal finances, and there is no reason why representatives of the community should not apply similar criteria.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the Secretary of State aware that at the last general election I campaigned against the poll tax, made no secret of the fact that I would not pay that iniquitous and immoral tax and doubled my majority?
Mr. Rifkind: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to continue to pay his rates or will insist on contributing a sum equivalent to his rates to some worthy cause. Hon. Members who claim to be acting on the basis of principle but who end up in the circumstances suggested by the hon. Gentleman are unlikely to gain any significant respect.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that English Members will be astonished by the relatively high proportion of local government spending in Scotland that is paid for by the taxpayer because that proportion is much higher than in our constituencies? Would my right hon. and learned Friend be equally as astonished at the inkling of the dinosaur mentality of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who intimated that the inevitable consequence of a reduction in grant percentages —I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has not announced that today—is that the community charge would be higher or that local government services would be reduced? It has not occurred to the hon. Member for Garscadden that local authorities might be able to become more efficient. Is that the opinion of the hon. Member for Garscadden because the Labour party's paymasters in Scotland are, by and large, the local authority unions which want to keep their noses in the trough and their hands in the taxpayers' pockets?
Mr. Rifkind: Undoubtedly there is a combination of motives which sometimes leads to the effect to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I did not promise in my election address to shoot the Prime Minister, but I am constantly urged to do that by my constituents. When does the Secretary of State intend to announce the share out of the grant settlement? We would be interested to know whether that will be carried out fairly according to need or whether the Government will exercise the political prejudice which they have exercised so often in the past.
Mr. Rifkind: The political prejudice to which the hon. Lady has referred has meant, with regard to distribution, acting in the closest consultation with COSLA and in the vast majority of cases accepting COSLA's proposals for distribution. If that is political prejudice, it is a rather interesting kind of prejudice which is apparently shared by the hon. Lady's friends among local authorities.
Mr. Alistair Darling: What account did the Secretary of State take of rising interest rates which have a major impact on local authority expenditure? Does he not accept that, if interest rates continue to rise as they have, they will push the poll tax well above the Secretary of State's bogus figures unless local authorities begin to cut services, or is that really what the Secretary of State would like to see happen?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the increase in grant that I have announced today is above the rate of inflation. He is also aware that interest rates, when they relate to the loan charges of local authorities, very often lead to adjustments in the support for local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the worst example that he could possibly have thought of in referring to changes in interest rates affecting local authorities. Traditionally those have been accommodated by central Government.
Mr. John McAllion: The level of rate support grant percentage is fairly important because if it has been reduced it represents a further shift of the burden of taxation from central Government to the backs of poll tax payers. Will the Secretary of State stop ducking the question and confirm or deny whether the level of RSG percentage this year represents a reduction or an increase over last year's?
Mr. Rifkind: As I have already said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), that kind of calculation does not just——
Mr. McAllion: That means yes.
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to answer his question as I allowed him to ask it——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it was I who allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask the question.
Mr. Rifkind: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker.
The level of grant is the crucial requirement for local authorities. That is increased by more than the rate of inflation. The percentage relates to the percentage of the figure for provision. That is an indicative figure. It also takes into account loan charges and capital from current revenue. As I said to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I
412
do not have the figures available for loan charges or capital for current revenue. However, the important point for local authorities is the actual cash that they receive. If that cash is more than the rate of inflation, it is undoubtedly one of the more generous settlements that they have received in recent years.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The settlement is supposed to take Scottish local authorities through the first full chaotic year of the Government's new poll tax. Has the Secretary of State taken account of the built-in inefficiency of the tax and the fact that the majority of Scottish people do not want it to work? What advice is he giving local authorities about the level of shortfall in collection for which they should budget? Should it be 10, 15 or 20 per cent.? How can they manage their budgets in the coming year, given the uncertainty that the Government have created?
Will the Secretary of State respond to the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? Is not the grant settlement a lower percentage of the Government's estimates of local authority expenditure than that for the current year?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman asks the Government to make estimates based on people allegedly not paying the community charge or having a lack of enthusiasm for it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman referred to inefficiency and said that people do not wish to pay the community charge. Despite the Labour party's campaign to frustrate the registration process—that was one of the examples used during the passage of the Bill to show the inefficiency of the system and how it would not operate effectively—here we are, two months before the target date for the completion of registration, and it is over 90 per cent. complete in the majority of areas. As a consequence, it can be seen without fear of qualification that the Labour party's campaign has been a complete shambles.

Personal Statement
3.57 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
There have recently been reports in the press and on television based on a letter written by me to the Chairman of Ways and Means in which I made comments about the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) in his capacity as Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee. That letter was not made public by me, but the views expressed in it have passed into the public domain.
I recognise that it is not appropriate for me, as a fellow member of the Chairmen's Panel, to be associated with the comments that have become public, and I also recognise that what I said in connection with the incident which provoked my letter was based on a misunderstanding. In these circumstances, I wish to withdraw any reflection upon the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Neath, and to apologise to him unreservedly for the embarassment caused to him by this incident.

Points of Order
3.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden: As you, Mr. Speaker, are aware, an ever-increasing number of questions are being tabled for oral answer. The Department of Health and Social Security is being split into separate Departments. As has so often happened in the past, with the luck of the draw, during social security Question Time one side of the Department has not had a fair share of the time to give answers. Will you, Mr. Speaker, inform the House whether any action will be taken to ensure that questions for the Department of Health and those for the Department of Social Services are split?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter and for giving me notice of it. I appreciate that these are important matters for those who have an interest in oral questions on health or social security. They fall to be dealt with not by me but by the Government after consultation through the usual channels. Like the hon. Gentleman, I venture to hope that an early solution can be found so that the tabling of oral questions can go ahead in a satisfactory manner on Friday this week.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to question No. 6, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), mentioned my wife viz her intentions about the poll tax. Given that my wife, fortunately or otherwise, is not an hon. Member, I found that reference to be in appalling bad taste. I do not expect an apology from the hon. Gentleman because I do not expect decent behaviour from a representative of the sleekit, baggy-trousered outfit that runs the Scottish Office.
Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not participate in Scottish Question Time.

Fuel and Energy Provision
3.59 pm
Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home, to guarantee appliances, to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice, to prevent the unauthorised removal of a fuel measuring device, to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to eradicate the danger that people on low incomes experience when they are denied a requisite of life. The problems of the poor, the hardships that affect them and their impossible financial circumstances are best conveyed by a letter from one of my constituents. He wishes me to inform the House that he is living in the first home that he can call his own. He says:
"I have lived here two years and I am just starting life as living the meaning of life. I will explain as I go along.
Suddenly I find myself without a job and, not surprisingly, I am in a situation where I am sensitised to the very feeling of financial impoverishment.
And the inhumanity of Gas and Electric companies sending insulting and threatening notices to cut off such people as me without money to meet such demands because of state improverishment.
The very fact that British Gas or the Electricity Board can have permission to make a forced entry into a destitute family's home vexes me.
Whilst companies may have the right to be paid, it is abominably offensive to do the things they do.
Who is the real offender and culprit behind non-payment?
Is it not the state and the heads of state who legislate how much support and unemployment benefit which a family should receive?
And other legislation which affects people in hopeless situations.
I have answered the door this morning to an Electricity Board official, who wanted to cut off the supply.
So I refused him entry, which is the only thing that anyone could do.
As my unemployment benefit is £47 per week, from that I have a direct deduction of£8 per week for gas arrears before unemployment.
That leaves me £39 to pay a £40 per week mortgage; to pay for electricity, the rates, to eat and to pay for everything necessary to run a home.
I only eat what is cheap.
Yet I am unable to respond to the normal domestic situation.
If a light bulb blows, I cannot replace it.
I pay no electricity; I pay no rates or the inevitable things like house insurance.
You must know about it, unlike some, especially those of the Thatcher breed, who know little of what I experience.
So what happens when I appear in court for non-payment?
And I answer the man with the questions over the dock, whom the state appointed to judge me?"
Time denies me the opportunity to read all my constituent's letter, which defines the circumstances of the fuel poor, for which the Government have shown little concern. This is confirmed by the almost total absence of any discussion about the standard of housing and energy efficiency issues. His letter most accurately describes the appalling circumstances of the millions who were given no consideration when £2 billion was given away in tax handouts—tax handouts funded by social security changes and implemented by a majority of Members. They have led to 3,238,000 householders, who were also required to absorb increased fuel prices, being £3·43 worse off. They mean that 3,238,000 householders were unable to achieve
416
an affordable warmth last winter, and will have less money for fuel this winter, and their fuel poverty will be intensified.
That fuel poverty will be further compounded by a British Gas with the sole objective of getting the highest return on capital and bonanza dividends for shareholders, a British Gas that no longer has a social role towards the poor, the low-income groups, the elderly, and the disabled, whose dependancy has beem described as a deadly drug. That mercenary attitude has already been emulated by the Central Electricity Generating Board, even before it has been stolen from the public.
The Government's security changes and the privatisation of fuel supplies have created an alien environment, an environment that can kill, when, without compunction, gas is disconnected as British Gas intensifies its policy of making life hard for the low-income customer, whom it considers troublesome, as they use little gas and generate high administration costs
In our so-called civilised society, there is a hostile and dangerous environment where the elderly and low-income families with young children are at risk of fires or explosions, as they continue to use dangerous cooking and heating appliances. They are frightened to have them checked, and are unable to replace them if they are condemned as unsafe. Day by day, they are forced to live with that worry and fear. It threatens their health and well-being, and it exists because what can be described only as a usurer Government have abolished a special payments system and replaced it with a cash-limited loans fund.
As we near the end of this Session of Parliament, the subject that dominates the conversation is the holiday plans of Members and their families—plans that may have been in the pipeline a year or perhaps months, and that contrast starkly with the unmade plans of millions in our impoverished society. They cannot plan a year ahead, a week ahead or even a day ahead, and they fear what lies five months ahead to winter. They are unemployed; elderly; retired; they are sick; disabled or are families with young children. Their circumstances force them to spend 13 hours a day in their homes. They will spend 20 per cent. of their income on fuel. They will exist in temperatures that would not be acceptable to a shop worker, a factory worker or an office worker and would most certainly be unacceptable to the majority of hon. Members.
Those millions fear what is five months ahead, when winter is with us, because we force them to live in circumstances that contrast so extremely with ours, here in this cosseted, centrally-heated seat of Government. This coming winter, they will exist in a Government-created hell, without heat, which will result in 30,000 deaths. They will die of cold—and it will not be on the ski slopes, and they will not be buried under a snow avalanche. They will die simply because their Government stole their heat.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Tony Banks.

FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION
Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home, to guarantee appliances, to prevent the entry to

417
premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice, to prevent the unauthorised removal of a fuel measuring device, to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 July and to be printed. [Bill 210.]
Mr. Speaker: I remind right hon. and hon. Members on both Front and Back Benches that debates on the motions today may last for one and a half hours each.

Immigration
4.8 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 555), which was laid before this House on 7th July 1988, be disapproved.
This is a tawdry little measure, made all the more squalid by the circumstances of its introduction. Its effects on the life of the nation as a whole will be imperceptible, but the suffering and hardship that it will cause to a small number of families living in Britain will be immense. Its immediate origins go back over a year to the general election and a promise given by the Home Secretary to a Tory candidate in a marginal seat—a promise to be tougher on immigration and to impose tougher immigration restrictions.
We oppose the changes because of the hardship and suffering that they will cause and because they are part of the Government's political strategy on race and immigration. The Government believe that they gain electoral advantage by first depicting the ethnic minorities as a danger, and immigration as a threat, and then by claiming to be the only party that will face the danger and overcome that threat with suitably harsh policies.
This morning the Minister of State went on radio to refute the charge that the Government are intentionally increasing and exploiting fear about immigration. He did so first by announcing that, on the sub-continent of India, there are 1,000 million potential immigrants to this country. He used that figure twice. He then went on to refer to the risk of Britain being "flooded" by immigrants. Finally, he went on to warn about the perils of "mass immigration". To some of us the opinions of the National Front are not made any less odious by being expressed in the style of Bertie Wooster. It is instructive to measure the Minister's scaremongering against the proposals that we are debating.
Paragraph 3 of the "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules" prohibits the entry of second wives. That measure is geared specifically to the custom of a small group of Moslem men who are presently in this country lawfully. Each year, that provision will prevent 25 women from entering this country—25 women out of the 1,000 million potential immigrants with which the Minister of State tried to make our flesh creep this morning.
That provision will stem the "flood" at the rate of one immigrant a fortnight; it will reduce mass immigration by two a month. It is not, however, the provisions of paragraph 3, for all its pettiness, that are the most objectionable part of the statement. The Government will ask the House—I have no doubt that the most supine Back Benchers ever to support a Government will readily agree —to break a solemn promise given by a Conservative Home Secretary in 1971. In that year Mr. Maudling was explicit:
"I do not intend that the position of those already in this country, the rights of those already in this country to bring in their dependants, shall be changed. That is what we promised in the election."—[Official Report, 8 March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 47.]
That right is now to be abolished and that promise is to be abandoned. The excuse for that action is that the promise was made to men only and that it referred to the right of men living in this country before 1973 to bring in,

419
without restriction, their wives and families. The excuse is that that promise was not made to women. As always with Tory immigration policy, when they claim that they are about to achieve equality, they achieve a sort of equality by increasing the problems for one group rather than reducing the difficulties of another. Men settled in this country before 1973 are now to be subject to the primary purpose rule. It is about that rule that I shall principally speak during the few minutes that I shall allow myself.
I believe that the fact of marriage should, in itself, be the sole qualification for entry into this country and that residence and settlement should be automatically allowed as long as the marriage proves to be a stable relationship. However, the primary purpose rule, as presently defined, is more objectionable than the refusal of that simple principle alone. It is deeply and additionally objectionable for three distinct reasons. First, it requires a husband or a wife to prove to an immigration officer's satisfaction that there is no other reason for the marriage than the marriage itself. That task of proving a negative and proving the reasons why they did not enter into the marriage—proving it to the subjective satisfaction of a junior official—is, in many circumstances, immensely difficult. For young men and young women, nervous in the face of bureaucracy, inexperienced in how to deal with officials and sometimes struggling with language difficulties, that task is often impossible. I have no doubt that the Home Office intends that it should be. I shall demonstrate that the primary purpose rule is not supposed to be a check on improper, arranged and inoperative—in the best sense of the word —marriages. It is meant to be a barrier to entry to this country in all circumstances.
Ms. Clare Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way a couple of times, but preferably not too often because of the short length of this debate.
Ms. Short: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers a press article that appeared some months ago. It stated that the Minister's officials had said that the rule is penalising genuine marriages and is allowing through only those who understand the complicated rule of giving the right answers. Those officials said that couples with genuine marriages had been prevented entry to the United Kingdom, and that the officials were recommending a change in the rules.
Mr. Hattersley: There are many problems with this subject and were there time I should like to consider them, but one of them is the nature of the questions that are sometimes asked. By any reasonable analysis, those questions are trick questions and they encourage people to give the wrong answers. I shall deal with the attitude of Ministry officials explicitly in a moment—their attitude is my third objection to the primary purpose rule.
My second objection, however, is the way in which that rule is presently applied. The Court of Appeal, in the judgment in Kumar, requires the Home Office and its officials to take into account the nature of the marriage after it was contracted when applying the primary purpose
420
rule—not just how that marriage came about, but how it turned out when the partners lived together in happiness and in a proper relationship.
The evidence of appeals to the Home Office adjudicators demonstrates, beyond doubt, that the Home Office is not following that judgment and instruction from the court. Too often the primary purpose rule is taken simply to mean the circumstances in which the marriage was contracted. As a result couples with genuine marriages, real partnerships, are kept apart for one year, two years or three years until the long, protracted period of appeal is concluded.
Mr. Tony Marlow: That is not how it works.
Mr. Hattersley: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman who represents all of the opinion that I most detest on this subject. The hon. Gentleman prefers to mumble his opinions rather than to speak in the debate. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order let us have an orderly debate.
Mr. Marlow: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's challenge. My hon. Friends and I represent the opinions of the ordinary people of our country, which he most certainly does not.
Mr. Hattersley: I agree that people do not come more ordinary than the hon. Gentleman, but there is more to it than that. The third objection to the primary purpose rule is a crucial matter of principle.
Mr. Tim Janman rose——
Mr. Hattersley: I made it clear that I would give way twice. We have 86 minutes left to debate this matter and, in courtesy to the House, I do not propose to give way again.
My third objection to the primary purpose rule is the most important because it relates to an issue of principle. The primary purpose rule is now being used not to decide whether a marriage is genuine, but to hold down the numbers of immigrants coming to this country.
Six weeks ago, together with representatives of the Immigrant Widows Campaign, I discussed the primary purpose rule with the Home Secretary. The supervising under-secretary—a civil servant—was terrifyingly frank about the intention of the primary purpose rule. He said that it was intended to slow down the rate of entry. When I challenged that view and insisted that the only possible justification for such a rule was an attempt to detect and deter bogus marriages, the Home Secretary supported his official. I noted his words at that time, which were:
"The people out there would not understand if a lot more husbands came in."
The truth is that the people out there are assumed by the Government to be as racially prejudiced as the average Conservative Back Bencher. Perhaps some of them are, but the rest—the decent majority—are now being encouraged to develop prejudices by the constant representation of the black and Asian British as a problem and a threat. That is why the measure removes the right of some men and women who have stayed longer than their visas allow to appeal against deportation even on compassionate grounds. The measure removes the right of British citizens——
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I think the right hon. Gentleman is about to leave the subject of primary purpose and I want to ask him a question about it before he moves on. He will remember that in the Second Reading debate on the Immigration Bill in November he specifically said that he thought the primary purpose rule should be replaced by a quota. Eight months have passed. Has he developed his thoughts on that matter? What would be an appropriate quota?
Mr. Hattersley: I have made my position clear today. It is, and will remain, that the fact of marriage should be the qualification for entering this country, as it is in others. Quotas do not arise. There should be a right. The Minister must understand that, in a free society, it is not a right if it exists only in law and we do not allow people to exercise it in practice. A man married to a British citizen should be allowed into this country. If the Minister wants to talk about quotas, what quotas does he propose for husbands entering this country from the EEC? There are no quotas for them. The Minister thinks of quotas only in the context of black or brown—or West Indian or Indian sub-continent—quotas. He knows perfectly well—he has encouraged me to develop this subject—that the way in which the primary purpose rule now operates is such that the French citizen living in Great Britain has the right to bring a husband or wife into this country, yet that right is not available to British citizens living here.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: The situation I have described is absurd. The quota, the primary purpose rule, or the limitation is supposed to operate only against the husbands and wives of black and Asian British citizens —and no on else.
Mr. Budgen rose——
Mr. Hattersley: I keep saying no. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman again, if he wants me to.
The desire to represent the black and Asian British as a problem and a threat is the reason why the measure removes the right of British citizens to present themselves at Heathrow or Dover and request entry into their own country unless they provide immediately, and have on them at the time, proof positive of their nationality.
No one can honestly doubt how this will work. When a man arrives at Heathrow and claims to be a British citizen and is turned away, he will not be a white South African patrial; he will be a Moslem youth, born in Birmingham and taken as a child to Pakistan. The same will happen to a girl from Jamaica who was born here but went home to live for a period with her parents in Kingston. This is another proposal that explicitly and specifically operates against the black and Asian British. I heard the Minister on the radio this morning saying——
Mr. Janman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a short debate. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not going to give way. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, perhaps he will be called.
Mr. Hattersley: I am attempting to observe your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and it is up to other hon. Members to do the same.
422
The Minister says from time to time that these rules are non-discriminatory because they apply to every group in the community. Some rules which apply to every group in theory discriminate against one group in practice. Were the Minister to promise to penalise everyone called Khan or Hussain, he might try to argue that all Scotsmen called Khan and all Welshmen called Hussain would be similarly penalised, but it would be the Moslem British who suffered. That is how the rules work out: no matter how general they appear on paper, in practice the black and Asian British suffer. That is why we propose to vote against the statement.
I want to add a final footnote about this shabby little measure. It is clearly no coincidence that the Government announced yesterday their acceptance of DNA testing— so-called genetic fingerprinting. In the view of virtually every expert, the pilot study on that system was wholly unnecessary and, to most people's minds, was merely an excuse for delay. It has now been widely said—I hope the Minister will tell me whether it is true—that the evidence from the pilot study has been in his hands since at least last autumn.
Mr. Renton indicated dissent.
Mr. Hattersley: Not so? Had the DNA test been applied from the moment when it was available it would have allowed into Britain families whose claims have been denied even though they have the right to be here——
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No.
The acceptance and implementation of the test have been held back until other barriers to immigration have been erected. The first barrier is the cost, which has risen from £50 a family to £60 a person. The second is today's abolition of the automatic rights of men who have lived here since 1973. That makes the Government's proposal all the more squalid and tawdry and it is why we shall vote against it with passion and enthusiasm.
4.27 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I will not be taking interventions.
The proposals must be seen against a background of immigration policies over the last generation. It is a background of ever increasing availability of access to cheap international travel and of ever increasing awareness of the cornucopia of wealth that exists in the Western world for those of the Third world who can contrive to gain entry to it.
Devices and abuses are rampant. Conservative Members offer every support to the Government and to our hard-pressed immigration services in their efforts to thwart dishonest access to our society. Ours is a society which, in a negatation of democracy, has had its identity threatened in the past by a massive invasion of tribes and cultures which it neither willed nor supported. Our society's political defences were breached by the immediate enfranchisement of the invaders. It was undermined by the perverted idealism, empty racist cant —a more parliamentary word might be cynicism—and unprincipled vote-grubbing of the Opposition. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is in his place.
Mr. Keith Vaz rose—
Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way.
Freedom of speech has been barred by the thought police of the race relations industry, an incubus on good race relations spawned by Socialists for their own ends and providing lucrative jobs for the boys and for the agitators with whom they have aligned themselves—
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order or of disagreement?
Mr. Winnick: My first point of order is this. This is a narrow debate on the immigration rules. I wonder whether what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is saying meets that criterion.
My second point of order is this. The hon. Gentleman has referred to invaders, which is a deeply offensive term to millions of people who live in our country——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not make those sorts of points. The debate is on the immigration rules and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must relate his speech to them. He has been speaking for only two minutes, and no doubt this has been his preamble.
Mr. Marlow: I intend to be brief and, for the benefit of the Opposition, to get through as quickly as possible.
As the rules are set out, all our citizens are rightly equal before the law. There should be no negative or positive discrimination. No one should use our society while belonging to another. Those who have gained access should be the most fervent in their commitment, if only to discharge their obligation for the privilege that they have gained. To coin a slogan, Asian citizens could well drive British cars.
I support the rules in so far as they go——
Mr. Allan Rogers rose——
Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way, and the hon. Gentleman knows why.
I support the rules in so far as they go, but I wish that they went further. There is much talk—we have heard it today from the Opposition—about the reunification of families, a benign objective which I support. But if one family member has left his native land for Britain, we do not, as far as I know, prevent him from returning to the bosom of his family. However, we are rightly anxious about who should have access to our country—minimising those from a different cultural background.
Certain rights have been granted and they should be modified. If two parties to a marriage share a common language, not English, surely it is more appropriate, more humane and more enlightened for the happy couple to settle in the land of their common language. We need to introduce a system of language tests. I am sure that my constituents, and the majority of the constituents of Opposition Members, would support that.
Secondly, the illegal acquisition of abode in our country, although the motive may be flattering, is theft, and thieves are criminals. There is pressure for the introduction of a system of identity cards to support the fight against crime, and if that helps in the apprehension of those criminals, so much the better.
424
Immigration, for most categories of migrants, should be considered not a right but a privilege—a privilege to be earned, not casually dispensed; a privilege the allocation of which must be firmly supervised. That, as we all know, although some Opposition Members would deny it, is our democratic duty.
4.31 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I will not comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I was told before I came to the House that it had a number of ranters and ravers and we have just met the ultimate ranter and raver. He is a silly man and his speech, dangerous though it was, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Let me deal now with the rules and the Immigration Act 1988 which will take effect on 1 August. Yet again, the Government have come before the House with a proposal that is pernicious and attacks Britain's black and Asian community. Yet again, they have come before the House with a proposal that will divide families and split communities, and put the black community at odds with the police.
I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Immigration Bill for 62 hours along with other colleagues. All our reasonable and moderate amendments were rejected by the Minister. The completion of all the stages of that Bill was marked yesterday with a fiasco of a party held on the 7th floor of the Home Office—a party, incidentally, that cost only £20. One wonders whether one should go to such a party. However, the passing of the Act and the rules were not celebrated with a party in my constituency among the many people who come to my surgeries and those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and others.
Mr. Hanley rose——
Mr. Vaz: I shall not give way.
No party took place in the queues abroad in places such as Karachi and Islamabad where people have been waiting for many months, and possibly years, for an interview. The rules and the Act are undemocratic and unjust. They break promises made by successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, since 1971, and they introduce fees that have never existed before for certain cases.
I want to draw the attention of the House to one particular change in the rules. Rule 169 initiates something called supervised departure. It gives wide, undefined powers to the Secretary of State. Certain circumstances are referred to, but it is not clear what they are. There is no time limit on the period before a person is removed from Britain. Those who are to be deported are in a better position than those who undergo supervised departure. Under immigration rules 170 and 171 a person who is liable to deportation has a right of appeal. That does not apply to someone who has to undergo supervised departure.
The rules and the Act must be seen in the context of the Government's legislation over the past few years, including pernicious legislation such as the introduction of visas. An absurd situation has been created whereby constituents of mine who have applied for a visa to come to Britain to visit relatives or to attend a wedding have been refused admission and have then become locked into an appeal procedure that takes several months, possibly

425
years, to complete. That means that by the time the appeal has been completed, even though it is successful, any wedding that w as to have been attended will already have taken place.
The rules and the Act must be looked at in the context of the proposals published last week by the Home Office on the registration of the rights of Members of Parliament to intervene in immigration cases. We must look at them in the context of the new fees that were introduced on 1 June this year. The previous charge was £50 per family; it is now £60 per applicant.
There is clearly a need for legislation. There is clearly a need for Government action on immigration policy. I urge the Minister to start by looking at the length of queues in many of the sub-continent posts. For example, in New Delhi a woman waiting for her fiance has to wait eight months for an interview. In Bombay, it is nine months, in Dacca seven months, in Karachi 11 months, and in Islamabad 19 months.
We also have the figures for other posts abroad. I understand from figures that have been published by the Foreign Office that an applicant in Athens has to wait less than a week, in Copenhagen less than three weeks, and in Paris less than a week.
Ms. Short: We should also put on record the fact that a new hidden queue is growing in Britain of families who have been interviewed abroad, who have already waited a year, or perhaps two if it is a second application, and then are kept waiting for more than a year for their sponsor to be interviewed here. The Government will not admit to that. They will not give the figures in reply to parliamentary questions. That is a hidden, secret queue which is making the waiting process longer and longer.
Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend has much experience in these matters and that leads me on to my next point—the crisis that exists at Lunar house.
On 16 November when the Home Secretary introduced the Immigration Bill he talked about providing a better customer service. Throughout the Immigration Bill Standing Committee the Minister talked about customer service and good value for money as if he were a junior manager with Marks and Spencer. The report of that good customer service was made public on 18 April this year when the Select Committee on Home Affairs described the operation of Lunar house as a scandal. It said:
"We consider that the Home Office's failure to open and acknowledge promptly the 207,000 letters lying unopened or unacknowledged on 21 February 1988 to be scandalous and the overall aim of dealing with all applications for registration by December 1989 to be totally unacceptable."
Sir Brian Cubbon, a permanent under secretary of state at the Home Office, described to that Committee the mistakes made by the Home Office. Since this is the first opportunity that the Minister has had to speak on that report,. I hope that he will apologise to the House for what has occurred.
If the Minister listens carefully he will hear the weeping of those in my constituency and elsewhere who have been waiting for friends and relatives to visit them. Mr. Dulkon, who lives at 93 Doncaster road, has been told that his family cannot visit him because there is no guarantee that they will go back—no matter that they have provided affidavits and other information. He will hear the weeping and the tears of people such as Mrs. Jogia of 148 Brandon street who has been waiting for nine years to be reunited
426
with her husband. He will hear the weeping and tears of children, husbands and wives who will be unable to enter the country.
The Government's immigration policy, as reflected in these rules and the Immigration Act 1988, is uncaring, uncompassionate and uncommitted to the family. They thrive on the misery, hardship and anxiety of black and Asian people. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to withdraw the rules. I warn him that if he does not he will never be forgiven.
4.40 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: There used to be some sort of reluctant agreement between the two great parties about the need to have something in the nature of the primary purpose rule. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has now moved away from that. He said that wherever there is a marriage it should give rise to the right to come into Britain. When he first put forward that argument he realised, for he is a wise and well-informed man, that that could give rise to a substantial increase in immigration. He covered himself by saying in a vague way that there would be some form of quota. He knew that it would be unpopular with his constituents if it were known that he was advocating a major increase in immigration.
There is no doubt that the primary purpose rule creates sadness and hardship at the margin. Any immigration control is bound to do that. Anything other than completely open ports, allowing the citizen of another country to join a fellow citizen, is bound to create some form of sadness. It is easy to say, pointing to one person or another, that that is harsh and that therefore the whole rule should be swept away. The House should realise that if Britain were to adopt the generosity being suggested by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, it would lead to a major increase in immigration. It would lead not only to an increase in primary immigration but would give rise to secondary immigration.
People coming into this country by reason of marriage would also have the consequential right to bring in their dependants. That is well understood. The right hon. Gentleman understands it because he covered himself by talking vaguely about quotas. Most of all, it would give rise to a major increase in immigration because of the system of arranged marriages. I am not arguing against arranged marriages. As one gets older and looks at the breakdown of so-called love marriages, one wonders whether there might not be a great deal to be said for arranged marriages. However, arranged marriages give rise to massive increases in immigration to Britain. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows, it would create a great deal of resentment, which would rub off on to the black and Asian community which is already lawfully in Britain. It cannot be in anybody's interests.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are many people living in my constituency, who previously lived in my hon. Friend's constituency, who already resent the fact that they are almost exiles in their own country because of the way in which the character of our towns and cities has been altered by successive Governments' policies on immigration over the past 40 years?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that we are discussing the proposed changes in immigration rules and not immigration generally.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend used to live in my constituency and I have no doubt that——
Ms. Short: He is talking about himself.
Mr. Budgen: Perhaps he is, but he is well aware of the views of many people in the black country.
A major increase in immigration would create tension. That is the limited point I am making and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook——
Ms. Short: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we allow international travel, and we have the European free market and people travel around the world and meet each other, there will be more marriages across national boundaries? If the hon. Gentleman's argument is to hold up, that too will create a problem.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are discussing specific changes in immigration rules.
Ms. Short: We are talking about provisions for the control of marriage and immigration under the rules. The argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is that if we do not control marriages from the Indian sub-continent there will be unending immigration. In order to get married, one has to have a partner here willing to marry someone from abroad. That practice is changing and young people who grow up here are looking increasingly for partners who also grew up here. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument is deeply flawed. There is not an infinite potential. There are two partners to every marriage.
Mr. Budgen: The hon. Lady is talking about the contraction of what is fashionably called a love marriage. I am confining my remarks to the arranged marriage and arguing that, whatever its advantages—they may be substantial—it could give rise to a considerable increase in immigration.
I want to take up another point raised by the hon. Lady. The arranged marriage creates considerable tensions within Asian households in Britain. Many hon. Members have some experience of the Asian community in Britain and I am one of them. For the past 14 years I have spent half the time that I spend on constituency cases dealing with what are described as immigration problems. One of the most frequent features of those problems is the father who says, "I would like to arrange for young Mr. Somebody from Jallunder to come to this country. Will you please do that because I have arranged a marriage between that gentleman and my daughter?" The next week along comes the daughter and says, "I know that my Dad came to see you last week. Please do not allow that gentleman to come to Britain because"——
Mr. Vaz rose——
Mr. Budgen: I will give way when I have finished the sentence.
That daughter then goes on to say that she has been brought up in this country and that for better or worse she believes in the concept——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman help me by informing me to which of the proposed changes in the rules his speech relates?
Mr. Budgen: The primary purpose rule. I am trying to debate the point properly put forward by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Second generation Asians do not wish to see unrestricted entry to Britain by reason of arranged marriages. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook believes that he is currying favour by suggesting a relaxation of this rule, but he may find that it is unpopular with a large section of the young Asian community.
I accept that any rule is bound to be seen at the margin as restrictive, unkind and even unfair. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the House that, unless we have something approaching the primary purpose rule, we shall see a re-emergence not only of great tension within Asian households but of fears within the indigenous population. Sadly, the primary purpose rule is an essential tool of the control of immigration to Britain.
4.49 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: The immigration rules are supposedly a system of rules which enables cases to be examined on their merits. As time has gone by, a number of amendments have been made, as we can see in the preface to the statement of changes, which have meant that cases are considered much less on their merits than was originally intended and much more on the basis of political prejudice.
The extravagant exaggeration by the Minister on the radio this morning has done little to enable the public to consider the problems of immigrant families upon their merits and, indeed, has done a good deal to worsen the perception of the problems faced by families who wish to bring spouses and others into this country.
The Minister starts from the premise that there is an enormous desire for mass immigration to the United Kingdom, but there is no real evidence of a desire to enter the United Kingdom in huge numbers, except, possibly, the potential desire in the future of white people from South Africa to enter this country in large numbers. I shall be interested to see, if and when that happens, what will be the reaction of the Government, if they are in office then.
The Government claim to be the party of the family, at least from time to time, but, as described earlier by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), this measure, although modest, does no credit to the Government's attitude towards the family. Their attitude towards the family, in relation to immigration and particularly the primary purpose rule—we are here concerned with paragraph 1B of the statement of changes —is shown by the operation of the new DNA screening system. Of course, I welcome the Government's acceptance of the DNA screening system. I hope that they will not try to take over the system, but will leave its operation in the hands of the company which has skilfully developed it and which can offer the tests at the reasonable cost of about £115.
However, what I find incomprehensible about the Government's attitude to the DNA screening system is that they are not prepared to save money by paying for the tests. If one takes, on the one hand, the cost of the traditional, bureaucratic method of dealing with applications and, on the other hand, the one-off cost of £115 of

429
producing a sure result from DNA screening, it is quite clear, even at a glance, let alone with close examination, that the DNA screening system is much cheaper. The Minister should therefore go back, look at the system once again and come to the conclusion that, where people have eventually penetrated the long queues mentioned earlier and are able to undergo DNA tests, the Government should economise by paying for those tests.
Ms. Short: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that it is possible to obtain legal aid to pay for the DNA test when someone has waited a long time, been through the complex and costly bureaucratic system that currently exists and has been refused by officials. Many hon. Members have come across cases that have then succeeded, which is an even more wasteful procedure. Public funds are going into DNA screening, but there are now double spending levels, which could be done away with if we administered the test immediately someone applied for it. That would save time and money for everyone concerned.
Mr. Carlile: The spending of which the hon. Lady spoke is probably at a quadruple or quintuple level because people have had to go to the extent of obtaining legal advice. The Government should adopt the system, not halfheartedly, but wholeheartedly.
I wish to make two other points about the statement of changes. The first relates to new paragraph 90 and new paragraph 150A. Those two new paragraphs specifically exclude rights of appeal. New paragraph 150A excludes as clearly as possible any appeal on the merits. If the Minister were listening, I would be asking him why, particularly in new paragraph 150A, the Government have decided specifically to exclude a right of appeal on the merits. The rules will lose their respect, not just among the legal community, but throughout the world, if they are seen to be the fist of Government rather than a system that ensures fair play.
The second matter that I wish to raise relates to new rule 56 in paragraph 5 of the statement of changes. Is the Minister satisfied that that rule will not prove unfair to legitimate political refugees in the United Kingdom? Those refugees will include people who may well have restructured their lives, for example, journalists from South Africa who have come to this country because they could no longer live with the political system there, but who in restructuring their lives and settling here have only been able to obtain employment abroad. Those people may well be disadvantaged because it may be difficult for them to return to this country for any length of time within a period of two years.
There is no evidence of the need for the changes and no justification for them. The Minister could have made far more constructive changes by, for example, paying for DNA screening for applicants. The statement of changes is merely the annual pandering to political prejudices in parts of his own party.
4.56 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: I shall be reasonably brief, but I should perhaps declare an interest because I represent about 7,000 members of the Sikh community in my area and have done so for quite a number of years. As the years go by, one becomes accustomed to dealing with their problems, and there have
430
been many problems. We cannot just listen to Opposition Members. It needs saying that the race relations system in this country is much better than it was and, certainly in my area, harmonisation has extended very much to the Sikh community, the vast majority of whom are now well integrated. Although there are always exceptions, many people are well satisfied with their situation.
I wish to make two important points in view of the comments of other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr Budgen), in his excellent and accurate speech, spoke about the people who wish to enter this country. From the beginning of next month, people who want to bring a family or come here for marriage purposes will have to show that they have support and accommodation and that the marriage was not entered into primarily to evade the immigration procedures. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we have all encountered cases in which the girl has come along and said, "I don't want to be married under the arranged marriage system." I wish to take the matter a little further. I am sure that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have encountered cases in which the people who originally said to us, "Will you arrange for that man to come in to marry my daughter?" have come back and said, "Will you get rid of that man because he married my daughter and came here primarily"——
Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Dudley Smith: No, I shall not give way because Opposition Members have not given way to us. Hon. Members know that I normally give way, but this is a short debate.
Those people have come back and said that they have realised that the young men had come into this country primarily to evade the immigration rules, had paid scant regard to their daughters, gone off to another part of the country and totally abused the rules and regulations. I have had dozens of such cases, as I am sure have other hon. Members. That does no favour to the genuine cases, those people who want and are entitled to come here and wish to make a success of it. That needs to be understood by the House.
Secondly, those who overstay in future will not be able to plead compassionate reasons—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and others may not like what I am about to say, but it is the truth. They should ask some of my constituents——
Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Dudley Smith: No, I shall not give way. I shall be even less ready to give way if the hon. Lady continues to shout at me.
There have been instances where important com-passionate grounds have existed, but if we are honest and place our hands on our hearts, we know that many others have been bogus. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have received applications that have been based on compassionate grounds. However, having examined the details and exercised my judgment, I have been sure that the grounds were bogus. It is right that new rules should be introduced in fairness to those who make genuine applications.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is aware, like many others, that, following the changes that were made to the rules a comparatively short time ago,

431
almost 99 per cent. of those who visit the United Kingdom for a holiday or other special reasons are now returning without any problem. That is an excellent record. It is one to be valued and the minority populations are to be commended. It is welcomed by the Sikh leaders in my constituency. We know now that those who visit the United Kingdom will be honest and arrange to return to their own country at the proper time. The more that we can ensure that that happens, the better.
The references of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to "shabby" and "squalid" when describing the statement of changes do nothing to improve race relations. Instead, he foments bad relations. It seems that he wants to do so. We must work for a better understanding with sensible and reasonable guidelines. The right hon. Gentleman, who holds the important position of shadow Home Secretary, should realise that Britain is a small island in global terms. We have a large population and over the past 30 or 40 years we have been extremely generous in terms of the number of people that we have allowed in from the Commonwealth, especially the new Commonwealth. I am glad to say that the vast majority have settled extremely satisfactorily. These immigrants have done a good job and they have integrated. I am not prepared to allow the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that the Government are doing everything that they can to work against the interests of these people. However, enough is enough. We have been promised over many years that, having accepted such a large number of immigrants, immigration would tail off. It is beginning to do so.
Mr. Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Dudley Smith: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend because I wish to be brief.
Immigration is beginning to tail off, and it should now begin fundamentally to come to an end. If it does, there will be far more hope that further efforts towards achieving the better integration of those who have come here will be successful and better appreciated by those who are here. I am talking of those who are reasonable and sensible, who do not try to politicise the situation. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to do. I think that he is on the right lines.
5.4 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: The spectre raised by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) of all the grateful Sikhs doing obeisance to him because the Government have introduced the statement of changes is the most perverse and wild fantasy. It is nonsense to suggest that the Afro-Caribbean or Asian communities, or any people of good will, would welcome a measure of this nature. It is a sordid and squalid measure. Above all, its great evil is that it is socially divisive. It is the consequence of that division—the rules will create rifts in our society and exacerbate existing rifts —that the House should be mindful of when considering the statement of changes.
The clearest example of that danger was provided for us by the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The language that the hon. Gentleman used and the tone in which the speech was
432
delivered demonstrated the great evils of measures of this sort. I have some sympathy—I see some of my hon. Friends recoiling in horror at my use of the word "sympathy"—for the Minister of State and the position in which he finds himself.
Mr. Greville Janner: No.
Mr. Boateng: I knew that that would be the response.
I have some sympathy with the Minister for having to introduce a measure of this nature. He is sitting on a volcano in his party. It is a volcano of pus that every now and again is bound to erupt on the Government Benches. When it does, the only way in which someone in his position can survive is to introduce a measure of this sort. Whether he introduces it or not, the pus is still there and it creeps through. That pus was represented by the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North. How dare he describe black people in this country—Afro-Caribbean or Asian people—as invaders. Afro-Caribbeans and Asians are here specifically at the Government's invitation. They were invited to come here after the war to do the dirty work which many people in this country were not prepared to do. That is why Afro-Caribbean and Asian people are in this country. Having come here, done that work and made a valuable contribution, they are required to respond to rules and regulations that are socially divisive and damaging.
Mr. Janman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the invaders to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) refers—he correctly referred to an invasion—are indeed invaders because the British people have never given any British Government a mandate to allow the invasion to happen?
Mr. Boateng: That is an argument that the hon. Gentleman should put to the predecessor of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). It was Enoch Powell who issued an invitation to women like my mother-in-law from Barbados, and others from elsewhere from the Commonwealth, to work in Britain in the National Health Service. It is an argument that the hon. Gentleman should address to his right hon. and hon. Friends instead of throwing it in the face of Opposition Members.
We then heard talk about people being made aliens in their own land. I have news for the House. The Afro-Caribbean and Asian people who will be affected by the rules and regulations say, "This is our land. We intend to stay here come what may." The Government can put all the rules and regulations on the statute book that they want. They can introduce measures of greater and greater oppression. I believe that the majority of people in this Britain, in this country of ours, black or white, are opposed to measures of the sort that we are now discussing. They know what the social consequences will be. The Minister of State must be aware of the consequences.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In the mid-1950s, when there was full employment, there was active recruitment of labour from the Indian sub-continent. Many doctors came here to work in the National Health Service. Indeed, Governments had to put a bar on their coming here. There was active recruitment of medical staff in the Caribbean. A most active member of the Government during that period——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Let us return to the changes to the rules.
Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has considerable experience of these matters and his analysis is right.
When we examine the rules against the backcloth of the history to which my hon. Friend has referred, we find measures that, by any rational analysis, are completely unsupportable. It cannot be right to deny people the right of appeal. It cannot be right to require people to go through the sort of hoops that the primary purpose rule imposes on them. It cannot be right to construct an edifice that causes delay, obstruction and administrative chaos, to which the rules and regulations before us will add. The rules and regulations are unfair and they will prove to be unworkable. It does our country and the House no credit that they are being discussed in this way.
We must reflect on the impact that the rules and regulations will have on the reputation and on the perception of our country as being a place where equity counts for something, where it is considered right to be just and to give people access to the courts and review of decisions that affect people's future, their liberty and their quality of life.
What is so sad and sickening about these measures is that, even when the Government recognise the need to make changes, and acknowledge, as they did yesterday in relation to DNA tests, the benefits that changes can bring, still there is a nasty piece of meanness lurking in the background. It is that meanness in terms of who is to pay, and in terms of where the burden will be felt, that suggests to me that the House should rise up and express a degree of protest.
Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is another kind of meanness, which is vicious, and not far removed from the proposed changes to the rules? It is that people who have been excluded in the past but who would have been admitted had the DNA rules applied and who were wrongly kept out and not allowed to join their parents because the Government had got it wrong will not now be permitted to enter the country, even though the DNA rules have been accepted? That is partly due to the changes that the Government propose making.
Mr. Boateng: If that is so, that will be of grave concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about fairness. It is for the Minister to answer specifically my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who has raised an alarming possibility. I am grateful to him for pointing out that danger.
In addition to the burdens imposed by the new rules and regulations, there will be another imposition in the form of the requirement that people should pay for the oppressive rules to which they are subject. Not only has the application fee been increased from £50 to £60 but each and every member of a family will have to pay that amount. It does not take much of a sympathetic imagination to anticipate the impact of that financial imposition on a family on the sub-continent. They will already have scrimped and saved to accrue £50, and then £60, and now find that for a normal family application they will have to pay £300. It does not take much of an imagination to grasp what that will mean. How can it be
434
justified? Will the Minister justify to the House that degree of meanness? If so, we await his justification, but we have not heard it so far.
What is left behind is the suspicion that these measures are not about revenue or meeting genuine administrative costs, but about ensuring that there is yet another obstacle in the way of families wishing to come together. That, from a party claiming to be the party of the family. We ask the question: what family? Is it only white families that the Government care about? Do they not care about Asian and Afro-Caribbean families? Do they not care about people who just happen to have a different colour skin?
Those are profound moral questions. We have listened to the debate and have not found any answers. It must be appreciated that there are many millions of people outside this Chamber, in the wider world and in this country, who care that we should make the right decision. In this instance, the right decision is to throw out these rules and regulations. They are not worthy of the House, and they are not worthy of our country.
5.13 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The reason why I welcome these rules is that they are part of the containment of mass immigration that I see as threatening our society. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said very forcibly—because he obviously strongly believes this—that this country does belong to members of the Afro-Caribbean community who have come here to live permanently. Of course he is right. It is because he is right that I also believe it is necessary to maintain strong control over immigration at the borders. If the hon. Member for Brent, South does not share that belief, I find it difficult to understand how he can have had any experience of inner cities. I view these rules as a continuation of the process of containment.
Because of the way in which we have mishandled immigration policies in the past, the damage done by mass immigration still poses a threat to the cohesion of our society. We face a number of social and racial problems. Earlier in the debate it was said that some immigrant communities are regarded as problematical. That is rubbish. It is sometimes in the host communities that problems are created. It does not matter in which section of the community the problems lie; they result from major changes to our country's racial content and from mass immigration.
Another reason for containing mass immigration relates to the population. The first experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) in inner cities was in Peckham, as was mine. He referred briefly to the over-populated nature of this country. If Opposition Members cannot see that many of the problems our country has today derive from heavily concentrated populations and sheer numbers of people —of whatever kind or race—they are blind to reality.
The burden of the problems we are now debating has fallen overwhelmingly on those living in inner cities. The fact that those problems are concentrated among a particular group of people ought to make us more concerned to limit massive immigration rather than pretend that it is not a threat.
Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend spoke about containment, but we appear to be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Is he aware that one in three children

435
born in Greater London is of ethnic extraction? The national ethnic research group estimates that the country's ethnic population now totals 4·2 million, which is nearly 8 per cent. of the population and twice the Home Office figure.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. In the past, we have allowed totally unplanned mass immigration, which has produced problems that have not been properly assessed. As a society, we have also failed to provide for the reception and care of immigrants who have come into our communities, and the problems have been exacerbated as a result.
I welcome the proposed changes. It is important to close the loophole. I support the ending of discrimination between male and female spouses. Unless I misheard him, I understood the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to attack that provision dealing with polygamous marriages. I was interested to hear one raunchy—if one may so describe him in acceptable parliamentary language—African bishop suggesting this week to the Church of England's General Synod that it ought to support and allow polygamy within the Church of England. However, I do not believe that that is acceptable to the Church of England or to British society. I support the rules as a necessary continuation of the containment of mass immigration.
5.18 pm
Mr. Pat Wall: I begin by congratulating the Minister of State. Any Minister who has managed to survive the absolute chaos at Lunar house in relation to British nationality applications, and the equal chaos surrounding the Passport Office, must have done very well to survive also the Prime Minister's midsummer roundabout. The Minister must have some special talents that he has still to exhibit.
Unlike Conservative Members, I shall deal specifically with the rules. I refer, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), to one rule in particular, and ask the Minister for an explanation. I refer to paragraphs 9 and 11 of HC 555, dealing with deportation. One of the matters that struck my hon. Friends during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill was the whittling away of people's deportation rights. This rule is being introduced against the background of the threatened deportation of Tamils, including Virag Mendis, back to a country where there is absolute chaos, widespread killing, destruction, torture, kidnapping and disappearances.
The rule suggests that in certain circumstances—and I ask the Minister to define them—people can be given a supervised departure. I think that we are entitled to know what that means. After they have been "departed" it seems that those people can be excluded from re-entry, although they may wish to return as students, business people or members of any other legitimate category, for an unspecified period. Perhaps it is my suspicious nature, but I have a feeling that the rule is aimed at political people. It is intended to ensure that those who may have political beliefs that are embarrassing to the Government are excluded. I should like a full explanation of this
436
mumbo-jumbo, because I do not think that many people know what these terms mean or in what cases they will apply.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was absolutely right to deal with the primary purpose issue. Conservative Members like to talk about numbers: they like to quantify. Some are particulary happy when they can talk in terms of hordes. The principle of the primary purpose rule, irrespective of the numbers involved, is entirely unfair, unreasonable, impractical and arbitrary. Under this rule, someone who can prove that he or she does not want to come to Britain in any circumstances and has just been married will be allowed in. That is nonsensical and entirely subjective.
Along, no doubt, with far more experienced hon. Members, I advise constituents after examining their cases that they have little chance, and they then sail through. Similarly, when I tell them that I can see no objection, they are rejected. Even someone with the most genuine marriage who will have no problems relating to accommodation or other needs is threatened by the rule. As there is already a rule that the marriage must show itself to be genuine, there is absolutely no reason for the primary purpose rule. The Minister should have altered it, or withdrawn it entirely.
Like many hon. Members, I am very suspicious of a system that makes people wait for one, two or three years on the Indian sub-continent—after which their case is referred back here—then wait another year or 18 months for an appointment and a further eight months for the result of the interview. The system has deliberately been made cruel and difficult. Young people in their 20s, men and women, come to our surgeries and say, "I am married to someone whom I have known for years, and the marriage is one of genuine affection." When we know the decent, nice families involved and witness their worry and heartbreak we realise what such delays mean in human terms.
I wanted to ignore some of the bigots on the Conservative Benches, but I must take up one remark. It was asked, "Why do they not go back if we will not let their husbands in?". What would that hon. Member think if he were a Bradford girl of 20 or 22 who had lived here since she was two or three—[HON. MEMBERS: "Born here."]—who has lived only in Britain and knows only the British way of life, and who has a child who goes to a British school and knows only British education? How can Conservative Members suggest that she should go back to a village in Bangladesh, sit on the floor and collect fuel and water every day? What arrogant, cruel, rotten nonsense that is.
5.24 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton):I thank my hon. Friends for their support for the rule changes during the past hour and a half. Let me say at once what a contrast their remarks have provided, even in such a short debate, to the barren speeches of Opposition Members, full of hatred and lacking in any positive suggestions.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: No. I have only a few minutes.
Even by his standards, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was stupendously silly about the small

437
party given last night by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He and his fellow party poopers—the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), I understand—instead of attending the small party, paraded outside the Home Office and formed a picket. Doubtless the picket carried placards saying, "Reshuffle Renton".
It caused great surprise to civil servants attending the party to have microphones thrust into their faces and to be asked their views. It is a normal courtesy for a senior Minister on such an occasion to give a small party to thank the civil servants for the work that they have done. No doubt the cost of answering the question posed by the hon. Member for Bradford, West about the party was a good deal more than the cost of the party.
As it has been difficult sometimes to remember what we are debating this afternoon, the subject is the rule changes that followed from the Immigration Act 1988, which we debated at length in Committee earlier in the Session. The rule changes effectively implement the Act and accompany the separate order made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which brings sections 1 to 5 of the Act into force. Taking those parts of the Act that came into force, automatically on 10 July and those now being brought into force the result is that from 1 August the whole Act will have been implemented, with the exception of section 7(1) and paragraph 1 of the schedule.
The implementation of section 7(1), which concerns European Community nationals exercising their rights under the treaty of Rome, will take place as soon as we are able to bring forward an Order in Council under the European Communities Act 1972 to replace the relevant parts of the immigration rules. The preparation of the order is a complex matter. It will take some months yet. Rather than implementing the rest of the Act, we decided to bring most of it into force now and to change the rules at this stage. We shall complete the process when the Order in Council is ready. Our aim is, if at all possible, to take the opportunity of the further changes to the immigration rules, which will then be necessary, to consolidate the rules into one document. A strong wish was expressed for that in Committee, and I think that it will be welcomed by all.
With only one exception, the statement of changes contains nothing that is not entirely consequential on the provisions of the Immigration Act 1988. That exception relates to the definition of public funds contained in the rules. It is necessary to update the definition to take account of the changes to the social security system brought about by the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986. The revised definition involves changes in nomenclature only; no changes of substance are involved.
Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The question of primary purpose occupied a great part of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) rightly pointed out that a large increase in immigration numbers was likely should we have no clause to make certain that marriage was not used simply as a means of obtaining settlement in this country when it would not
438
otherwise be available. I remind the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that it was the Labour Government who in 1977 produced the first test of this sort to control marriages of convenience. It was never said in 1971 that section 1(5) would remain in force in perpetuity. The intention was to offer reassurance to those men of working age who were already here at that time that they could bring their existing wives and children to join them here, but it has proved to have much wider effects than that, which are both discriminatory and damaging to effective immigration control.
Those who assumed at the time that the 1971 Act was passed that they would be protected by section 1(5) have now had over 15 years in which to bring their families here. After such a period, it is surely wholly reasonable to draw the line and to say that from now on everybody who wishes to bring a spouse or a child to settle here should be on the same footing.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister make a definitive statement on the primary purpose rule? Is it the intention to distinguish between genuine and bogus marriages, or is it the intention to limit the numbers coming to this country?
Mr. Renton: I shall return shortly to the right hon. Gentleman's demand for a quota. We shall have to explore it because it is the only new Labour party policy on immigration that we have heard of for many months.
Ms. Short: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way. There is very little time left.
I should have thought that the Government's publication of the detailed report on DNA testing, in answer to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), would have been welcomed, but instead the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook cast doubt on it.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked about the cost. That is not an easy question to answer. We are talking not about £115, plus VAT, for one sample but about a cost of between £400 and £500 for a family. Our firm view is that that cost should not be borne by the taxpayer. We accept the principles that underlie the DNA test, but we shall have to work out with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office how the queues of applicants for the DNA tests are to be managed and how the cost is to be most fairly borne, bearing in mind that it is not to be borne by the taxpayer.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery also asked about paragraph 150A. That paragraph goes no further than section 5 of the Act, which was the subject of very full debate earlier this Session. The present appeals system has, in our view, been abused by many people who have sought to extend their stay here by arguing at their appeal against deportation factors that should not be allowed to outweigh the fact that they have overstayed or have broken the conditions of their stay. That is why we are making these amendments.
I agree with the hon. Members for Leicester, East and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the past year has put great pressure on the immigration and nationality department. We have simplified the rules. About 20 per cent. of the cases handled by the immigration and

439
nationality department will be dealt with automatically. We have introduced the new Immigration Act and today we are introducing further immigration rule changes.
I take this opportunity to thank the staff at Lunar house for all that they have done to help in this difficult year, but at every stage the Opposition have taken the opportunity to vote against what we are doing. It is only fair to ask about their motives.
What is the motive of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? In his remarks this afternoon and in the speech that he made in Manchester last night he returned to accusations of racism. Is it because he feels that it is necessary to prove his credentials in the election campaign that is taking place inside the Labour party? Does he wish to prove his credentials as someone who is willing to shout "Racist" from the rooftops against every attempt by this Government to improve the fair but firm operation of the immigration controls? [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook giggles, but if that is his motive I regard it as pitiful.
In the New Statesman of 15 July the black section of the Labour party——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the black section of the Labour party has anything to do with the changes to the immigration laws.
Mr. Renton: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the quotation is relevant. Perhaps you will allow me to refer to it. The black section accuses the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in particular of being its worst enemy and the beneficiary of godfather politics. Is it for that reason that we have seen this sudden increase in the extreme remarks of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? Our motives in introducing the legislative changes of recent months have been entirely honourable. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is making a rude gesture to me, I have to inform him that that is not appropriate behaviour in this House.
Mr. Hattersley rose——
Mr. Renton: Our motives are that we should have a quicker system that is conscious of everybody's rights, that will be able to interview fiancées and spouses more quickly in this country and that will help us to act more speedily to decide the claims of applicants for refugee status and ensure that those who have a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution in their own country are provided with a safe haven here without having to wait agonising years for a decision. Those are the reasons behind the changes that we have introduced.
The Labour party's motives are suspect. It tries to face two ways at once on this issue. For that reason it ends up by voting even against the simplest measures to improve the operation of the immigration controls in this country. Our motives, on the other hand, are straightforward and honourable. It is to make the immigration rules operate fairly and more effectively and speedily that I recommend the rules changes to the House.
5.37 pm
Mr. Hattersley: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Minister of State promised to say something about the figures. He has intentionally failed to do so. That leads
440
me to the conclusion that all reasonable people will hold that his only concern is to limit the number of black and Asian people coming to this country. It is a deplorable policy and we shall vote against it.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 259.

Division No. 447]

[5.38 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Galbraith, Sam

Allen, Graham

Galloway, George

Anderson, Donald

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Armstrong, Hilary

George, Bruce

Ashdown, Paddy

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Ashton, Joe

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Gould, Bryan

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Barron, Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Battle, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Beckett, Margaret

Hardy, Peter

Bermingham, Gerald

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bidwell, Sydney

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Blair, Tony

Haynes, Frank

Boateng, Paul

Heffer, Eric S.

Boyes, Roland

Hinchliffe, David

Bradley, Keith

Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Holland, Stuart

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Home Robertson, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hood, Jimmy

Buckley, George J.

Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)

Caborn, Richard

Hoyle, Doug

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cartwright, John

Illsley, Eric

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Janner, Greville

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

John, Brynmor

Clay, Bob

Johnston, Sir Russell

Clelland, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Coleman, Donald

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cousins, Jim

Kennedy, Charles

Cox, Tom

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Crowther, Stan

Kirkwood, Archy

Cryer, Bob

Lambie, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lamond, James

Cunningham, Dr John

Leadbitter, Ted

Darling, Alistair

Leighton, Ron

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

Lewis, Terry

Dewar, Donald

Litherland, Robert

Dixon, Don

Livsey, Richard

Dobson, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Doran, Frank

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Duffy, A. E. P.

Loyden, Eddie

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McAllion, John

Eadie, Alexander

McAvoy, Thomas

Eastham, Ken

Macdonald, Calum A.

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

McKelvey, William

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

McLeish, Henry

Fatchett, Derek

McNamara, Kevin

Faulds, Andrew

McTaggart, Bob

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McWilliam, John

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

Madden, Max

Fisher, Mark

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flannery, Martin

Mallon, Seamus

Flynn, Paul

Marek, Dr John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Foster, Derek

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Foulkes, George

Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

Fraser, John

Martlew, Eric

Fyfe, Maria

Meacher, Michael

441

Meale, Alan

Salmond, Alex

Michael, Alun

Sedgemore, Brian

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Sheerman, Barry

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Short, Clare

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Skinner, Dennis

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morley, Elliott

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

Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)

Soley, Clive

Mowlam, Marjorie

Spearing, Nigel

Mullin, Chris

Steel, Rt Hon David

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

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Vaz, Keith

Parry, Robert

Wall, Pat

Patchett, Terry

Wallace, James

Pendry, Tom

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pike, Peter L.

Wareing, Robert N.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Prescott, John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Radice, Giles

Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

Randall, Stuart

Winnick, David

Redmond, Martin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Worthington, Tony

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wray, Jimmy

Robinson, Geoffrey

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Adam Ingram.

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

NOES

Adley, Robert

Butler, Chris

Alexander, Richard

Butterfill, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Amess, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Amos, Alan

Carrington, Matthew

Arbuthnot, James

Cash, William

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

Ashby, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

Atkins, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Atkinson, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Couchman, James

Baldry, Tony

Curry, David

Batiste, Spencer

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

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Devlin, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dicks, Terry

Benyon, W.

Dorrell, Stephen

Bevan, David Gilroy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dover, Den

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Durant, Tony

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fallon, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Favell, Tony

Bottomley, Peter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Fishburn, Dudley

Bowis, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Forman, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bright, Graham

Fox, Sir Marcus

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

French, Douglas

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gardiner, George

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

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gill, Christopher

Buck, Sir Antony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Budgen, Nicholas

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Burns, Simon

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Burt, Alistair

Gow, Ian

Butcher, John

Gower, Sir Raymond

442

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Gregory, Conal

Moate, Roger

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Ground, Patrick

Morrison, Sir Charles

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moss, Malcolm

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mudd, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neale, Gerrard

Hanley, Jeremy

Neubert, Michael

Hannam, John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

Nicholls, Patrick

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Harris, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hawkins, Christopher

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayes, Jerry

Page, Richard

Hayward, Robert

Paice, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patnick, Irvine

Heddle, John

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Pawsey, James

Hill, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hind, Kenneth

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Powell, William (Corby)

Holt, Richard

Price, Sir David

Hordern, Sir Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Howard, Michael

Redwood, John

Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

Renton, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Riddick, Graham

Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunter, Andrew

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rost, Peter

Irvine, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Irving, Charles

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jack, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Jackson, Robert

Sayeed, Jonathan

Janman, Tim

Scott, Nicholas

Jessel, Toby

Shaw, David (Dover)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Key, Robert

Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knapman, Roger

Shersby, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sims, Roger

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knowles, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knox, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Latham, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lawrence, Ivan

Squire, Robin

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Lilley, Peter

Stern, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Stevens, Lewis

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lord, Michael

Stokes, Sir John

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

McCrindle, Robert

Summerson, Hugo

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Tapsell, Sir Peter

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

McNair-Wilson, P.(New Forest)

Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

Malins, Humfrey

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mans, Keith

Thornton, Malcolm

Maples, John

Thurnham, Peter

Marlow, Tony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tracey, Richard

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tredinnick, David

Maude, Hon Francis

Trippier, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Viggers, Peter

Miller, Sir Hal

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mills, Iain

Waldegrave, Hon William

443

Walden, George

Wilshire, David

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas

Ward, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wood, Timothy

Watts, John

Yeo, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Whitney, Ray

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Maclean.

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Question accordingly negatived.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
5.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July 1988, be approved.
This is a short debate and I should like to focus on five issues and then try, at the end of the debate, to deal with points made by hon. Members.
I wish first to emphasise the distinction between the codes of practice order which we are debating now and orders that will be laid subsequently under section 60(1)(b)of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The code that we are debating is laid under section 67(5) of that Act and it is the code referred to in section 60(1) (a). The code regulates the manner in which the taping of interviews takes place. The code does not of itself make the taping of interviews mandatory. The taping of interviews is made mandatory by orders made under section 60(1)(b), none of which has yet been made.
Secondly, I should like to describe the Government's approach to taping. The Government have decided that the entire interview should be taped, but in the great majority of cases the courts will have before them a written summary of interviews. There will be a master tape. There will also be a second tape—the working tape—which will be the source of all copy tapes and any transcripts that may be ordered. In appropriate cases, which I anticipate will be fairly rare, transcripts will be available. This approach has been tested for two years in six trial areas, and the process was overseen by the national steering committee. The conclusions of the trial have been reported and show that our approach is practicable and beneficial.
Thirdly, I should like to consider the introduction of taping under orders that will be made under section 60(1) (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We intend to phase taping in over five years. We hope and intend that it should be standard practice by the end of 1991. By the end of this year, we expect taping to be prevalent throughout 10 force areas and to be used in all force areas. We anticipate that we shall lay commencement orders, if I may so describe them, in the coming Session.
Fourthly, I should like briefly to mention the effect of breaches of the code. There are two significant effects which the House would like to bear in mind. Non-compliance with the code constitutes a disciplinary offence. That is provided for in section 67(8) of PACE. In appropriate cases, non-compliance with the code could lead to the exclusion of all or part of the interview evidence. It depends on the exercise by the judge of his discretion.
Fifthly, I should like to consider terrorism and cases brought under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which are those that concern espionage. Hon. Members will have noted that those categories of offence are exempted from the code. We do not intend, at least for the moment, that they should be subject to the taping requirements. There are two reasons which need to be mentioned. First, they were not the subject of any trials. That is not the substantive objection, however, which is that we fear that if the full tape was made and its contents became available to terrorist organisations it would

445
compromise national security. We also fear that if an interviewee saw that the entire interview was being taped, that interviewee would be reluctant to proceed with the giving of information.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: What the Minister has just said will create considerable alarm among many practising lawyers because the implication is that, if transcripts of interviews in terrorist investigations are not made available to the defence, there must be some secreting of information about interviews. Moreover, the purpose of taping is to have a true and accurate record of what is said in an interview. Why should a terrorist trial, which is a criminal trial in another form, be treated any differently?
Mr. Hogg: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the provisions of paragraph 3.2 on page 2 of the code. He will see that only some terrorist trials are excluded from the scope of the taping requirement. In very broad terms, IRA and Northern Ireland related cases are excluded from the scope of the taping requirement, as are cases involving international terrorism. However, United Kingdom oriented terrorism, other than cases with a Northern Ireland dimension, are subject to the taping requirement. That should make the position factually plain.
On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), we must make a judgment about what is in the national interest. In the course of any interview between a terrorist of the kind to which the code refers, and to whom I am directing my remarks, and the interviewing officer, the interview will be prolonged. It is quite probable that the interviewee will disclose many matters which we would not wish terrorist organisations to know—for example, his sources.
Let us assume that there is a full tape recording of the interview which contains much sensitive material, in particular about sources, possible leaks or possible plants within, for example, the IRA. Our fear is that that tape could become known to a terrorist organisation. Although the vast majority of lawyers are wholly honest, we cannot exclude the possibility that some may deliberately, or under duress, be induced to give information to terrorist organisations. We must guard against that. In essence, that is the justification for the restriction to which I have just referred.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that, in existing circumstances, if someone is interviewed for a terrorist offence, at the very least a contemporaneous record of the interview will be kept? The whole of that record will be disclosed to the defence lawyers unless there is misconduct on the part of police officers in concealing part of it or misconduct by the Crown Prosecution Service—which is most unlikely to happen. What distinction can be made between keeping a contemporaneous record and making a tape recording? Bearing in mind problems with regard to interviews in the Birmingham pub bombing case and other cases, does he agree that a tape recording is a much surer way of giving true evidence to the court?
Mr. Hogg: I asked myself that question. The answer is that the premise is not wholly sound. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, guidelines are issued by
446
the Attorney-General which permit the editing of such information held in contemporaneous documents. That is more easily done than editing tapes.
The nature of contemporary records means that they are directed to things that are regarded as probative and relevant. Therefore, it is quite common for the contemporary written document not to be an inclusive record of the interview because those making the written record take the view that much of the "sensitive" material is not admissible, probative or relevant. Therefore, that material would not necessarily have to be included in the written account. If the defence counsel took a different view and wanted to bring before the court material not included in the written record, that would be possible through cross-examination. Although I often share the hon. and learned Gentleman's views, on this occasion I believe that he is mistaken.
Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edunds): My question is diametrically opposed to the points raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). My hon. Friend the Minister is right to want to safeguard national security by some method of exclusion. However, the worst method of exclusion would involve editing tape. I am glad therefore that my hon. Friend has set his face against editing tape. If that were to happen, it would compromise the whole taping integrity that we are seeking.
How on earth is the ordinary police officer conducting a taped interview to distinguish between terrorism which, although taking place within the United Kingdom, is connected with Northern Ireland and terrorism that involves the affairs of the United Kingdom but not Northern Ireland? That is an almost impossible distinction for an officer to make.
Mr. Hogg: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I believe that trying to resolve the problem by editing tape is extremely undesirable.
We could approach the problem by taping a summary of the evidence which would be read over at the end of the interview. That summary would be taped. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will recall, the Royal Commission on criminal evidence and procedure, which originally recommended taping inter-views, recommended taping a summary, not the entire interview. The Government have gone beyond the Royal Commission's original recommendation. We intend to explore methods of resolving the kind of difficulties to which both the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery have drawn attention without resorting to taping the entire interview.
I want to deal with the difficult point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The definitions are included in paragraph 3.2 on page 2 of the code. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is holding a copy of the code. That paragraph is clarified to some degree by the notes to that section and will be further clarified by training and the circular that we intend to issue to the police service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will bear in mind the fact that the procedure will apply at a fairly senior level because we are talking about a small number of very serious offences. I believe that senior

447
officers will readily be able to make the distinction. I accept that the definition in paragraph 3.2 needs reading several times to master its meaning. However, once one has grasped the meaning, its practical application will not be difficult.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I apologise for intervening again. By raising the matter now, I hope that I can shorten my contribution to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, as a matter of practice, when a police interview of this type is being conducted, information emerges, much of which may be unknown to the police officer at the commencement of the interview. While the officer is pursuing inquiries related to a suspected terrorist offence affecting a Northern Ireland matter, during the interrogation matters pertaining to other types of terrorist offences may emerge. For example, information may arise about the middle east. We all know about Libyan arms going to Northern Ireland. Alternatively, matters may arise affecting this country, for example, the potential assassination of a Minister or a member of the royal family. No police officer can make that judgment at the commencement of the interview. However, the definition requires him to make that kind of judgment. That is impracticable.
Mr. Hogg: Plainly the House will listen with great sympathy to any point made on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He has a wide experience of these matters. However, I think that he is wrong. I do not deny that one could construct a case in such circumstances. My hon. Friend has a fertile and imaginative mind and I have no doubt that he could do so. In the majority of terrorist cases, one has a shrewd idea of the nature of the offence and whether it is related to Northern Ireland or Libya or whether it is a United Kingdom-directed act of terrorism that is unconnected with Libya or Northern Ireland. It is a mistake to suppose that police officers embark on an interview without having a pretty shrewd idea of the nature and motives of the terrorist organisation that they are investigating.
I recognise that there may be a difference of opinion on this issue, but I hope that the Government's approach is right in principle and practicable in its application. That is my belief, but clearly the House will wish to consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Is it the Government's intention that people suspected of being involved in drug smuggling should be included in the category of international terrorism? No doubt there are strong links between those involved in drug smuggling and international terrorism. Many people—I would be one of them— would describe international drug smuggling as a form of terrorism because it cuts to the root of every community and some nations' ability to rule. If that did not occur to the Government when drawing up the rules, as my hon. Friend develops the application of the rules, will he consider whether they should embrace drug peddlers?
Mr. Hogg: I commend to my hon. Friend the text of paragraph 3.2 of the code of practice. A narrow meaning is there given to the word "terrorism". That narrow
448
meaning derives from section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. It is defined thus:
"'Terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear."
The proper answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is that one must determine the primary purpose behind the offence. If it is drug smuggling, it is not a terrorist offence, even though by a process of seepage it may ultimately benefit a terrorist organisation. If the primary purpose and character of the offence being investigated is terrorism, the exclusion or inclusion applies. One must ask, "What is the purpose or character of the offence being investigated?"
I make a final point to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, and it is relevant to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The effect of a failure to comply with the code or rules is not fatal to the prosecution, nor should it result in the interviewing officer facing criminal proceedings. Either it could constitute a disciplinary offence, or it could trigger the exercise of a discretion by the trial judge to exclude all or part of the evidence. In the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, the discretion would not be exercised in favour of the defendant.
I have spoken for longer than I intended because a number of specific and technical questions have been asked. I hope that the House will forgive me for having spoken at such length. I intended briefly to introduce the code and to reply later to the specific questions asked by hon. Members.
6.14 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Labour Members welcome the introduction of the code of practice, which should lead to better protection for the suspect and the provision of an accurate record of events during police interrogation. I agree with the Minister that the entire investigation should be taped. I hope that he will agree that problems would arise if, for example, an interview of a terrorist were to be partially taped.
Although we agree with the general principle of the order, a number of questions need clarification and we have some concerns. Our first concern, which the Minister rightly foresaw, is about the exemptions in the proposals. Interviews of suspects held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 or section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 will not be recorded. I did not find the Minister's remarks on that matter very reassuring, and the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) about the difficulties of interpreting paragraph 3.2 of the guidelines were valid. It will be difficult to prejudge the intentions behind a crime in the way that the Minister suggested.
One point of hope arose from the Minister's remarks. He said that the guidelines will include those exemptions at least for the moment. That perhaps implies that the Government have an open mind on the issue, but I should have thought that if the Minister was seriously considering the matter he would make an announcement about possible field trials if that is why the exemptions are not being included at present.
Suspects questioned under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 are held under

449
draconian powers. They give much scope for abuse, yet the Minister said that suspects will have fewer safeguards. Suspects held under the Act are held for longer than other suspects and can be denied access to legal advice for 48 instead of 36 hours under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If the arrest and detention powers are exceptional, Labour Members would argue that the safeguards should be more, not less, stringent.
If the Minister is concerned about the sensitive nature of information likely to be contained in the interview of a suspect held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, surely measures could be taken to protect that information other than by denying a safeguard on a blanket basis. As hon. Members who are legal practitioners said—they are always keen to speak in these debates—tape recordings will merely be a more efficient method of note taking. Surely there is more need for true and accurate records when problems arise under the Prevention of Terrorism Act than when they arise in normal trials. The Minister should have acknowledged that if there is discussion about the validity of interrogations difficulties may arise. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that difficulties in the Birmingham Six and the Guildford pub bombing trials might not have arisen if there been tape-recorded interviews.
As well as the points of principle, there are practical but perhaps minor points that I hope the Minister will consider. One of the practical problems with the guidelines is the provisions for deaf people who are being interviewed and interrogated by the police.
We have been approached by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which is concerned about some of the implications for deaf people. Reading paragraph 4.4 of the guidelines, I can see potential problems. The RNID is particularly concerned about two matters. First, the profoundly deaf generally use sign language, and the RNID is concerned that there should be a proper recording of what the deaf person has said or communicated. Therefore, it is recommending that such interviews should be videotaped rather than tape recorded. Has the Minister considered that aspect, as videos are being considered for other purposes? We discussed the point in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill.
In paragraph 4.2c. there is a requirement that any persons in the room during the interview should identify themselves, so any sign language interpreter would be required to do the same. The RNID recommends that the person be required to state the degree of his qualification, so that the suspect, or his or her representative, will have the opportunity to request a more qualified interpreter, should that be found necessary. There are many letters of qualification for interpreters, and, like anyone else, deaf people should have full confidence that what they are saying is being interpreted correctly.
Will the Minister consider whether the latest equipment for deaf people could be adapted for this purpose? All hon. Members have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) use the technical magic box to read what is being said almost as soon as it is said. He can follow the proceedings of the House, and I wonder whether such equipment could be used when deaf people are being interrogated and interviewed by the police.
450
There are concerns, some of which relate to the access of solicitors to the taped interviews. Solicitors should be allowed to hear an interview or part of an interview that has taken place before they have had a chance to advise the client. For the solicitor and for the accused, it may be extremely important that the solicitor knows exactly what has taken place before his or her arrival and the advice of the solicitor may be dependent on hearing what has gone on. If tape recordings exist, it would seem sensible to allow solicitors access to them. There may be occasions when that would not be possible or practical—for example, if there were a kidnapping inquiry, or somebody's life was thought to be at risk if the interrogation did not continue swiftly. In those circumstances, it would be foolish to insist on the solicitor's right to hear the tape taking precedence over anything else. However, the norm should be established that solicitors should have access unless there are good reasons to the contrary.
Has the Minister considered allowing solicitors to take their own tape recorders into interviews? Obviously, solicitors will take notes, but if the proposed new method is to be used for the police, it could also be used by solicitors. That might increase confidence in the system and reduce requests for access to tapes later—a point that concerns the Minister.
The code does not allow access to the tape recording of interviews where the case is not proceeded with, or charges are dropped. I hope that the Minister will clarify why he does not intend to provide such access. It is important that he does so, because it might be useful to have a record, especially if allegations were made later about the conduct of the police during that interrogation. We also want to know what provisions there might be for the destruction of any tape recordings that are made when the suspect has been released or the charges withdrawn. I hope that; the Minister will be able to clarify these important points.
Field studies have shown that requests for full transcripts are infrequent, and, generally, the provision of a summary is sufficient for both sides, although there has to be agreement between both sides, because it is important that the defence and the prosecution agree the contents of any summary and that the drafting of such a summary is accurate. The police will have responsibility for that. What training will be provided to ensure that police officers required to carry out that aspect will have appropriate skills? The document—for example, in paragraph 4.5—sets out various points at which the police may take certain action. I do not quibble with the fact that there will have to be some discretion, but if there is discretion, there has to be training and there has to be some mechanism to ensure uniformity in the operation of these provisions.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be full monitoring of the procedures once they are introduced, including the provisions in paragraph 3.3, which deal with the failure of equipment or the non-availability of suitable rooms. I hope that where such problems happen too frequently, there will be an examination and an investigation as I hope that there will be of any trend towards more interviews taking place outside police stations, with the result that they are not covered by these rules.
All these are significant difficulties. If the new rules are to operate properly, to improve the situation and give proper protection for the defence, they must be carefully

451
monitored and we have to make sure that there are no loopholes that could undermine the intention behind the new rules.
I understand that the defence is to be charged— probably £5—for the acquisition of any transcript. Perhaps the Minister can explain the reasoning behind that decision, because it is part of the prosecution evidence. Moreover, in requesting a full transcript, I understand that the defence is required to notify the prosecution that it has done so. If the defence does that, it will be informing the prosecution that it intends to challenge the interrogation in some way, thus disclosing part, at least, of its case. That breaks with the principle that the prosecution has to prove its case and the defence need not show its case.
What the Minister has said today will take us somewhat further and we welcome the general direction in which he is going. I have raised some important points with the Minister, and I hope that he will consider them before the full introduction of tape recording of interviews. I hope, too, that the Minister will think clearly about the exemptions that he is creating, because they will cause many difficulties. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he has reconsidered those points and that he will accept what I have said about the need for careful monitoring if the system is to work successfully.
6.29 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am one of those legal practitioners who are keen to contribute to this debate because, since I first became a Member of the House, I have been asking Governments to introduce the sensible measure of tape recording interviews with suspects. I have re-read some speeches on this subject that are now 14 years old and I am pleased that I will be relieved of the burden of pressing this particular campaign so that I can consider others.
The wonder is that it has taken so long to introduce tape-recorded interviews. In June 1972 the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended an experiment on the feasibility of such recordings. It was not until February 1975 that a committee was set up to consider the matter and it took nearly two years to decide what everybody knew—that it was perfectly feasible to have a tape recording experiment. In July 1977 the matter was relegated to a Royal Commission. The rest is history, but I believe that my congratulations to the Government should also include special congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who gave the process a big kick forward when he was Home Secretary.
I support the tape recording of interviews with suspects because I believe that that one measure, possibly more than any other, will improve the procedures of our criminal trials. It will ensure that more of the guilty are convicted and that fewer of the innocent are dragged through an unnecessary criminal trial only to be acquitted.
With tape recordings there will be less opportunity for the police to allege, falsely, a confession and there will be less opportunity for an accused person to allege, falsely, policy dishonesty. Because police officers will be less often challenged as liars and less often thought to be dishonest, their standing in the community will rise and so will their morale. It will be easier to recruit the best people to the
452
police service. Fewer police officers will be tempted to be dishonest once we have nation-wide tape-recorded interviews and, as we know corruption often follows from dishonesty, in future years our police force will be even less corrupt and much more honest than some of the allegations that are made daily in our courts would suggest.
If the circumstances surrounding the making of a statement were less open to criticism, more people would plead guilty and more would feel obliged to shorten the length of their criminal trial. Therefore, it would take less time to try a case and trials would come on sooner after arrest. Witnesses' memories would have less time to fade and their evidence would become more reliable—fewer acquittals would occur as a result of that alone.
In short, crime will become easier to fight because the conviction of the guilty will become more certain and, therefore, there will be a stronger deterrent to crime. The money that is saved by shortening the process of our criminal procedures will more than outweigh the present costs of the system, without tape recording.
Since I first spoke about this matter, we have had the benefit of the field test by the Home Office research planning unit. That unit has published a report in the names of Carole Willis, John McLeod and Peter Naish. It is important to place on record the conclusions, to date, that have been drawn from the field tests throughout Britain. First, a higher proportion of suspects have become the subject of court proceedings. That, combined with the greater success of the police in bringing people to trial, is likely to mean that the process of convicting the guilty will become more efficient.
Secondly, there is no evidence that the police have been avoiding the use of tape recorders. On the contrary, the report suggests that they are more likely to carry out interviews at police stations which have them. That is welcome news to those of us who were once worried that the police would be the biggest obstacle in the way of tape-recorded interviews.
Thirdly, tape-recorded interviews tend to be shorter and there will be considerable benefits as a result of the police time that is saved.
Fourthly, there has been an increase in the number of admissions and confessions—some of us expected that. However, I understand from the figures that have been bandied about that, in the test case areas, the increase in guilty pleas is as low as 2 per cent. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether that is the definitive figure because 2 per cent. seems to be a much lower increase in the number of admissions and confessions than we had, I think, expected.
The fifth conclusion of the unit is that more information is vouchsafed by suspects about other offences they have committed. Sixthly, suspects that are not charged are released more quickly. Those of us who are concerned about the civil liberties of the individual innocent of a crime will greatly welcome that.
The seventh conclusion is that there has been no decrease in the quantity or quality of the information obtained from suspects. The opposite is true and there has been an overall improvement in the information gleaned from suspects. Its eighth conclusion is that there has been a reduction in the police time spent on such interviews; and, finally, there has been a small reduction in the average length of trials at both the higher and lower courts, presumably because there have been fewer challenges to

453
the truth of such interviews. In future, challenges will be likely to relate more to the interpretation of the words used in the interview rather than to the dishonesty of the police officers taking part in it.
The conclusions of the Home Office research planning unit amply justify the Government's actions and the hopes with which those of us who pressed for tape-recorded interviews imbued the debate.
May I conclude by asking the Minister some questions and expressing two thoughts. What are the anticipated nation-wide costs of the installation of tape recorders in major police stations? What savings does the Minister anticipate from the shortening of criminal trials, given the considerable reduction in criminal trial expenses that will result? What action is being taken towards the next step, video-recorded interviews? I believe that one can now buy a video tape recording unit for about the same cost as the audio tape recording machines were themselves when we originally discussed this matter. As the price plummets, it must become more feasible and more sensible—even as a cost-cutting exercise—for police stations to have a video recording facility.
In common with other hon. Members, I have some doubts about why the benefits that would flow from tape-recorded interviews should be denied to those who are charged with or bring charges of terrorist offences. Has my hon. Friend's conclusion been reached on the advice of the Northern Ireland police and prosecution authorities or solely on the advice of the police? Upon what basis has my hon. Friend reached his conclusion? If that basis is not that convincing, I hope that he will reconsider his attitude towards future terrorist interviews.
My one regret is that we did not get all this moving earlier. If we had done so, there would have been less pressure to interfere with the established procedures of our criminal trials. Perhaps people would have been less worried about the abolition of the peremptory challenge of jurymen, and less desirous of the need to increase sentences by appealing to the Court of Appeal. One could go through a gamut of actions—almost panic-stricken actions—that the Government have taken to try to end the increase in crime. They have interfered with the traditional procedures of our criminal trials, yet they have been broadly resisted by those who know most about the functioning of our criminal system as a result of practising in the courts.
Perhaps the success so far—and, I hope, the continued success—of tape-recorded interviews will have this one effect: that it will slow down any movement that my right hon. and hon. Friends may think they observe in the country to interfere with the traditional right to silence. As the House may know, I am not opposed to some limited interference with that right, but I hedge that with this qualification: before we do anything as drastic as that, we should see whether the procedures that my hon. Friend is introducing with this measure are successful. If they are, we need not disturb the traditional procedures which have served this country so well over many years.
I end by offering my congratulations, thanks and best wishes to my hon. Friend for the success of this measure.
6.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I shall follow on from where the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) left off. I, too, have an interest in
454
these matters. It occurs to me that there is no rhyme, reason or logic about excluding one type of criminal trial from taping.
A terrorist offence in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom is given a criminal trial. When someone is accused of a terrorist offence, the defence is served with all the documents relating to the interviews, usually in the form of contemporaneous notes. In some cases, nothing is said in an interview; in others, a great deal is said. If the Minister implied in answer to my intervention that, in the past few years, when interviews have been taped, they have been carefully and selectively edited, that is an appalling admission. Surely he did not mean that. If not, why should things change merely because the method of recording has changed from contemporaneous notes to tape? Perhaps the Minister will say a little bit more about that in due course.
I want to make one or two points of a practical nature. My first is a cri de coeur about the tapes themselves. There was recently a move to change the sort of tape that is used. I pray that that will not happen. The tapes that were used in the experiments were the sort that can be put in a Walkman or a car radio. Sometimes interviews are several hours long and, having to travel long distances to court, many a lawyer has done so listening to the tape of an interview, perhaps looking for some discrepancy between it and the summary that he or she has been given. Perhaps the client has said that he did not imply this or that, and gave an explanation. If an interview lasts for three hours, it takes three hours to listen to it—a practical point.
Sometimes, when tapes are required to clarify a point, and they are of the type that can be used in Walkman sets or car radios, prosecution and defence counsel can sit in the car park and play the relevant part of the tape, thereby eliminating the need for an adjournment and speeding up matters. So I pray that the Home Office will see sanity and stick to the current sort of tape.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton also referred to my second point. Trial surveys have shown that the length of interviews decreased when tape recording was used naturally and logically. When a contemporaneous note is written down, it takes an awfully long time to complete. Asking questions and receiving answers orally is naturally quicker. But another problem has arisen; it is admirably demonstrated if one listens to the tape of an interview. I refer to the number of superfluous questions which are asked in the course of an interview. A number of senior police officers have told me that the police service would like a little assistance with the costs of training detective officers in the methods and procedures of using tape. I hope the Minister will assure the police authorities that such training will be available and that its costs will be met. Training a police officer to ask questions quickly saves a considerable amount of time: the interviews become succinct and to the point. Most cases are simple and straightforward, and, with a little teaching, considerable savings can be made.
I want to draw one more matter to the Minister's attention. I have already mentioned it to him privately and warned him that I would do so again tonight. Following the decision in the case of Alladyce which, when there is a breach of the code, leaves discretion to the judge under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, will the Minister consider the wording of present codes, particularly as they relate to interviewing techniques?

455
It is becoming apparent that, while we have sought to cure one great ill—allegations and counter-allegations about interviews—another has begun to develop. It is nicknamed "the Scotch allegation", because it first broke out in Scotland, where they were a little ahead of us in interviewing techniques. I refer to the supposed confession, made either at the moment of an arrest, or on the way to the police station, or in conversation in the police station before formal interview. As the code is drafted, any interview in a police station must be recorded either by contemporaneous notes, which the defendant is shown and asked to sign, or by way of tape under the new code. It never ceases to amaze me that, when a conversation has taken place and been recorded in a police officer's notebook as soon as he reaches the police station, and it is said to contain some confession, it is beyond the wit and wisdom of police officers to present that written record to the suspect, to tell him that that was what he had said in the car, and to ask him to sign it. That would at least go halfway to overcoming what are increasingly becoming time-consuming arguments in the courts. Will the Minister take that on board? There is clearly a loophole in the current code of practice. It could easily be tidied up, and all of us would benefit from that in the long term.
It has often been said that tape recording of interviews will go a long way to eliminating the courtroom banter and barrage of allegation and counter-allegation about what has been said. This has been a long time in coming. Let us hope the order will be brought into effect quickly and that, throughout the length and breadth of the country, tape recording will become the norm rather than the exception.
6.48 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: I join other hon. Members in broadly welcoming the thrust of the code of practice and the order. I want to say two things about them, one of which my hon. Friend the Minister will understand, knowing of my previous interest in this matter.
I had hoped that the process would be relatively quick once the system was established and tested and the Government had made up their mind, as I had little doubt they would. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend has told us that it will take another five years before the new system is properly distributed throughout the police service. I ask him to think again about that. Why will it take another five years? There are fewer stations now. Custody stations have been established, and that must have reduced the potential number of interview centres. The Crown Prosecution Service has also been established. Why should this take so long if the change is funded? Surely my hon. Friend, probably aided and abetted by the Lord Chancellor, will be most anxious to provide additional funds so that the courts' time is not wasted and we enjoy the efficiency that I am sure the new system will produce.
My second point has to do with exemption. I am not entirely happy with what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said was the reason for it. We have had real benefits from moving to tape recording. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was right to list them and the conclusions of the test area panel that was set up by the Home Office.
456
Northern Ireland was not one of those test areas—no doubt for fairly good reasons. It is saddening that there should be further disparity between the police and court procedures that are available in the Province and those that are available in other major centres of significant criminal activity. The more that such disparities exist, the less welcome they will be to many people who believe strongly that the rule of law is the way to fight terrorism and that it is the only method by which to argue the popular case against terrorism, even in the Province of Northern Ireland.
I hope that, as my hon. Friend the Minister has previously suggested—a matter to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred—he will tell the House that the matter will be subject to review. The fewer the disparities that exist, the greater will be the chance for a system of common justice and common police practice throughout the United Kingdom. That will be in the best interests not only of the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom, but of the reputation and probity of the police force.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is it not ironic that, following Lord Justice Bennetts investigations at Castlereagh and Armagh holding centres, he recommended that interrogations should be videotaped and tape recorded? Now we find that despite that recommendation what will happen in the north of Ireland will derogate from what is happening elsewhere.
Sir Giles Shaw: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take due note of that intervention. It is eloquent evidence to be weighed in the balance when he makes his decision.
The overall benefit of what my hon. Friend has offered the House is considerable and I congratulate him on bringing in the order.
6.53 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am aware that there is pressure of time on all of us, so I shall confine myself to one point. A debate on the Northern Ireland order will follow in the next Session of Parliament, but it is essential that we consider the matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and by almost all other hon. Members who have spoken.
I refer to the exclusion of terrorist trials from the order, which is of great import. Where separate series of legislation operate in the north of Ireland and in England and Wales, there is bound to be an overlap. There can never be a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and, on the other hand, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. They will, of necessity, overlap and it is impossible to make a clear distinction between them. Serious problems will arise after people have been apprehended under the emergency legislation or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We shall have a difficult time because of that.
The central point, which has been made ably by other hon. Members, is that the protection of this code of conduct is being denied to those who need it most—those who are arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act or the Prevention of

457
Terrorism Act, which represent the greatest derogation from the normal legal practices in the rest of western Europe.
It is essential that we should consider those matters briefly and I ask the Minister to do so. I hope that if he has discussions with his Northern Ireland counterparts he will at least consider that point.
In Northern Ireland 90 per cent. of the incidents of stop and search take place under emergency legislation. Sixty per cent. of detention, questioning and custody cases take place under the emergency legislation. Well over 50 per cent. of cases involving the search of premises take place under the emergency legislation. We have only to look at the problems that arise from the interrogation of suspects and at Lord Justice Bennetfs report and the millions of pounds that have been paid in compensation to see the need for such protection.
The explanatory document which accompanied the Northern Ireland order says:
"The police are under a duty to observe these codes and non-compliance will constitute a disciplinary offence."
It would not be stretching it too far or using poetic licence to say that under the emergency legislation the police are not under a duty to observe those codes, and non-compliance would not constitute a disciplinary offence. Human nature being what it is, there must surely be a tremendous temptation to any police service not to abide by the highest rules and codes of conduct by which they would operate under a different piece of legislation. The police are presented with a choice between wearing two hats—whether to be the good cop when pursuing a case under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or a not-so-good cop when working under the emergency legislation. That is the difficulty that the police face. Human nature being what it is, if a policeman is not under a duty to observe the codes and if non-compliance is not a disciplinary offence, he may not obey them and he may act differently in those two situations.
Let me deal with another matter and put it into the practical terms of Northern Irish life. If a person sitting here stole £1 million he would be dealt with under a different piece of legislation from a young boy of 16 years of age who was suspected—nothing more—of complicity in an offence that came within the terms of the emergency legislation. That young boy would not have the benefit of the codes of practice that the man sitting here would. That cannot be right. That does nothing for the difficult situations in which the police have to operate. It does nothing for the person who has been arrested and interrogated. Nor does it help the position of the courts. Without parity between the two sections of legislation there could be two different approaches, not just by the police service but by the court service, and that would be dangerous.
My last point highlights a difficulty and an anomaly. One of the greatest problems in Northern Ireland at present is a type of Mafia racketeering. That has now reached endemic proportions and it is difficult to say whether it is a criminal offence to be dealt with under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or whether it occurs within a paramilitary organisation and should be dealt with under the emergency legislation. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to make such a distinction. Living, as I do, close to the areas where it takes place, I know that there is no known way in which that distinction can properly be made.
458
If I were a racketeer making millions of pounds a year, as some of those people do, not connected in any way with any paramilitary group, but acting for my own greed, I would have the protection of the codes. In a different set of circumstances, that protection would not apply. That will create a difficult, if not impossible, situation for the police, the courts and everybody else who has to deal with the situation. I hope that in the intervening period the Minister will impress upon his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that if we are not to make a nonsense of this in Northern Ireland, we should have a statutory code of practice for every type of offence.
6.59 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome the code of practice. It is an important part of the original Act. I shall make three short important points. First, I shall reiterate my concern about the identification of a terrorist act. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned racketeering. Racketeering, and drug trafficking, which is another form of racketeering, can be part of a terrorist activity. Terrible complications will arise from the form of words used in the code of practice. I, like others, ask my hon. Friend the Minister to continue to include that in his review.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the original Act placed considerable additional burdens on our police force and the order establishes further the operations of that Act. The taping of entire interviews, even if it reduces the length of interviews or the time that police officers spend in interviews, the provision of transcripts where necessary, the provision of summaries, the training that will be required and the supervision necessary to ensure that the code is complied with, will all place considerable extra work on our police forces.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the practice will be phased in over five years, hoping that it will be standard practice in 1991. However, it is expected to be used to some extent by all police forces by the end of this year. He mentioned five test areas where the practice is presently being carried out. I wonder whether one of those is within the Sussex police force area. As he will be aware, the Sussex police force is under considerable strain. In a recent written answer he mentioned that the Sussex police force had requested seven additional officers in the current year. He inadvertently misled the House because the request was for 27. The request for seven was a hangover from last year and the force requested an additional 20 this year. It could be said that the Sussex police force is now 27 officers under strength.
The difficulties it faced were well illustrated by the report of the chief constable for Surrey on violence in rural areas. Sadly, the report has not been available to the House. For some reason it has been suppressed. The chief constable has been instructed not to publish it or make it available. My hon. Friend the Minister should rescind that instruction because the report would be of great interest to many hon. Members.
Mr. Michael Marshall: My hon. Friend knows that he speaks for all Sussex Members in outlining the difficulties. For example, at the recent mayor-making ceremony in Arundel we were unable to have any traffic control by policemen for the parade of Scouts, Brownies and other worthies because the police were being diverted to other duties due to shortages.
Mr. Rathbone: Absolutely. Some of those police will be operating the provisions of the Act and it is important that they should do so. That is why I raised that point.
I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the question of terrorism and to look into the application of the Act by the police and the burdens that will fall on them. Once again, I plead with him to increase the Sussex police force by the number requested.
7.4 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I join in the welcome that has been given to the code. The sooner universal tape recording is available, the better. I agree with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) who said that five years is an unnecessarily long time for the introduction of tape recording throughout all police areas.
I shall begin with two practical points. First, the tape recordings appear to be causing no real difficulties in the courts. However, the summaries are causing difficulties. There have been cases in which issue has been taken as to the accuracy of the summary as a reflection of the gist of the tape recording, or at least its most relevant parts. There is a need for officers to be trained in pre-cising tape recordings. Anybody who has tried their hand at sub-editing knows that it is extremely difficult to sub-edit prose. To sub-edit a long and often boring recording of question and answer is a difficult task. Officers need special training to ensure that court time and their own time is not wasted in controversies as to the accuracy of the summary.
Secondly—this is another practical point and a simple one—I wish to put in a plea that the playback equipment should be standard throughout all police force areas. I understand that, largely, that will be so but that there are a minority of areas using a different form of playback equipment. If lawyers at all levels are to have a fair chance of considering in full the tape recordings before trial, they will have to purchase equipment that will play back the recordings in a way that will make them easy to hear. The nature of the tapes means that on some ordinary commercial tape recorders it is not always easy to hear clearly the recording of the interview because of the second track that can intervene in a rather disturbing way. Therefore, solicitors' offices and barristers' chambers will have to buy the appropriate equipment. In the provinces and in London, barrister' chambers and solicitors' offices may be dealing with numerous police areas and it is important that there should be standard equipment in use. I shall deal with the exceptions. On section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, I am sure that the Minister will recall the Cyprus spy trial. It was the longest spy trial there has ever been in England and Wales. The main issue was the accuracy and fairness of alleged confessions obtained by military police. If for security reasons edited summaries had been produced, if there had been tape recordings, there would have been a failsafe. The judge would have been able to hear the tape recordings to ensure that the summary was accurate. I should have thought that in circumstances such as that a great deal of time could be saved and, on balance, the public interest would be served if a tape recording was available.
In relation to terrorist offences I suggest that there is an even more overwhelming argument for the use of tape recordings. With the Brighton bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and other less celebrated cases in the general area of terrorism there have been challenges to the
460
accuracy and fairness of interviews carried out. Convictions have rested substantially upon the view taken by a jury of interviews that were not tape recorded. Much of the continuing controversy in relation to at least three terrorist cases is dependent largely upon the view taken of police interviews. Necessarily, the interviews will be recorded contemporaneously in any event. It may be that editing will later be carried out as to what goes before the jury. However, it is not for the police to decide what it is in the public interest to edit. Now that we have an independent prosecution service and serious cases are handled at a senior level, surely there is an overwhelming argument for the entire interview to be recorded and for the Crown Prosecution Service, if anyone, to decide the nature of any editing that should take place.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is certainly not for the police to edit but it could well be up to the police to exclude material because of evidential factors in a terrorist issue.
Mr. Carlile: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not for the police to make them. It is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make them.
If it is possible to devise a means whereby we can be sure of what was said, we should employ that means. We have that means. It is relatively inexpensive and it is being introduced in relation to all other offences, except terrorist offences and offences under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. There is a strong logical argument for applying the same standards to the most serious offences. I ask the Minister to think again over the next few months while the tape recording equipment is being introduced into the vast majority of police stations. I suspect that the judges would greatly welcome the introduction of tape recordings in relation to all offences and that the public interest would be served thereby.
7.10 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I too welcome the measure because it honours the undertaking given to those of us who soldiered in the vineyards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Committee. I also welcome it because it is a case in which technology goes to the aid of justice. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the campaign that he and others fought for the measure to be introduced. I freely concede that many police officers were originally sceptical about it, but they have been convinced by the practical experiments that have taken place. It is now overdue that we should make the practice universally available. I associate myself with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) in asking whether the process must take five years. I suspect that I know some of the answers and I shall allude to a couple of them.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am responsible for the confusion. It is my fault and I apologise. We expect the practice to be in place by the end of 1991, five years from the beginning of 1986.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. His comment coincides with my inevitably limited experience of this matter. The police service is installing the equipment as rapidly as it can in most parts of the country and, for the most part, it has become an enthusiast in doing so.

461
The House should be under no illusions that, although there is much benefit for the system of justice and for the police service, the measure lays new burdens upon the police. I make no apology for saying to the House that we are asking police officers to make available facilities that, in many cases, they do not have. In many of our bridewells, suitable rooms are not available and it is an expensive and difficult business to provide them when the police have many other priorities. We ask the police to do a great deal in dealing with burglary and rape. These additions will inevitably take police officers off the beat. They will spend less time interviewing, whether or not the interviews are recorded—that is the gain—but no one should be under any illusions that it is not an additional burden upon the police service.
All of the requirements of the code enter at once into the police discipline code and any infraction can be used to bring a police officer before his senior officer. Many of the matters involved are fairly technical. The police must be properly trained, not only to use the equipment, but to make the difficult summaries. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was right when he said how difficult it is to take the unexpurgated language contained in an audio recording and translate it into a summary that will be acceptable to people with the perception of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. However well the police do the job, it will be challenged in many cases because it will be convenient for the defence to make that challenge. I want to underline what a difficult task we lay upon young police constables. They will be asked to do the job of translaling thousands of words of often extraneous and not totally audible matter into summaries that will satisfy a court of law.
The loading of the police service with paperwork is becoming a major problem. I am glad that the task forces set in motion by no less a body than the Audit Commission are now trying to reduce the paperwork in which the Metropolitan police are drowning. The west midlands force has made a good start in reducing the paperwork. The force orders of the Metropolitan police run to about 18,000 pages. I may need to be corrected; it is possibly 13,000 pages, but it is of that order of magnitude and police officers are supposed to operate within that environment. All that lays more problems upon them. They must have the necessary training and number of staff. Against that background, it is a bad time for the official side of the police negotiating board to be attacking the pay of the young police officers who will have to do the job.
I wish to conclude, as many other hon. Members have done, by addressing the extremely difficult problem of derogating from the code of practice in respect of terrorism and official secrets. I declare some interest in that matter as I have had some experience of police officers having to conduct interviews with terrorist suspects. I hope that hon. Members, particularly those who are not lawyers and do not practise in the criminal courts, are under no illusions about the difficulties of conducting an interview with a suspected terrorist, particularly one who may be a hardened practitioner who knows how to handle an interview, in some cases better than the police officer himself.
I hope that the House will be under no illusions about what it is really like to conduct an interview with an alleged rapist or with someone who has been charged with interfering with a child. We had a debate on that matter
462
some weeks ago. Police officers conducting such interviews about sexual molestation of children or the rape of women, and doing so on an audio recording, will find it an exceedingly difficult task. They already find it a difficult task, but reducing those interviews into a summary for a court of law is an exceedingly difficult task.
The Government have thought about the question of terrorism and have got it right in principle, but not in detail. A police officer, particularly a special branch or CID officer dealing with terrorist cases that cost lives, and perhaps experienced in the mutilations that arise from terrorist action, would be in breach of his duty if he permitted the tape recording to continue when he sees that, as a result of an interview, material would be available that would either exclude further intelligence that the police are pursuing or, if it were made available to the defence lawyers, could aid the very terrorist whom he is seeking to catch and convict.
I am totally opposed to dealing with the problem by editing the tape. That would make nonsense of everything that we are seeking to do, but it must be right in certain circumstances that a police officer can shut off the tape if it is beginning to trespass into those areas that could cause further loss of life. The Government are therefore right to derogate from the generality of the order in respect of terrorist offences. The same goes broadly for the Official Secrets Act, although I am sure that that point will be further debated when we come to the Official Secrets Act reform.
I find myself parting from the Government in respect of the exact method by which they have sought to define the matter that can be excluded from taping. It is too difficult for a police officer, as he proceeds with an interview, to have to decide whether the matter that he is pursuing is terrorism connected with Northern Ireland, international terrorism or domestic terrorism connected with the United Kingdom, in which case his interview must continue. It is to make too many different distinctions for many police officers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take further advice. He should examine further the definitions before he asks the police to practise them.
7.20 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have only two minutes in which to respond to those who have spoken. I hope that the House will forgive me if my replies to individual hon. Members are not especially full.
Like other hon. Members, I do not like a disparity between classes of offence. However, having considered the matter carefully, and bearing in mind the views of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland Office, I am satisfied that we are right to make the derogation. We must recognise that the sort of information that becomes available in the course of an interview following a terrorist offence can do much to damage national security.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) talked about the deaf. As I am short of time, I shall respond quickly to the issues that she raised. The issue is covered in part by the fourth clause of the code. Deaf people have a right of access to an interpreter. I do not believe that it is necessary for the interpreter to state his or her qualifications, if only because a bad interpreter will be of

463
no use to anyone, not least to the police. Solicitors can use their own tape recorders when interviews take place, but I would not encourage the practice.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that we believe that the net effect on police manpower will be beneficial. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) talked about interviews in cars. He has a point, and we shall consider it when amending code C. I undertake that we shall consider the arguments that he has advanced.
There are serious training considerations. There will be monitoring by the inspectorate. Monitoring, too, is a serious matter——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [22 July], put the Question.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July 1988, be approved.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions
7.22 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move,
That the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1055), dated 16th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be revoked.
The debate is about the implementation of the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. It is important to understand the background to the debate and to the order.
Last week, during our debates on the Education Reform Bill, we were told by the Minister of State that we were deliberately creating anxiety among teaching and non-teaching staffs about the Government's powers in relation to employment laws. It was asserted by the Minister that the Secretary of State would not contemplate reducing employment rights. As we understand the background to the order, we know how worthless such assurances are. The Secretary of State removed from teachers the most basic of employment rights, the right to bargain collectively with their employers. We would argue that the basic right to bargain collectively is an essential prerequisite of a healthy pluralist democracy.
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett: I have only just started.
Mr. Knight: It is on the very point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Fatchett: Very well.
Mr. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he can bargain collectively when not one Labour Member, apart from himself, is in the Chamber?
Mr. Fatchett: I shall continue with my speech. The intervention was not even worthy of the hon. Gentleman's standards.
To take away the right to bargain collectively—it is a right that has been exercised for many years by teachers and their organisations—is a damaging step away from democracy. When the Government give an assurance on employment rights, as they did last week, we must remember their record with the teachers and GCHQ, which tells us that their assurances have no meaning.
The Government have been condemned internationally for their action in removing collective bargaining rights from teachers. They were condemned by the International Labour Organisation, which concluded that the Government's actions were not in conformity with the fourth article of convention No. 98. The Government have rightly been condemned by the ILO and by international opinion because they have no regard for the democratic, industrial and employment rights of teachers. That is why we are debating the order.
We are unhappy about the order because of its genesis. We do not think that it tackles the major problems facing the teaching profession, but we shall not use the debate as an opportunity to negotiate on behalf of teachers. The Chamber is not a place for negotiation. The necessary negotiations between the employers and teachers' organisations should take place elsewhere, with a clear, defined and recognised role for Government. Because we

465
believe that the Chamber is not the place for wage negotiations, and because we believe that the right to bargain is an intrinsic right in a healthy democracy, an incoming Labour Government will restore collective bargaining rights to teachers and their organisations. As I have said, we shall not take the opportunity tonight of negotiating in detail the teachers' pay awards.
Can the Minister of State give the House and the teaching profession an indication of the progress that is being made in establishing collective bargaining rights for teachers? It would be interesting to hear the Minister respond positively and constructively to the ILO's decision. It would be interesting also if the Minister were to accept that the Government should feel embarrassed that an international organisation has so severely condemned the Government. It would be interesting, further, to hear the Minister dissociate herself from some of the comments which were made by some of her hon. Friends last week. When the ILO was mentioned, they found it a matter of some amusement and the opportunity to engage in ridicule. It would be useful if we were to hear the Minister show respect for the ILO and to give a sign to teachers and their organisations that the Government will restore to teachers the right of collective bargaining.
There are detailed criticisms that we would wish to make of the report and the Government's action in relation to it. The first criticism and major comment is directed to the sixth paragraph. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), with his keen interest and knowledge of these matters, will no doubt have read the report. He will be able to tell me that the first conclusion reached—a crucial conclusion—was
"that teachers' morale is low. This is not only, nor perhaps principally, a matter of pay, though pay was at the heart of the industrial dispute and it would be foolish to imagine that since the 1987 pay increase it has ceased to be an issue."
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and the Minister will recognise that without high morale and teacher commitment we shall not have high standards of performance and of education.
For the first time in Britain's history in the post-war period we have a Government who have presided over a reduction in education standards. If they are to make an improvement, and if our children are to be provided with the opportunities that they deserve, we shall need a teacher force with a high morale and a sense of commitment, and having the feeling that its professionalism and service are recognised by both society and the Government.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In responding to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) missed the point. He is right to say, as the report does, that it may not be chiefly and principally a question of pay. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out its importance, but the principal reason why teachers' morale is low is surely the way in which they are treated by the Government. The principal act against teachers has been the removal, without any attempt to replace them, of their rights to negotiate pay and conditions. That is the Government s responsibility, whatever the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth) may snigger about.
Mr. James Pawsey rose——
Mr. Fatchett: No, I cannot allow a series of interventions on that point.
466
I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr.Ashdown). I was making the point——
Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not agree with me that there is a substantial difference between a giggle and a cheerful smile? I was trying to give the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr.Fatchett) an encouraging smile, because I agree with much of what he says. That was completely misinterpreted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Fatchett.
Mr. Fatchett: Sometimes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can understand your burdens in carrying out your office.
The hon. Member for Yeovil made an effective point. He will recall that my opening remarks referred to the background to the order, which was the Government's summary action in taking away the basic rights of teachers and their organisations to collective bargaining. That is crucial to the collapse in teachers' morale. For nine years, the Government have taken every available opportunity to undermine teachers' professionalism and status.
Tonight, the Minister needs to reassure the teaching force that she recognises that collapse of morale, that the Government are prepared to take action that will deal with it, and that they are prepared, as part of that action, to restore collective bargaining rights. Until the Government do that, as anybody with experience of education and of what is happening in our schools will know, teachers' morale will stay low. The Government's decision to take away their collective bargaining rights was seen by teachers as being central to the esteem in which the Government themselves hold the teaching profession. The report does not relate to that collapse of morale sufficiently, in terms of taking any action to restore it— although it is right to detect it.
There is clear and growing evidence that we are faced with recruitment and shortage problems. There is evidence also that the Government have little idea as to how they are to deliver the national curriculum or of how many teachers they will need for that purpose. The hon. Member for Yeovil may recall that on a number of occasions in Standing Committee we asked whether the Government were prepared to give figures of the number of teachers needed to deliver the national curriculum. First, we were told that there were some mysterious but brilliant calculations on the back of a fag packet in the DES. We now realise that it was probably written on the back of the hon. Member for Dartford, (Mr. Dunn). Later we were told that by the end of this year the Government would provide figures, but I suspect that when we reach the end of this year they will have no more idea then than they have now of how many teachers will be required. If they have, they will not publish those figures, because that would reveal the difficulties of staffing and recruitment that they face.
There is worrying evidence in the interim report which a sensible Government concerned about education standards would act upon. The following point is made on page 29:
"We judge that overall the numbers recruited were just about adequate in 1987–88, but there are already signs that recruitment is becoming more difficult."
Within 48 hours of the report s publication, figures from the teacher training clearing house revealed a 17 per cent.

467
drop in the number of applicants for mathematics teacher training, a 20 per cent. fall in physics applicants, and an 18 per cent. decline in geography applicants. Those are three crucial subjects forming part of the national curriculum, and all are suffering from a major recruitment shortfall. Again, there is no evidence from the Government, although all the warning signs are to be found in the interim report, that they have a recruitment strategy.
Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is being very unjust. Under this Government there has been a tremendous improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio over the past nine years.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Nonsense.
Mr. Greenway: It is absurd to say that that is nonsense. The pupil-teacher ratio has improved substantially.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is being complacent if he relies on just one set of statistics. Conservative Members know that the crucial point is that we shall face acute shortages of teachers in key subjects and that we are already facing a recruitment shortfall. Until the Government deal with those problems, there will be difficulty in delivering high quality education to our youngsters. The hon. Gentleman ought not to be complacent about that difficulty.
Mr. Flannery: What has been said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is partially true, but it is not in any way due to the present Government. The number of primary pupils dropped, while the numbers in the secondary sector, where there were plenty of teachers, increased—so much so that the present Government could not let them all enter universities, for example. The better pupil-teacher ratio to which the hon. Gentleman refers existed when the Government came to office. It was merely a development of the circumstances that then obtained. Ever since, there have been fewer teachers, and there is now a shortage and worse pupil-teacher ratios.
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right in his analysis that there was a demographic decline in terms of student numbers so that the pupil-teacher ratio improved. That occurred not because of the Government's actions—over their nine years in office they have cut the real level of spending per child—but because local authorities have increased their expenditure in real terms, though often threatened with penalties and rate capping by the Government for doing so.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose——
Mr. Fatchett: I cannot give way because I must make progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that one or two other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
There are two major criticisms of the Government and their reaction to the teaching profession. First, they have no strategy for dealing with the collapse in morale. Secondly, they have no strategy for dealing with recruitment and staff shortages. Until the Government understand those problems and devise a strategy, education standards will continue to decline. It is easy enough for the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth to
468
snigger, but for those youngsters who are suffering under that decline in education standards brought about by Conservative Members there is no second chance. Life provides only one chance in terms of education. The Government are not investing in youngsters, to give them a full range of opportunities. There is need for a strategy and to ensure that teachers enjoy a status and salaries that befit their professionalism and contribution to society.
I remind the Minister that all the evidence shows that it was because of the teachers' contribution that pupils were able this year to complete their GCSE work. If she will talk to youngsters throughout the country, and will study the analysis by the National Association of Head Teachers published yesterday, she will reach the conclusion that it was teachers doing more than was expected of them contractually that kept the GCSE on the road. It would have been useful if the Government, financially and in other ways, had made a contribution to GCSE similar to that made by hundreds of thousands of teachers. The simple fact is that teachers have kept it alive while the Government have under-resourced it and other parts of our education system.
Typical of that under-resourcing is the limitation that the Government have imposed on the interim advisory committee report. Page 2 of the report comments that the limitation to £300 million was a recommendation that the committee found excessively limiting. The Government, however, have taken that limitation a stage further. The fact that the recommendations produced a figure above £300 million has given them an opportunity to impose, via the back door, further cuts on local education authorities. By agreeing not to fund the full amount of the teachers' pay increase, they will ensure that we lose both teachers and other resources that are necessary in the classroom.
There are parallels in the Health Service relating to the nurses' pay increase and the treatment of non-medical staff. The Government have behaved in the same way throughout the public sector. Local education authorities will have to foot part of the bill, and in doing so they must lose teachers or resources. The Government should have provided the additional money asked for in the report: that would have been an indication of their commitment to good education for our youngsters.
We are debating this order because we feel that the Government must provide some hope for teachers that their professionalism will be recognised. So far they have not provided that hope, and there is no indication that they will do so. We wanted the debate also so that we could demand that teachers be given the right that belongs to millions of other workers to bargain collectively with their employers. We should be mature enough, as a society and as a democracy, to allow our teachers and their employers —with a role for Government—to negotiate their pay and conditions. Until that happens, it is a sad day for Parliament and for democracy when we have to debate such an order in this way.
7.42 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I suppose that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) got at least one thing right: the order arises from the work of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. The committee was set up in July 1987, in accordance with the requirement of the Teachers' Pay and

469
Conditions Act 1987. Its members were chosen from a variety of backgrounds, with a correspondingly wide spectrum of experience. The result was a generally well-balanced and independently minded body which was recognised by all shades of opinion.
In October 1987 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the committee a remit setting out certain detailed issues which he asked it to consider. Among those issues were changes in pay levels and allowances, and possible modifications to salary differentials and teachers' duties. It is true that the remit also included a financial limit of £300 million. That constraint, however, provided an important discipline for the committee's work, and was set against a background of concern about the general level of pay increases and the inflationary pressures that might be created. That concern has proved justified, and there remains a general need for lower pay settlements throughout the economy.
The committee proceeded to consult fully with local authority associations, teachers' unions and bodies representing the interests of voluntary schools, among others. In March this year, it presented its findings and recommendations in the report. The report was unanimous and was widely welcomed for its impartial assessment of teachers' pay, duties and working time. It examined the need to recruit, retain and motivate teachers of the right quality.
I must tell the hon. Member for Leeds, Central—who touched on the problems of recruitment as he saw them —that the committee made it clear that, having looked carefully at the need to recruit, retain and motivate, it detected no suggestion that overall recruitment and retention was inadequate, and it specifically mentioned that the wastage rates were low. But, as the hon. Gentleman dwelt at some length on the matter of recruitment, perhaps I should set his mind at rest with some additional information. We are currently seeing a 19 per cent. increase in the number of people wishing to enter primary school teaching, and they are being recruited as students.
It is true that we have not yet seen the improvement that we saw last year in the numbers wishing to teach in secondary schools and taking part in PGCE or other graduate courses. None the less, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is quite common at this time of year for young people who have just graduated from university not to decide instantly about their career prospects. We have noted in the past—and it is perhaps slightly more noticeable this year—that in general young graduates have not yet reached a conclusion at this time about what career to pursue.
This afternoon, however, I talked to TASC—the teaching as a career unit within the Department which examines teacher recruitment—and I can report an interesting and, in my view, encouraging trend. Within the past month, we have received no fewer than 650 inquiries from people up and down the country—and even from abroad—about the possibility of coming into, or returning to, the profession. That should go some way to allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.
Mr. Ashdown: As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, this is a key issue. Is the Minister telling us that the Government are satisfied that it will noi be a problem? She must have made some decision this afternoon.
Mrs. Rumbold: It would be the crassest of mistakes for any Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that he or she was entirely certain that the future for teacher recruitment was satisfactory. We shall, of course, continue to monitor the position and check that adequately trained responsible people are entering the profession. But I cannot stand here this evening and give guarantees to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and I have not the faintest intention of doing so.
Mr. Ashdown: With respect, that was not the question that I asked the Minister. Will she now tell us that the Government, according to their own judgments—and she has talked this afternoon about how she made judgments —are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that there will be sufficient teachers?
Mrs. Rumbold: The Government remain confident that the measures that we are taking at present will encourage as many people as possible to come into the profession, both as mature students and as graduates straight from university. We shall monitor the position, and we shall be vigilant in ensuring that there are enough teachers to meet not only present but future requirements. That is part and parcel of the Department's work. It is a duty that we have not shirked in the past, and I cannot see us shirking it in the future.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I have every confidence that the Government will continue to maintain their high pupil-teacher ratio. Opposition Members who keep intervening presided over education, in the days of the Lib-Lab pact and the last Labour Government, at a time when there was a tremendous mismatch between what was provided in the classroom and the need for specialist teachers in certain subjects. It ill becomes hon. Members who sit on the SLD and Labour Benches to speak as they have spoken this afternoon.
Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. That is true. However, I do not want to point the finger at any Administration for any mismatch within the profession, particularly at the time when there was turbulence in the schools.
I have already made the point that the interim advisory committee's report was unanimous and widely welcomed, but it is also important to say that it tackled the issues in ways that were clear, concise and constructive. Neither the unions nor the management have made serious criticisms of the way in which the committee tackled its task.
On 19 April my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science published the report and began the statutory consultation process on its recommendations. On 26 May he confirmed that after careful consideration he had decided to accept in full the pay recommendations of the interim advisory committee. The Government believe that the IACs proposals were both sensible and fair, coming as they did on top of the 25 per cent. pay increase that teachers received on average between March 1986 and October 1987.
The proposals implemented by the order gave all teachers a 4¼ per cent. rise in their basic pay from 1 April this year. Teachers on the main scale will receive a further 4 per cent., on average, in September as a result of their annual increments. In addition, there is a 7·5 per cent.

471
increase in the London allowances—backdated to July 1987—increases in the value of incentive allowances and an acceleration in the introduction of the A allowances.
A teacher who was formerly on scale 2, for example, who receives an A allowance from this September will receive an overall increase of 14·5 per cent. during this year, made up of the increase in all scale points, an increment and the value of the incentive allowance.
The report effectively endorsed the new pay structure, duties and working time for teachers that were introduced last year. The IACs positive attitude towards the use of incentive allowances as a reward for good teachers has been welcomed on all sides, especially by the local education authorities. The report recorded the local authority representatives as saying that the new incentive allowances provided "a useful managerial tool" which could be
"flexibly applied to secure a range of different objectives."
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me make a few more points. Then by all means I shall give way to him. He knows that I always do.
The interim advisory committee recognised the importance and usefulness of the incentive allowances by recommending that the value of each allowance should be increased and that the proposed rate of introduction of the A allowances should be accelerated. The Government accepted the recommendations, even though they took the total beyond £300 million. The planned expansion of 36,000 A allowances will now take place over two years rather than three. That means that 50 per cent. of teachers in primary schools and 60 per cent. in secondary schools will receive incentive allowances or be heads or deputies by September 1989.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady mentioned 14·5 per cent. Will she tell the House what the increase will be if we take away the increments that teachers were already due to receive?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a short debate. When hon. Members seek to catch my eye the Chair will be bound to take into account the frequency of interventions. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has intervened four times. He should bear that point in mind if he seeks to catch my eye.
Mrs. Rumbold: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is about 6·5 per cent.
Mr. Ashdown: No. It is 4·25 per cent.
Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman cannot even add up. It is 6·5 per cent.
The interim advisory committee made no recommendations that required changes to the part of the school teachers' pay and conditions document of 1987 dealing with the duties and working time of teachers, but it made various comments on mid-day supervision, cover for absent colleagues and teachers on short notice contracts. The Government believe that local education authorities will want to consider carefully the views expressed by the committee on the conditions of service of teachers.
472
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central also referred to negotiating rights for teachers and linked that important matter to the morale of the teaching profession as a whole. The interim advisory committee did a very good job this year but, by definition, it is an interim arrangement. It remains the Government's aim to introduce new arrangements for the determination of teachers' pay and conditions.
With this objective in mind, the Government put forward certain proposals for the future determination of pay and conditions in the form of a Green Paper that was published last October. The Green Paper aimed to survey the relevant issues and set out a range of possible solutions. It proposed a teachers' negotiating group with a separate committee to deal with heads' and deputies' pay and conditions. That was a consultative paper which did not set out final decisions.
A large number of comments have been received as a result of the Green Paper and we are giving them careful consideration, but I am bound to say that the various comments suggest that there will be difficulties in reaching agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held brief discussions about future machinery for the determination of teachers' pay and conditions with the teacher unions and local authority employers in the context of the meetings held this year about the IAC report. He will be offering further meetings in September, when I hope we shall look to the time when longer and more detailed discussions can be held.
Because of the differences of view among the various parties, it would have been impossible to have new, permanent and acceptable machinery in place in time for the 1989 pay settlement. For the sake of the country as a whole, we must not risk a return to the sort of chaos that has been so damaging to the teaching profession, the pupils and the schools. The interim arrangements have given us a chance to review the whole question of teachers' pay determination. We must use that opportunity to work towards machinery that is acceptable, workable and permanent. It must reflect the interests of parents, teachers, central and local taxpayers and, above all, the children.
Mr. Fatchett: We have had a number of assurances from Ministers at the Dispatch Box that the provisions will be interim and temporary. Can the Minister give a clear commitment that the 1990 pay round will be determined by some form of collective bargaining process?
Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Gentleman had been patient and waited for two minutes, he could have saved the House some time. I was about to say that the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 made provision for the interim arrangements to last until 1990. We have always made it clear that that was the target date for establishing new permanent machinery. It remains so. My right hon. Friend therefore confirmed last week that the interim advisory committee would advise on the pay settlement for 1989. We are grateful for the fine work that has been done by Lord Chilver and his committee during the last year. We look forward to a further year of thorough analysis by the committee.
Mr. Fatchett: I deliberately asked the Minister about 1990 because that is the time when the interim arrangements run out. The Minister said that it is still the Government's target to change the arrangements after

473
1990. Will the Minister give a clear commitment now that the Government intend to restore collective bargaining for teachers' pay after 1990? Will she confirm that that is an intention, not a target?
Mrs. Rumbold: Through the negotiating machinery and discussions with unions and the local authority employers, the Government intend to establish sensible negotiating arrangements. We do not want to return to the kind of chaos that reigned before the interim advisory committee was set up.
Mr. Flannery: Who caused it?
Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman asks me who caused it. It happened over a period of years. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will want to go any further into that matter. As I have said, the Government are looking to a firm arrangement, and the target date is 1990.
I now turn to points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central about the International Labour Organisation. Much noise has been made about all this. Hon. Members may not, however, be aware that the ILO has recognised that we are already taking steps towards new and lasting machinery. The committee on freedom of association of the ILO has noted that the consultations now under way will give the United Kingdom Government an opportunity to make legislative amendments.
The ILO is, of course, fully aware of the timing of the interim arrangements as set out in the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. It is aware of our intention to set up new machinery for the determination of pay and conditions by 1990 and it has not asked that matters should proceed on any different timetable.
As a signatory to the International Labour Organisation convention, we are considering what the ILO has said and will keep this in mind as we move towards new machinery for determining school teachers' pay and conditions.
The order which we are debating this evening brings into effect the provisions relating to remuneration and other conditions of employment as set out in the school teachers' pay and conditions document of 1988. I recognise that the Opposition felt bound to pray against this order if only to give the hon. Member for Leeds, Central a chance to have a good old rant at me. But I cannot conceive that they expect the debate to result in anything other than approval of the order. Teachers want their pay rise and the Opposition cannot seriously intend to deny it to them.
The making of the order and the publication of the school teachers' pay and conditions document of 1988 followed extensive consultation. During the consultations, very few comments were made on the text either of the order or of the document.
Finally, one of the most encouraging signs during this school year has been the fact that teachers, despite all the comments from the newspapers, the unions and from many others that their morale is supposedly low, have worked closely with pupils without disruption. The evidence of a changed atmosphere has been highlighted by the introduction of the GCSE and the willingness of everyone to co-operate in making it successful. That is a tribute to the teachers' professionalism and the way in which they wanted to make it a success and put their pupils before other considerations.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Does my hon. Friend agree that when one considers the union membership figures and sees that the National Union of Teachers has lost 74,000 members, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has lost 32,000 teachers, yet the two most professional and most moderate unions, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and the Professional Association of Teachers, have increased their membership by 50,000 and 43,000 respectively in the past nine years, it is clear that professional teachers know exactly where their interests lie?
Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Professional teachers are voting with their feet and joining organisations that represent their interests and put their professionalism and the interests of their pupils well above their own personal interests or the interests of some collectivist group that rants against the Government.
I am sure that all teachers would rightly be aggrieved if the order were to be revoked and if they were to lose their pay increase. I hope that the Opposition will not press the matter to a vote, but if they do I must ask the House to vote against the Opposition motion.
8.3 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: The ILO has put the Government on the spot. I urge them to respond urgently, do the decent thing and let us have voluntary negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was right to dwell on morale. The teaching force has been treated very badly by the Government. During the past few years it has been pushed from pillar to post, and I know that the teachers are still smarting from the loss of their free collective bargaining. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend's policy commitment on behalf of the Opposition.
In my constituency, I have encountered a great deal of resentment and frustration in the teaching force. In many visits to schools throughout Wales, in my constituency and in my LEA of Clywd I repeatedly encounter frustrated head teachers who feel that they and their staff must do more with less for children, the parents and the community. The pressure from local education authority headquarters, and from parents, is growing and is relentless. The staff and the profession are always under pressure to deliver. Most head teachers that I speak to about their problems want, above all, extra staff to deliver the highest standards that they are determined to give to parents and children.
At the heart of the many problems that we face in the service are the massive cuts in the rate support grant over the past nine years. Cuts in RSG in England and Wales have borne down severely on the education service. It is argued that in the Principality some £750 million has been lost in rate support grant since 1979. Much of that grant is earmarked for the education service.
In my constituency and my county of Clwyd, there are now major limitations in nursery schooling. In my constituency, in Buckley, a closure is causing uproar among parents.
The Minister did square up to the issue of teachers' pay and tried to respond to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central. But the award just is not enough, because 4·25 per cent. barely maintains the purchasing power of a year earlier, and in effect it

475
continues the erosion of the teachers' relative position. It is well below the 6 per cent. negotiated for teachers in Scotland. I do not crib at the Scottish teachers getting that amount, but if the Minister is able to respond, will she say why the teachers in Scotland have obtained a 6 per cent. increase, whereas those in England and Wales will get only 4·25 per cent?
I wish to raise one or two matters covered by the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions which was chaired by Lord Chilver. It is an interesting and revealing document which highlights many of the problems faced by the service, and which it would face under any Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central dwelt on the question of morale which is very important if our children are to have the best possible education now and if our country, in the run-up to the next century, is to reorder its economy and cope with the increasing competition in industries throughout the world. The document states:
"We judge that commitment is good"
—among the teaching force—
"but we were concerned to find—especially during our visits to schools—that the morale of many teachers is low."
It continues:
"Many teachers complain of a lack of public appreciation and recognition; they feel that they have been blamed for all the faults of the education system, and expected to implement a succession of initiatives, for which resources and training are limited."
The resentment at limited resources and training is widespread. I do not believe it to be an exaggeration to say that many teachers who I meet frequently are seething with resentment.
The report also considers co-operation and says:
"the co-operation of teachers is essential if the planned changes in education are to be delivered in the classroom. In our view, teachers deserve a fuller measure of public understanding for the difficult role which they will be expected to play in those reforms, and an expression of public appreciation, encouragement and confidence in them."
The Secretary of State and the Minister should take more opportunities to say what the report is saying.
Mr. Mark Fisher: They never take such opportunities.
Mr. Jones: Indeed not. The Government have taken the big stick to the profession. They have forgotten that the harder they hit, the lower morale will be, so our children will not get the very best in state schools. I want the Government to end their constant sniping at teachers. They should take the lead and attempt to raise teacher morale.
On quality, the report says:
"there is evidence of a mismatch between the demands of the curriculum and the qualifications of teachers; too many secondary classes are already having to be taught by non-specialist teachers, and the problem seems likely to be exacerbated by the demands of the national curriculum."
I do not believe from any of the utterances of Ministers that I have heard recently that the Government have faced up to the fact that, although they want more from teachers, they are not providing sufficient staff in certain areas. The curriculum is narrowing. That is a feature of secondary schools in Wales and I should be astonished if the same were not true in England. I do not believe that the Government understand the seriousness of the mismatch
476
between the demands of the curriculum and the qualifications of teachers. Teachers and parents tell me of their great regret at the narrowing of the curriculum.
The Government have misjudged the mood of teachers. It appears that they have also underestimated parents' anxieties about the shortages of books and equipment in many schools as instanced in the harrowing details in Her Majesty's inspectorate's annual reports for England and Wales. The Govenment are understating teachers' difficulties. A large majority in the House has made the Government careless and arrogant, but before long they will pay dearly for their misuse of power.
8.13 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: Perhaps the best answer that I can give the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is a quotation from a speech which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made only today. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of sniping at teachers and said that that should stop. My right hon. Friend said:
"I pay tribute to the way very many teachers have responded, despite the difficulties in recent years in the relationship between the Government and some of the teacher unions. I welcome the fact that these difficulties are behind us, and that the teaching profession as a whole has accepted last year's settlement on pay and conditions".
The debate arises on an Opposition motion, but when the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) rose to open the debate, not one member of his party was present. Indeed, not one member of the SLD was present. There was nobody here to support him. Having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, I understand why none of his hon. Friends were here. His speech was pedestrian and lack-lustre even by his unexacting standards.
I was pleased to read in a parliamentary answer of 22 June that Lord Chilver has agreed to continue for a second year as chairman of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. His recent report is detailed and constructive, and it should be commended by the House.
Teacher motivation has attracted the House's attention. While pay is important, it clearly is not everything. It has been said that teachers' morale and motivation have been adversely affected by uncertainty about who is in charge in a school—the local education authority and its officers and elected members, governors with a strong parental element or the head teacher and staff. Each of those groups has duties and responsibilities, but they overlap from time to time. I can illustrate the point by referring to last year's pay report. Few teachers read it because its circulation was somewhat haphazard. The report did not reach the people who were most affected by it. Teachers were left unsure, and to the tender mercies of their trade unions' propaganda and the sometimes ambiguous statements of local education authorities.
Management in schools sometimes leaves something to be desired. An important issue which faces teaching is the need for a clear chain of responsibility so that teachers know who is in charge of the day-to-day running of a school. The vacuum left by the absence of responsibility, authority and good communication is filled by speculation and uncertainty, and where there is uncertainty, rumour will abound. The delegation of more power to schools under the Education Reform Bill will help in that respect.

477
Lord Chilver and his colleagues on the advisory committee have identified an area that needs attention. I listened with some interest to Opposition Members speaking about negotiating rights. We have heard it all before, but I do not believe that anybody would argue for the return of the discredited Burnham committee. It was a shambles of disagreement and a recipe for dispute. A joint negotiating council would be much the same—it would merely be a son of Burnham. In the end, Burnham was sustained only by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The advisory committee's report proposes an increase of about 4·25 per cent. on average, which my right hon. Friend has accepted.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pawsey: I shall——
Mr. Ashdown rose——
Mr. Pawsey: In a minute. The hon. Gentleman is far too impetuous. I can see that he is giggling all over his face, to use his preferred phrase, but he must contain himself for a moment. It is honestly a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) here participating in our debates. I understand that he has other matters preying more deeply on his mind, but it is good to see him.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman was here last night and the night before.
Mr. Pawsey: I will not disagree with that. Why should I?
The report to which I referred recommends substantial increases in the number of incentive posts which carry allowances and provide a boost to the good, conscientious teacher. I am happy to say that good, conscientious teachers still remain the majority in their profession.
Most teachers are dedicated to the children in their charge and to their profession. I want to refer to an article that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement on 24 June. The article refutes a point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. The article states:
"Certainly the recent pay review has stemmed the flow of good teachers out of schools especially those who work outside London. But it would be an insult to the vast majority of the teaching force if it were suggested that they come into teaching essentially because of money. Most consider their work to be a vocation."
How I applaud the sentiments in that article.
One virtue that springs from the abolition of Burnham and the introduction of the interim advisory committee is that the recruiting and propaganda platform provided by Burnham no longer exists. That platform was used for those purposes by some unions. Interestingly, the unions are no longer as militant as they were. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in his interesting observations.
I notice that the loss of membership in the National Union of Teachers coincides with a reduction in militancy by that union. The more militant, the fewer members. I urge hon. Members to consider that. The dislocation that occurred over 18 months including the half-day strikes was damaging not just to our schoolchildren—and God knows, that was bad enough—but to teachers and their profession. The dislocation reduced their prestige and in turn adversely affected morale.
Pay is not the only and overriding issue. However, the 164 per cent. award last year helps to ensure that teachers are appreciated. However, teachers have concerns other
478
than pay. For example, they are apprehensive about school discipline. They are also apprehensive about certain changes in the Education Reform Bill.
Teachers require more reassurance and appreciation. As I said earlier, most teachers do a splendid job. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a persuasive manner. I am sure that he will use that manner to good advantage when he meets members of the profession. I am certain that unless we enjoy the good will of the teaching profession, we shall have difficulty carrying through the reforms in the Education Reform Bill.
I am quite convinced that the Education Reform Bill will substantially improve the quality and standard of state education, where the majority of our children are educated. I am convinced that we shall have the full support of the teachers in this country.
8.23 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) today, as I have listened to him for so long in Committees, with interest, but not much agreement, However, he did get one matter right and he should be congratulated on that. He was blunt enough and accurate enough to give the real increase in teachers' pay. He was right to say that it is 4·25 per cent.
It would benefit the House if he were to take the Minister aside. She is clearly as inaccurate and off the record as she has been so often before. She said that the award was 6 per cent. Of course she was wrong. She has been wrong before. As she will not listen to Opposition Members, it would benefit the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, hon. Members on both sides of the House and the cause of truth if he were to educate the Minister in this matter. She is clearly not educated. For the record, the award is 4·25 per cent. and not, as the Minister said, 6 per cent. after taking increments away or, as she tried to say, 14·5 per cent. That is a characteristic example of the Government's lack of attention to detail and an example of their characteristic capacity to manipulate figures to make people believe what the Government want them to believe.
We need a clear answer from the Minister on another point. Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly asked us not to intervene too much. I wanted to intervene in the Minister's speech because we require her to be clear on a specific point. If she provides me with the right answer, I will finish my speech now. The Minister told us that the Government's target date for operating the permanent mechanism is 1990. I will happily give way to the Minister if she will answer me. Does she mean in place by 1989 to deal with 1990 pay or does she mean in place by 1990 to deal with 1991 pay? The Minister was not clear on that. It would benefit the House if she could tell us which of two options is right. The Minister is spending a lot of time thinking about the matter—enough time for her to send a Parliamentary Private Secretary to ask an adviser. Is the target 1989 for 1990 or in place for 1990 to negotiate pay for 1991? We have a right to know.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Pawsey: The answer will come in the Minister's reply.
Mr. Ashdown: In the interests of time, I would be prepared to finish if the Minister would clarify that point.

479
It should stand on the record that the Minister does not seem to know the nature of the commitment that she made.
Mr. Pawsey: Wait and see.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth says, "Wait and see." I should not have to wait and see.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science gave a commitment on the record on 5 May last year that the Government were heading for the mechanism to be in place by 1989 to deal with the 1990 pay rise. Is the Minister sticking to that? If so, the House should know. If, on the other hand, the target date that the Minister has put forward is a full year later, the Secretary of State's commitment has not been honoured. The House must take that matter very seriously.
For fear that anyone should doubt what the Secretary of State said, I point out that he said in response to a question from me:
"I do not think that it will be possible to get an agreed new permanent machinery by April 1988. However, that does not mean that we will not be able to get it in place by April 1989 —that is, before 1990"—[Official Report, 5 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 675.]
The Secretary of State declared that as the target. Is the Minister saying that there is a slippage of a year? If so, we have a right to know why.
I do not speak against the motion on the basis that I oppose the Chilver report. I agree with some of the comments. Lord Chilver's report was good and well rehearsed and I am delighted that he had the courage to resist the Government's £300 million limit. Of course we could expect the Government to accept the recommendation, but then cynically to fail to give local education authorities the money to fulfil it.
We also expect the Government to manipulate the level of the pay rises in the way that the Minister has been exposed as doing. Nor will I vote against the principle of incentive allowances, even though the scales that the Government have suggested are very confining. They lack fiexibility to such an extent that the headmaster of the comprehensive school which my children attended told me that the allowances are so confining that he has no real chance of allocating them except on the basis of new responsibility.
Lord Chilver commented on precisely the same point, but that is not why I am speaking against the motion. I am doing so because a commitment was made a year ago in the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Science that steps would be taken to put the permanent machinery in place as soon as possible. To honour that commitment, in October 1987 the Government published their proposals and sought responses by January 1988. From that date to this, no discernible movement has taken place. The Minister said that there have been brief discussions; they were very few and very brief. I suspect, as I imagine do teachers and others outside the House, that the failure to meet that commitment was not an accident. The truth of the matter is that the Government want the Gerbil in place so that school governors have the right to remove allowances, to abolish automatic salary increments and to introduce performance pay by stealth before
480
the permanent body is established to reintroduce teachers capacities and to give them some say in their terms and conditions.
I am not, in principle, against a sensible system of performance pay. It must be introduced by consultation and negotiation with teachers, not by stealth. I hope that the Minister will make it clear whether the Government have shifted their target. If they have, they have done so cynically so that conditions will be in force when the permanent body is established, thus undermining the democratic consensus-based system.
Mrs. Rumbold rose——
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady has her answer. It has taken her five or six minutes to get the answer from her minders in the Box and, perhaps, as long to digest it. The House awaits, with some anticipation, for her answer.
Mrs. Rumbold: May I read to the hon. Gentleman— who appears to be deaf and dense, among other things —what I clearly said. The Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1987 made provision for interim arrangements to last until 1990. The Government have always made it clear that that was the target date for establishing and having in place the permanent machinery, and that remains so.
Mr. Ashdown: It has taken the hon. Lady six minutes to get it wrong. I asked her to tell me whether the Government's target is to put the permanent machinery in place, as the Secretary of State said, by April 1989 to deal with pay for 1990 or by 1990 to deal with pay for 1991. It is no good the hon. Lady looking to her minders; they will not give her an answer. She must have sufficient mastery of her brief to allow her to answer one way or the other. I give the hon. Lady the opportunity so to do. Perhaps when she replies to the debate she will have received the answer. Will the machinery be in place by 1989 to deal with pay for 1990 or by 1990 to deal with pay for 1991? In the interests of receiving an answer, and having said what I want to say, I shall finish my remarks.
8.33 pm
Mr. George Walden: I apologise to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for not being present to hear his speech.
We are talking not only about pay but pay and conditions, which are both mentioned in the motion. There are conditions on either side. Teachers' conditions are to supply quality teaching. My hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute to the professionalism of teachers. I understand why she has to say that—it is part of the functions of her job. I draw attention to the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate that was published yesterday. It said that 75 per cent. of the classes that the inspectors attended were guilty of the most heinous education sin —low expectation. It is difficult to square what my hon. Friend the Minister naturally felt obliged to say about the professionalism of teachers with the HMI report, which mentioned low expectation in 75 per cent. of the 8,000 classes that the inspectors attended. That signifies that a basic and fundamental problem of quality remains within the British education system.
I know perfectly well that my hon. Friend and the Government are doing what they can to improve the position, and I know that many teachers are concerned about the quality of their profession, but it is not fair on

481
the ordinary children who receive state education—who can never aspire to attend a private school and receive a higher quality of education—to delude ourselves that there is an untapped mass of professionalism, when we know perfectly well—it was confirmed by the HMI report—that there is a major problem of low expectation.
The other side of the conditions coin is what teachers are expected to do. If one asks teachers to have higher expectations of their pupils and to compete with the private sector—which is growing, flourishing and producing better standards—one must reduce class sizes. I know that nationally the figures have been decreasing, but they need to decrease further. The size of classes in private schools is normally 14 to 20 pupils. Clearly that is a major advantage for the teacher and brings out the best in him or her. It encourages him or her to demand and receive higher expectations, which are of crucial national importance. I know that the overall record and the pupil-teacher ratios are good, but I should like the size of classes to be reduced further. As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said earlier, it will not be possible for teachers to deliver all the additional effort and professionalism that is rightly being asked of them by the Government, even with smaller classes. Class sizes must reduce further, and if that costs money it will be money well spent. It would have a good effect on the private sector, which at present is having life far too easy. It is impossible to talk about pay without mentioning the quality of teachers and the obligations that class sizes and other problems place on them.
I am convinced by my hon. Friend's remarks about the pay increases teachers received that 4·25 per cent. is reasonable, but I should like to enter one important caveat. It is impossible to discuss this subject without having regard to the whole economy. My hon. Friend said that high inflation damages teachers as much as anyone else, but given the crucial importance that I attach— perhaps privately my hon. Friend does also—to education and the quality of teachers, it would be serious and damaging if we returned to the position of the past when teachers were the only people marching in step and keeping high wage claims down.
I understand the background to this matter and the Treasury's viewpoint—it is responsible to take account of its viewpoint. If we want the elite teaching force that ordinary children—whose parents do not have the money to give them a private education—have a right to expect, we shall have to watch the quality of education, watch class sizes and watch teachers' pay. Teachers should at least be adequately rewarded for their extremely difficult task.
8.39 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: It was interesting to see how the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) under-estimated, just as the Minister did, the report from the inspectorate, which said that 25 per cent., not 75 per cent., of teachers were dissatisfied. Like the Minister, the hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round in his eagerness to condemn teachers.
It is necessary to give some of the history of what has happened to teachers. Last night, there was a debate about democracy and the failure to consult the teachers' unions and local education authorities. This is a continuation of
482
that debate in different circumstances. The Minister let the cat out of the bag. There is not a semblance of democratic thought in anything that she said. The interim report says:
"The interim advisory committee was established as a result of a major change in the framework in which the pay and conditions of school teachers in England and Wales are determined."
It speaks of that happening in 1987, but now we have to wait until 1990. Therefore, teachers will have had four years without negotiating rights. It is no wonder that the International Labour Organisation, which is part of the United Nations, condemned the Government for not having a proper negotiating machinery.
The Minister compounded her felony by going on to praise the interim advisory committee. The issue is not whether that advisory committee under Lord Chilver made a good report. It comprised a hand-picked group of people, unelected by anybody and chosen by the Secretary of State. Naturally he chose the members so that they would produce the report that he wanted. People condemned the Burnham committee, but it was an elected body. I was elected to serve on it by the National Union of Teachers. That committee was smashed by the Government. It had weaknesses, but all democracy has weaknesses. The House has weaknesses. Many hon. Members are not here for the debates—often fewer than 25 per cent. of all Members are present.
The teachers' unions asked that, instead of the interim advisory committee, there should be an elected body, which they called the joint national council. The International Labour Organisation watched what was happening and took action. However, it cannot compel the Government to do anything, so the Minister was wrong to say that it connived at this process because it did not interfere. The ILO cannot bludgeon the Government into doing as they are told. It has to watch them and see What they do. I am sure that any honest democrat will agree that it will be a disgrace if the teachers have no negotiating machinery for four years. Well over 100 years of free negotiations have been cast aside, and this order continues that felony, despite the fact that it is possible to have proper negotiations.
This lack of negotiating rights is wrong and will have profound effects. The teachers were defeated after they were provoked into action by the pitiful wages they were being paid, so they are now in a difficult position. However, they have a democratic approach to the problem that the Government do not have, and a lack of democracy will always catch up with a Government. The Government are arrogant and over-proud because of their huge majority, but in time this will catch up on them.
The hard facts about wages have not been given. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave some of the figures when he talked about an increase of 4·25 per cent. and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) noticed the 6 per cent. mistake that the Minister had made. The Scottish teachers have got 6 per cent., and good luck to them. However, it has not yet been mentioned that the national average wage increase is 8·5 per cent., so a 4·25 per cent. increase for the teachers takes them back a year. The teachers are rightly angry about that.
The teachers have repeatedly asked to see the Secretary of State, but he has repeatedly put them off. He was asked at the beginning of the year and spoke about 29 January. He was asked later and told the deputy general secretary of the NUT that the meeting would happen in a month or

483
two. Then, he said that it would happen a bit later, and then he said it would happen in June. It has not happened, so there has been no negotiation and only a report from an unelected body. No matter how good that report might be, it has come from an undemocratic body.
We would like from the Minister an answer to the question that the hon. Member for Yeovil asked many times. Will the teachers spend three years with no negotiating rights, or four years? If it is to be four years after assurances that it would be three, who knows whether it will not be five years? Who knows whether the Government will not go on in the same old way because of their huge majority?
Although we shall not vote against the order, it must be pointed out that it is a continuation of a lack of democracy in dealing with a long-established profession. No amount of slanging about that profession or against teachers will do anything to alter that.
Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flannery: I am about to finish so that another hon. Member can speak.
Will the Government extend democracy or will they carry on with no democracy for the teaching profession? If they do the latter, it will catch up with them in the long run because a lack of democracy always catches up with those who engage in it.
8.46 pm
Mrs. Rumbold: With the leave of the House, may I say that the Government are as keen as anyone else to have some organisation to negotiate pay and conditions for teachers in a way that is satisfactory to the profession, to the local authorities and to the Government. With that in mind, we wish to embark as soon as possible on serious discussions with the various parties whom we hope will come together eventually with a proper negotiating group.
In case the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) does not understand this, it is not possible to have negotiations in 1990 with a negotiating body unless such a body has been thought through and some conclusions have been reached by the end of 1989. The Government have given that commitment already, and that is the answer to his question. In other words, if there are to be negotiations on pay and conditions, there must be negotiating machinery.
Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: I have only a few minutes to reply, so I shall not give way.
It has been alleged on a number of occasions that teachers' pay has not been increased by more than 4 per cent. The average main scale teachers'pay will rise by just under 4 per cent. as a result of increments, but it is important to remember that teachers' pay has also increased by 4·25 per cent. across the board. By anybody's reckoning, this leads to an increase of more than 4 per cent. for everybody, because teachers are not all paid at the same rate all the way through.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): It may be convenient for the House to know that a head teacher on the maximum scale earns nearly £32,000 a year. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the teacher on the top of the scale —not a head or a deputy head—will be earning nearly £14,000 with possibly £4,500 extra as a result of the incentive allowance?
Mrs. Rumbold: In fairness, the heads and deputy head teachers have not managed to receive as high increments as the rest of the profession as a result of the pay round. Therefore, although my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is correct, it was the principal task of the interim advisory committee to consider the main group in the profession.
I do not accept the allegation that the Government are not considering seriously the establishment of proper negotiating machinery for the teaching profession. I also do not accept that the Government have not thought carefully about the rewards for the teaching profession's hard work, given that, in the past three years, they have received a 25 per cent. pay increase as a result of restructuring. On top of that, this year, teachers have received an increase of more than 4 per cent. plus increments representing a further 4 per cent. increase. I believe that that is a good and adequate payment for the hard work that teachers do.
8.50 pm
Mr. Fatchett: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made an appropriate and necessary contribution to this debate. It is sad that that speech did not come from the Minister. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for professionalism and the need to reward it, which affects morale and recruitment. Such issues are crucial and have been spotlighted by the interim advisory committee. It is a shame that the Minister did not respond in accordance with the importance of those issues.
It is also a shame that, yet again, the Minister was dismally inept in discussing when the negotiating machinery will be in place and the Government's intentions. The Secretary of State made it clear, in response to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), that it was the Government's intention to establish that negotiating machinery by April 1989. Every word that the Minister has uttered has suggested that that is no longer the Government's intention. We must either reach that conclusion or conclude, as was self-evident during the passage of the Education Reform Bill, that the Minister does not understand her brief and does not understand the issues involved.
The Minister also failed to understand the importance of democratic collective bargaining rights for teachers. The loss of those rights goes to the heart of the collapse of teacher morale and the Minister——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [22 July], put the Question.
Question negatived.

Building Societies
8.52 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Building Societies (Transfer of Business) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1153), dated 4th July 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be annulled.
The Building Societies (Transfer of Business) Regulations set out some of the detailed procedure that must be followed and the information provided when a building society wishes to convert to plc status. We remain fundamentally opposed to conversion and we have made our views especially clear in view of the current rush by Abbey National to convert.
A mutual society is owned by its members and is answerable to them. It has no shareholders and it folds all its surpluses back into the running and prosperity of the society. As a result of the regulations, a society has ample powers to compete flexibly and fairly with banks and other financial institutions.
It is worth mentioning that our scepticism about the necessity for conversion of the building societies is shared by a number of Conservative Members. I studied the debates that took place on 4 June 1986 when the Building Societies Bill was considered on Report and Third Reading. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the ability of foreign banks to buy up converted building societies as, "a real threat." The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spoke about conversion and the loss of mutuality and said:
"If that sense of mutuality is broken … that link of loyalty, which is inestimable, will be broken."
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked:
"why do we want to allow companies which are not building societies to buy building societies?"—[Official Report, 4 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 939–41.]
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) also spoke against the idea of conversion. Therefore, it is clear that there is widespread unease about the prospect of building societies, with all the benefits that mutuality brings, converting into plcs and becoming just like any other financial institution.
If, however, conversion is proposed by the board of a society we must be certain that the case for and against is put impartially to the members of that society before they vote. That is what the regulations are all about. We feel that they go some way towards ensuring fairness and partiality, but nowhere near far enough. It sets out the information that is required to be given in detail to the members of the society—borrowers and investors—befpre they vote.
I received a letter dated 8 July from the deputy chairman of the Building Societies Commission. That letter sets out the commission's view with admirable clarity and it is worth quoting. The deputy chairman said:
"This statement"—
the statement presented to members by the board of a society—
"will have to present all material facts relating to the proposals in clear and unambiguous terms so that the members can base their decisions on how to vote on an objective view of the consequences of conversion for members and employees."
486
That is the intention of the Building Societies Commission and also the intention of the regulations. The letter continues:
"When the Commission approves these statements, it will be concerned to ensure that a fair balance is drawn between a clear presentation of all the material facts and masses of detail which might obscure the central issues."
There can be little quarrel with that. That statement is fine as far as it goes, but what would happen if the Building Societies Commission approves the statement that the board proposes to send out to members but, as the result of its issue, there are serious objections from many quarters among the society's membership that it has not presented an entirely fair and balanced case?
What are the real chances of the Building Societies Commission using the powers that are available to it to refuse confirmation of the conversion? They are negligible, because it is impossible for the Building Societies Commission to be both judge and jury in its own scrutiny, which is precisely what the legislation seeks to make it. It is worth pointing out in passing that too little time was allowed between the draft statutory instrument being circulated for comment and the final version being decided upon. The group of Abbey National members—the Abbey Members Against Flotation—who have been waging a valiant campaign as David pitted against the Goliath of the board of Abbey National, made their detailed representations at a meeting with the Building Societies Commission late one week, and the final version of the statutory instrument was published the following week. So there was not enough time to take account of the detailed objections that they had to this instrument——
Mr. John Butterfill: Of the 6,500,000 members of Abbey National, how many are represented by the body to which the hon. Gentleman has referred? How many turned up at their recent meeting?
Mr. Smith: Quite a large number turned up at the meeting, which I think took place last weekend. There are several hundred members in the organisation and that number is growing weekly. They began their campaign against flotation only a few months ago; their resources are severely limited: they have been afforded no facilities by Abbey National to contact members; and they have been refused permission to place their leaflets in building society branches to enable them to contact more members. In view of all that, their record is fairly creditable, and their arguments have been put with skill and vigour, in spite of their seemingly small numbers, to which the hon. Gentleman is doubtless attempting to draw attention.
Mr. Butterfill: Would it be correct to say that there were 60 members at the last meeting?
Mr. Smith: I was not present at the meeting, so I cannot confirm or deny that number. If it is correct, it was still a creditable turnout, which may well have been much larger than the turnout at meetings of Conservative associations around the country.
I come now to the crucial issue of how tough these provisions are. I am forced to the conclusion that they are not tough or strict enough. We must remember that the board of the society will put the case to its members. It will send out the information and, having decided to recommend conversion, it will tend to put the case in a partisan way. Let us consider the mailing that Abbey National recently sent out to all its members—at their

487
expense, because the funds for it came from the funds of the society. The cost was considerable. The brochure that Abbey National sent out asked one or two questions that had been raised by members who were anxious about the process of flotation. The answers are thin to say the least. For example, to the question
"What would be the basis for allocating the shares in the PLC?"
the response is:
"An acceptable scheme will have to be worked out".
A few lines further on the brochure states:
"we would recognise Members' rights in an appropriate way."
What on earth is that supposed to mean? What sort of guidance can that statement give members about the board's intentions?
Further on in the document, the arguments for converting to plc status seem to be that
"None of the business we do today is safe from competition. Our ability to compete on equal terms with our large financial institutions is still restricted."
No mention there of the decisions that have already been taken by the Halifax and the Nationwide Anglia building societies—that their powers are ample to enable them to compete effectively. They have a flexible enough regime to be able to prosper without conversion.
However, the Abbey National says:
"we must recognise the highly competitive reality of today and build for a prosperous future."
It is like listening to speeches from Ministers at Conservative party conferences. There is no solid content to the document. Apart from having a patronising tone, it is verbose, repetitive and gives almost no concrete reasons about why conversion to plc status is a suitable and sensible option for Abbey National members.
The document is also very one-sided. The chief executive of the Abbey National seems to be rather proud of that. In an article that he wrote in The Independent of 18 July he said:
"They have been receiving"—
that is, Abbey National members—
"the first of several mailings that will set out the arguments that have convinced the Abbey National board that conversion into a plc offers the best opportunities for the future."
That was the chief executive's statement about the intention and content of the first of a number of mailings that Abbey National members will receive. Where is the two-sided balance? The chief executive says that the board will set out the argument that conversion offers the best opportunities for the future. In other words, the mailings will be entirely in favour of the recommendations that the board wants to put to members.
That leads me to the first of my four principal demands of the Government, which seek to improve and toughen the regulations over the next few months. My first demand is that the necessity for impartiality and balance should apply not just to the final transfer statement that is made to members when they are on the point of voting but to all documents sent out to members during the flotation campaign. If an argument were needed for that, the Abbey National has just supplied us with it. If there is no requirement for balance from day one of the campaign, members will be deluged with mountains of propaganda from the board telling them—at their own expense—how wonderful the idea of conversion is, long before they
488
receive the supposedly balanced statement. It is important that there should be balance throughout the process rather than just at the end of it.
My second demand is that there should be an independent auditors' validation of all the financial information provided to members, not only those aspects of information that are covered by the provisions of paragraph 14(a) of part I of the schedule to the regulations. The provisions of that paragraph mean that paragraph 8 of part I, which refers to
"The future financia1 prospects of the successor company", is omitted from the auditors' required assessment. We see no reason for that omission.
Mr. Butterfill: Is it not true that, in addition to the requirements of the transfer statement, there will be a requirement to obtain the approval of the Bank of England to achieve the objectives of the flotation? Will not the information required by the Bank of England be considerably more onerous than is likely to be required by almost any other document?
Mr. Smith: That is correct. However, we are discussing the information that is available to members of the society. I should have thought that it was unarguable that the members of the society should be assured that the information that they receive has been properly validated. That is what we request.
Thirdly, we would want to see a truly independent assessment of all the aspects and consequences of conversion, financial and non-financial, to be sent out to all members. If possible, it should be drawn up by the Building Societies Commission after consultation with groups of members opposed to flotation. It should be sent out alongside the statement made by the board. It should not be left just to the board to mount its case. If we need an argument for that, the Abbey National literature stands testament to it, as does the Abbey National's board's refusal to allow the use of facilities in its branches, at public meetings it intends to hold around the country and within its own mailing. It has denied any such facilities to any group of members of Abbey National opposed to flotation.
Fourthly, the information to be provided to members should be in plain layman's language. Many of the provisions of transfer will inevitably be complex. It is important that members have an understandable set of provisions upon which they can make a judgment.
Those are all improvements that should be made to the regulations. We shall not divide the House, because the regulations go a substantial way towards ensuring the balance we seek. However, supplementary provisions could be brought forward in due course to ensure that the improvements that we believe are necessary are made.
The Lex column at the back of the Financial Times is always worth reading. It is a column of considerable percipience. I shall watch with interest to see what it has to say tomorrow about today's news that the balance of payments deficit for June has gone over the £1 billion mark. It is yet further confirmation of the trend in the economy about which we have been warning Conservative Members and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some considerable time.
On 21 July the Lex column said:
"The clearing banks have demonstrably failed to prove that their access to the capital markets has improved their

489
performance, and the mutual Scottish Life companies often provide a much better service than their joint stock competitors."
That is absolutely right. In terms of money management and service to their customers, the mutual societies within the insurance world perform much better on the whole than those that have attained plc status. The Lex column continues:
"mutual status provides a kind of financial discipline on management which is sorely missing elsewhere."
Lex was absolutely right. There is virtually nothing to be gained and much to be lost when mutual status disappears. At the very least we must ensure that the case for or against flotation is not presented in a loaded manner but is properly, fully and fairly put. We need tougher regulations to ensure that that happens. Building society members must not be dragooned into voting the way the board wants.
9.15 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I am puzzled that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should assert that mutual status is so entirely desirable. One of the great criticisms that have been levelled at the building society movement, although it has done great work, is that it is effectively accountable to no one and that the boards of building societies have, in many cases, become self-perpetuating oligarchies simply because the representation of their members is so difficult to achieve in any effective way. The boards have effectively been able to do what they wish. Any proposal to make building society boards more accountable must, therefore, have some advantage. I am by no means totally persuaded that it would be in the best interests of this country as a whole if all our building societies went down the route of flotation.
On the other hand, it is right that different companies and their respective boards should take different views on that. What the Halifax board may decide may be quite different from what the Abbey National board decides, and that is an entirely healthy situation. There should be room for difference of opinion as to which is the best way to proceed to maintain one's competitiveness in a market in which all sorts of players who were not even envisaged a few years ago are now playing. Large American banks and Japanese organisations, such as Sumitomo and Continental, mortgage and bond-issuing houses, are now in a market that was traditionally filled by the building societies. It is right that we should be giving the building societies at least the power to respond in the way that their boards think fit.
I am also convinced that we should do that only if adequate controls exist. The controls contained in the regulations before us tonight are more than adequate. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned the requirements of the schedule in terms of the information to be given to members. Paragraph 1, which relates to the consequences of the transfer, states that the consequences are required to be given
"for members holding shares in the society;"
for borrowing members of the society; and, because the consequences will be different for them, for the employees.
I understand that the Building Societies Commission has made it clear that any statement produced will need to be a fair and balanced statement, giving the case from all sides. I believe that I am correct in saying that Michael Bridgeman has written a letter to the Abbey National
490
requiring that. I am led to suspect, therefore, that the concerns expressed by the Opposition this evening stem more from their reluctance to see new private sector companies being created than from anything else. There is more than a suspicion in the case of the Abbey National that AMAF—Abbey Members Against Flotation—may be substantially organised by the Labour party.
Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with that. I have had considerable contact over a number of weeks with key members of AMAF. Many of them would be outraged by such a suggestion as the hon. Gentleman has just made. I live in hope that they may in due course see the light and come to support the Labour party, but the hon. Gentleman's statement is completely incorrect.
Mr. Butterfill: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes exception to what I said. Perhaps I can try to justify my suspicions. The hon. Gentleman must correct me if anything that I say is incorrect. I believe that the chairman of AMAF is a Mr. Alec Leaver, who is a prominent member of the Labour party and a former trade union official. I believe that one of the most active members of AMAF is Mr. Peter Lowndes, who I believe is a research assistant to the hon. Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Another leading light in AMAF is a Mr. Hugh Raven who I believe is a research assistant to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is totally factually incorrect. Mr. Hugh Raven is indeed my research assistant, but he is not a member of AMAF. He has had a number of discussions with AMAF in preparation for this debate, and others, as I have had with Abbey National board members. He is certainly not a member of it, and to describe him as a leading activist is incorrect. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I accept what he says. I understand, however, that Mr. Hugh Raven has been taking part in the meetings of AMAF. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell me if he has not been present at those meetings. As I understand it, Mr. Peter Lowndes is a member of the AMAF committee. Mr. Lowndes is the research assistant to the hon. Members for Redcar and for Fife, Central. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury if he wishes to deny that.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is developing an extremely thin argument. He has established so far that two members of the AMAF committee happen to be members of the Labour party. I suggest that that is no argument to support his outrageous statement.
Mr. Butterfill: I thought that I had established that three of them were, including the chairman and at least one member of the committee, and that two of them were closely associated with leading Labour Members. It is that, combined with the fact that AMAF was able to muster only 60 people at its meeting—that must be set against 5·5 million investing members and 1 million borrowing members—that leads me to have some scepticism about AMAFs right to speak for Abbey National members. It leads me to support the view of the Abbey National board that AMAF's suggestion that the AMAF statement

491
should be sent out along with the transfer statement to all Abbey National members would be to give AMAF a prominence which would not be entirely deserved or reflected by its membership or supporters.
Be that as it may, that which is proposed in the regulations is entirely reasonable. It will give more than adequate safeguards to any potential investor. It will certainly give more than adequate information to the existing members of any building society. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the House.
9.23 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The questions whether a building society should convert into a public limited company and, if so, how the process should be regulated are important ones. It is right that the House should discuss them before departing for the summer. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The Building Societies Act 1986 gives building societies the option to convert from mutually owned institutions into plcs if they and their members believe that it is in their interests to do so. I am sure that it is right that the option to convert should be available. It is right also that the decision on conversion should be made by society members and no one else.
The Government's position on any particular proposal to convert is a simple one—we are neutral. The Government wish neither to encourage nor to discourage conversion. The Government want the choice to convert to be made on a level playing field according to fair rules. The Act empowers the Building Societies Commission, with the consent of the Treasury, to set out such rules in the form of transfer regulations, and that is what we are considering.
The regulations have been made after wide and extensive discussions with all concerned, including, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned, the members of the organisation entitled Abbey Members Against Flotation. I understand that that group was given the opportunity to comment on the draft regulations soon after it was formed, and it has acknowledged that its comments were taken into account. The consultation process has been continuing since the first paper was issued in 1987, with draft regulations being issued in December 1987. Therefore, the views of all concerned expressed during that long consultation process have been taken into account in the final regulations laid before the House.
The regulations cover three major areas and a number of minor areas. First, they provide for the continuity of agreements, documents, rights and liabilities from the society to its successor company. They thereby ensure that, for example, mortgage contracts are unaffected by conversion. The successor company simply steps into the society's shoes. Secondly, the regulations deal with the priority liquidation rights of former members of a society that converts. Thirdly, and most important, the regulations set out the matters to be included in the transfer statement that must be sent to members of the society considering conversion. The purpose of that statement is to give members a clear and balanced presentation of all the material facts that they will need to
492
know before making up their minds on which way to vote. It cannot be circulated until it has been approved by the Building Societies Commission.
The main requirement is that the statement shall give an explanation of the consequences, both positive and negative, of conversion for the members, borrowers and employees of the society. It will have to cover, for example, the treatment of investment and mortgage accounts and employment prospects. The society's financial record and present position will have to be set out, together with particulars of the proposed business plans of the successor company and forecasts of its future financial prospects. Those will be certified by a qualified auditor.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned item 8 of part I of the schedule, concerning future financial prospects, and asked that it, too, be audited. It is not really appropriate to audit a forecast, but the commission will ensure that the requirements of regulation 3(2)—specifying all necessary assumptions, who made them, and who will stand by them —are incorporated in the transfer document. That meets the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's point.
I shall not enumerate all the items listed in the schedule which it is required that the transfer document contains, as they are clearly specified therein. The schedule to the regulations is intended to be comprehensive, but, in addition, the commission has the power to require other matters not specified in the schedule to be included in a transfer statement if the commission thinks that that would be appropriate in a particular case.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has taken up the idea that, in addition to being required to circulate all that information, societies should be obliged to circulate the views of members opposed to flotation. I do not believe that that proposal is either necessary or practical. The regulations and the commission together provide powerful safeguards against a society tempted to put only partial and one-sided information to its members. It is not reasonable to require a society to circulate all its members with the views of every opponent, at any length and regardless of cost.
However, it is worth noting that the Building Societies Act 1986 requires that if a group of 50 members propose a resolution at the AGM, the society must circulate not only that resolution but a copy of a short statement of up to 100 words to all members qualified to vote, provided that the resolution and statement are not frivolous and would not damage confidence in the society. Therefore, a small group of members can have their views circulated to thousands or even millions of their fellow members. A group of 100 members can also requisition a special meeting of the society if they think fit.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury called for transfer documents to be certified as fair and accurate by an independent person, or for a parallel document to be produced and certified as fair and accurate by an independent person. As I have already said, the transfer document must itself be approved by the Building Societies Commission before it can be sent to members. Therefore, it will be subject to scrutiny by an independent body to ensure that it is fair and accurate. The commission is the only body empowered to undertake that function, and it is a very suitable one for the commission. Moreover, the financial information contained in the statement must be certified by a qualified auditor.

493
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also wanted similar vetting and objectivity requirements applied to all statements made by the society prior to the issue of the transfer document. I do not think that that would be reasonable or sensible. The management of a building society has been selected by members of the society and entrusted to manage and lead it. It is only reasonable that the management should be given a free hand to give a lead without every statement being censored while its critics and opponents are free from such restriction in general discussion that may last for months before the transfer documents are ready.
Under the Building Societies Act 1986, the manage-ment, rightly, has a considerable hurdle to jump before conversion can be carried through. Not a simple majority but a 75 per cent. majority of investing members of the society is required to support conversion. A minimum of 20 per cent., a substantial number in many instances, must take part in the vote, and 50 per cent. of voting borrowers must also support the conversion. I do not feel that it would be reasonable to require the management, prior to that, to maintain an almost monk-like silence unless every word has been vetted.
In any event, once resolutions have been passed the transfer still cannot go ahead until the commission has confirmed it, and it cannot do that if it considers that the vote does not represent the views of the members. In that case, it will hold a hearing at which objectors will have an opportunity to say if they do not believe that the vote was carried out fairly, or if any material information was withheld or misrepresented in the transfer statement. If the commission is persuaded that material information was withheld, it will not grant the conversion before taking remedial action.
Another matter that has caused concern is the possibility of takeovers once a society has converted. The Act does not set out all the details of the new company's articles of association; however, they must incorporate protective provisions that prevent any one person from holding more than 15 per cent. of the shares for the first five years of the successor company. Those provisions are intended to give societies a reasonable breathing space after conversion without the threat of a change in control, so that they can adapt to their new environment of company and banking legislation. Those are important conditions. We consider it right that the institutions involved should have a limited period of stability after conversion, free from the threat of takeovers, and that they should adopt such measures as are necessary to maintain their independence during that period.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Can the Minister tell us whether the important, if now somewhat neglected, aspect of mutual status—the right of members to put resolutions to the meetings—will be preserved in the company status that will result if building societies take advantage of the opportunities that the regulations provide? Will members find themselves in the position in which I found myself as a shareholder in Beecham? I was unable to participate in the annual general meeting to protest at Beecham's contributions to the Conservative party because under the company's rules the backing of 2 per cent. of shareholders was required in order to put a resolution. That would probably require the presence of more than 100,000 people.
Mr. Lilley: The successor society will be a company under the Companies Act. Members of that company will therefore have the rights of any members of such a company, plus any rights granted by the articles of association that will be presented to them in the transfer period.
Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister confirm that after conversion a building society would be answerable to its shareholders and only to its shareholders? That would not necessarily include, as membership does at the moment, all borrowers and investors.
Mr. Lilley: That is the very essence of conversion. Any borrower or investor would be able to buy shares and become a voting member, or in the process of conversion he might acquire or be given such shares. That is a factor that members will have to take into account when they decide whether it is right for them to convert. If they like the total package, they will support it. If they do not like it, they will not support it. That is up to them, and we believe that it should be left up to them.
This is not a party political matter. It is for the members of each society to reach a decision in the context of a fair set of rules and regulations that ensure that all material considerations are made clear to them during the discussions. It would be regrettable if it were to become a party political matter. I am glad that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has not sought to politicise it to any great degree. By promising not to oppose the regulations the hon. Gentleman has recognised that they pave the way for fair consideration of decisions that should be made by members of each society, not by hon. Members.
Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to protect the interests of society members they will be given priority rights in the event of a liquidation after conversion?
Mr. Lilley: That is correct. That is laid down in the Act, and the regulations specify how liquidation rights are to be calculated and secured. Society members will retain those rights after conversion. I hope that the House will not annul the regulations.
9.37 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I listened with care and interest to the Minister's speech. His latter remarks will be welcomed by all hon. Members, but a few points need to be elaborated.
The Economic Secretary said that mortgage contracts will be unaffected by transfer. I accept that that is correct, but I am sure that he agrees that the future conduct and performance of a building society, once it has become a corporate entity, could affect the rate of interest that the building society, or the incorporated bank as it would then be, might subsequently charge. When voting, society members should take that fact into account.
The Economic Secretary also said that managements have been entrusted with the duty of leading building societies and that it should be accepted that managements have leadership qualities. Again that is not in dispute, but to run a building society as a mutual body is quite different from running it as a bank. A few commentators have said that that could make the switch very difficult. The management of a building society, which is very competent

495
at running a mutual society, could unwittingly lead its members into taking commercial risks for the commercial consequences of which they are not prepared because they lack the necessary expertise. Managers of building societies are not bankers, yet the transfer will convert them into bankers without necessarily providing them with the necessary wisdom and experience to be bankers. That fact must also be borne in mind by all society members when voting for or against conversion.
I do not wish to enter into the debate about whether a particular society—for example, the Abbey National—will serve its existing members and its own future interests better by conversion. I would be very disappointed if that was the course of action that all building societies might wish to follow like gadarene swine. I hope that the Economic Secretary will accept the need for diversity of choice. Putting it bluntly, if we simply converted all building societies into joint stock banks, we would reduce rather than increase the diversity of choice. I hope that as the regulations progress that will be borne in mind.
I anticipate that the Government may take the view that the market and the customers' wishes will automatically determine that. But experience shows that that is not necessarily so. There are fashions in market trends and economic developments change. It would be unfortunate, particularly as building societies vary enormously in size, capability, experience and geographical base—I hope it would not happen—if building societies sought to abandon their commitment to a particular locality. There is merit in a building society having a regional base which it knows and understands, and that is not necessarily a disadvantage.
To some extent, if building societies are likely to convert to a banking mechanism—and I understand the pressures on them to do that—it would be nice to think that some of them might convert to local banks with a particular local knowledge and regional expertise. That would ensure that the changes and the dynamism that is operating within the market led to increased choice, diversity and variety. I hope that the Government and their supporters genuinely wish that to happen but accept that simply saying that the members should be allowed to make their own decisions will not necessarily produce the desired result.
There is no doubt that the current or previous operation of the Building Societies Act has been unduly restrictive and has prevented building societies from moving into related areas. In previous years, it has led to nonsense whereby people who thought that they were mutual members of a building society because they were savers found that they were precluded from acquiring a mortgage or changing their mortgage because of the restrictions that were imposed on building societies. I have been in that situation, and I quite understand that members of building societies do not regard that as an impressive example of the flexibility and function of a building society.
I do not wish to oppose the regulations, and I accept the qualifications that the Economic Secretary has made. I simply wish to make the marker that, as we move into increasing diversity and flexibility, with which building societies are allowed to respond to the developments within banking, I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact
496
that there is benefit in mutuality and in having local and regional knowledge. The best result of the regulations will be if some opt to take advantage of the regulations and move in different directions so that we continue to have a diversified system of mortgages and banking which is national and regional and offers a genuine choice rather than a bland, across-the-board picture which makes choosing between one society or bank and another a lottery that makes no difference.
Real choice matters. The regulations do not preclude choice; they extend choice. But we should be aware of the dangers of opening up too quickly and leading too many building societies down a similar path and so restricting diversity.
9.43 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I should like to comment briefly on two points which have arisen during the debate, and first to take up the argument made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). In an uncharacteristic display of incompetence, he departed from the Minister's injunction that this was not a party political matter and sought to characterise it as a party political matter.
The hon. Gentleman based his entire argument—that the regulations provide more than adequate safeguards —on a rather cack-handed attempt to besmirch one organisation, for which I hold no brief, that has engaged in a campaign against the flotation of Abbey National. His was an inaccurate and rather unfair attempt to rest an argument on flimsy foundations.
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my family founded the Abbey National building society. I believe that the object of the regulations would be much approved by its founders, as they were criticised in the 1870s because they were supposed to be taking away from smaller societies the opportunity to look after their investors. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as we approach 1992, it is important that building societies should compete and that they should be able to provide the kind of service which is relevant to the late 19th and 20th centuries?
Mr. Smith: I should have known that an hon. Member with the hon. Gentleman's name was part of a family which founded a major financial institution. The hon. Gentleman is correct. We trawled over this subject at considerable length a few weeks ago when we considered a statutory instrument. I said clearly that there is a need for building societies to compete in the modern financial world and that that instrument gave building societies the opportunity and flexibility that they require to do that. There is no need to convert to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants.
The Economic Secretary said that it would not be reasonable or sensible to place a duty of impartiality on the board of a building society when sending out literature before the final transfer document. It is Abbey National's stated intention to put out several pieces of literature before the final transfer document. We believe that it is sensible and reasonable to put a duty of impartiality on it. The Economic Secretary said that, if we did that, the board would be censored but its critics would not. We should remember, however, that the board sends out literature at the members' expense. It is members, through the society,

497
who fund such literature, whereas any opposing literature is paid for entirely out of the pockets of the members involved. That is a crucial difference.
Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: No. I am drawing to a conclusion.
I hope that the Economic Secretary's mind is not closed on this matter and that he will consider it during the summer recess. It is an important matter, and I hope that, although we shall allow the regulations to go through without a Division, we shall be able to consider closely any possible and necessary improvements to the procedures for conversion.
Question put and negatived.

Road Transport
9.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6048/88 on social legislation relating to road transport.
In December 1985 the EC approved two regulations —3820/85 and 3821/85—prescribing the maximum permitted driving hours and minimum rest periods for drivers of goods and passenger vehicles, and providing for the use of tachographs for checking drivers' activities. The House debated the regulations in draft form in March 1984 and the related Transport Act 1968 regulations on 15 July 1986. Those concerted regulations, which apply to both domestic and international driving, came into effect on 29 September 1986.
The EC regulations were in many ways a "British kilometre post" or a "European milestone". Against the decision by the Council of Ministers in May 1985 to implement the single market by 1992, they were an attempt to provide harmonised rules on driving in the interests of fair competition, improved working conditions and road safety, while at the same time providing sufficient flexibility to meet the diverse needs of a modern transport industry. Those regulations were not everything that the United Kingdom Government would have wished. They represented the results of over two years' difficult negotiation with other member states in Europe. But as a package, they were acceptable to us.
The draft proposals that we are considering tonight, those contained in EC document 6048/88, have two strands. Both relate to the 1985 regulations. First, there is a proposed directive aimed at better enforcement of the regulations. Making sure that the agreed rules are complied with by means of more and standard checking procedures must be in everyone's interest. The Government fully support the aims underlying the directive on checking procedures. The second strand is the proposal for a new regulation amending the regulations. The Government are opposed to the proposed changes to the existing regulations.
The drivers' hours and tachograph regulations have three main objectives—to promote road safety by requiring drivers to have adequate rest and breaks and preventing excessive driving, to ensure that competition between hauliers and coach operators in this area is fair and on a common basis, and to give drivers reasonable conditions of work and leisure and prevent their exploitation.
To achieve those objectives within what the regulations provide for, efficient, effective checking on a standardised basis by all member states is necessary. The directive sets out to achieve that. It has been discussed in detail by officials in Brussels and was considered by the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg on 20 June. There is widespread support. Agreement on the details is close, but it cannot be approved until Parliament has pronounced on the requirements. The opinion of the European Parliament is also required. In explaining the draft directive to the House, I will endeavour to indicate where modifications to the Commission's proposals contained in document 6048/88 are contemplated by the Council.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that nothing could happen until the House of Commons did something. Is this not one of the matters covered by article 100A whereby it can be considered by a majority vote? Or am I quite wrong in that?
Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure. If I can give my hon.Friend an answer in a moment, I will. I would prefer to explain why the——
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend does not know. That is outrageous.
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has asked me a question. Perhaps I might be allowed to respond in my own way to the question he has chosen to ask.
The first part of what is proposed is acceptable, subject to minor modifications. The second part is not only not acceptable to us, but we think will be unacceptable to all member states. Therefore, the point raised by my hon. Friend does not appear to be terribly relevant.
The main substance of the directive is contained in draft article 3. This specifies—article 3(1)—the annual level of checking to be carried out by member states—30 per cent. of vehicles in circulation and 30 per cent. of operators. Modifications to this have been suggested and the Council looked favourably on an alternative of checking 1 per cent. of working days carried out under regulations 3820 and 3821 in each country as represented by the daily tachograph charts. At least 15 per cent. of the checking of charts under the alternative regime would have to be carried out at the roadside. Neither the Commission's original requirement nor the alternative proposal would cause difficulties for the United Kindom. Our checking is done by the Department of Transport and Northern Ireland traffic examiners as well as by police officers. The Department of Transport's national enforcement plan sets out, among other things, the checking requirements for traffic examiners. They will meet the levels proposed in the directive. We are planning to check over 1 million daily tachograph charts a year.
Articles 3(2) to 3(6) specify that the checks should be carried out at the roadside and at the operators' premises, and give the items to be considered by investigating officers. Modifications considered by the Council would further amplify these requirements by giving better and more detailed guidance on what these checks should entail, which would be useful.
Article 3(7) requires the numbers and results of checks to be conveyed to the Commission annually. We consider that this requirement is already present in article 16 of EC regulation 3820/85.
Article 3(8) requires authorities to carry out checks at operators' premises at the request of another member state concerned. This would cause no difficulty for the United Kingdom. We consider such co-operation necessary to prevent those who abuse the rules escaping detection by crossing national borders.
More general requirements for simultaneous checking operations and the exchange of data between member states are set out in articles 4 and 5. Article 4 requires member states to carry out simultaneous checks on four specified days each year. While we support the underlying idea of highlighting the importance of checking and demonstrating member states' commitment to it, we feel that to pre-advertise the dates of the combined operations
500
would be somewhat naive. I suspect that this is one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) had in mind. The Council has considered an alternative whereby member states would carry out at least twice-yearly concerted operations with at least one other member state. This would be a better arrangement. I suspect that those who break the rules would think that it is a worse arrangement, which is one of the reasons why we support it.
Article 5 specifies the data that are to be exchanged between member states on breaches of the regulations. Article 17(3) of regulation 3820/85 and article 19(3) of regulation 3821/85 already require data exchange, and we consider the further proposed provisions to be unnecessary. The Council has considered an alternative which would simply specify that the bilateral data exchanges under the present regulations should take place every 12 months, while allowing other specific requests on demand. This is a better and more flexible solution.
Articles 1, 6 and 7 are purely definitional and procedural. Article 2 lays down 1 January 1989 as the date for implementing the directive. Again, this would cause no problems for the United Kingdom.
The Government's position on the proposed directive is one of support, subject only to the minor modifications I have outlined. Enforcement of the rules is crucial. I feel confident that the House will want to give its support to the objective of achieving better standardised checking procedures among all EC member states. The draft regulation in EC document 6048/88 would have the effect of amending the present regulations 3820 and 3821/85. The House will note that the intention of the proposal is to
"clarify certain definitions in order to avoid misinterpretation and abuse."
This is a laudable aim, but examination of the draft articles shows that either the real aim or the effect is to change radically the present regulations.
Agreement on regulations 3820 and 3821 came only after more than two years of hard and detailed discussions in Brussels. Both sides of industry were consulted during those discussions. In those negotiations we could not expect to have it all our own way, but there were positive results. Benefits for drivers were increased weekly rest, up from 40 to 45 hours, and decreased driving, down from 92 to 90 hours in a fortnight. Benefits for operators were increased operational flexibility, with the ability to increase daily driving from 9 to 10 hours twice a week, and to postpone part of daily and weekly rest subject to later compensation for the drivers. Both sides would have wanted more, but the new rules represented a reasonable, hard-won compromise arrived at between member states and, overall, the best deal we could negotiate for both sides of the road and passenger transport industries.
The regulations were implemented less than two years ago. Quite significant costs were involved in implementation. It meant retraining the whole of the work force in the freight and passenger industries as well as officers in the enforcement agencies. Those costs were borne by Government, operators, unions and police forces. They applied not just here but across the whole of the Community. It is too soon to contemplate radical changes, and that is what the small print of the draft regulations implies.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend listed all the organs that had to pay the cost of this. Has he not missed out the most important one —the consumer, to whom all the costs are, in the end, passed on?
Mr. Bottomley: I apologise to the House for dealing with the technical issues in the main. When I was taking the draft regulations through the House, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will acknowledge, I made it clear that the aim was not to increase costs to consumers or the end users of the transport industry but to provide flexibility, as we called it. The Transport and General Workers Union, and some who spoke in support of its views from the Opposition Benches, argued for a relaxation of drivers' hours regulations and the abolition of some of the duty hours requirements. During those debates, there was no suggestion of increased costs to those paying for road haulage. My argument was to allow flexibility so that drivers would not be faced with ludicrous situations. For example, a driver might run out of hours half an hour's drive away from the depot. He would have to ring up the depot manager, who would come out in a car. The driver would drive the car back and the manager would drive the truck back. Such situations are ludicrous, even before we move on to the provisions in the new regulations.
My hon. Friend has rightly made a point that the Government take seriously and, if there were a choice, we would want to ensure that we were taking cost compliance analysis fully into account. The House can be assured that this issue comes up neither under these regulations nor in the changes that came two years ago. No doubt the hon. Member for Stretford will correct me if I am wrong on that.
I was explaining why the second part of the draft directive is wrong. It comes too soon because the industry is just beginning to settle down under the new rules, because industry and Governments—not just this one— should not be asked to bear the additional cost that would be involved and because the changes proposed would bring no new benefits and would in fact bring disbenefits. To put it less diplomatically, it is just wrong and should not happen.
In opening up the regulations for revision, as is proposed in the draft regulation, it is not certain that the United Kingdom could retain some of those important points, hard won in negotiations last time round. The draft regulation has not been considered in detail by officials in Brussels or by the Council. It would seem that it commands no significant measure of support among member states. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will accept this point. The answer to his question, which I should have been able to answer immediately, is that the directive and regulations would be subject to majority voting by the Council, if necessary. I hope that my speech has made it plain that this is not necessary and that the unacceptable second half does not have support, while the acceptable first part does.
Many of the difficulties arise in the context of definitional points contained in article 1. This would change the present definition of the "week" from the fixed period between midnight Sunday to midnight of the following Sunday to any period of seven days, this period starting when the driver starts driving following a weekly rest period. It is difficult to see any benefit whatsoever in
502
this change. It would be to revert to the position that existed before regulation 3820. The "fixed week" was introduced in the present regulations to counteract the abuses under the "rolling week" system. The proposal would simply reintroduce those abuses. If every driver has a different starting point for calculating weekly rest and compensation requirements, the difficulties of both comprehension for drivers and enforcement are enormous. That was the position which existed before Septernber 1986. At a more practical level, the change would involve altering the software systems used for computer scanning of charts by enforcement agencies and commercial bureaux. I do not regard that as the most important reason for imposing this definitional change in the regulation to change the regulations.
Article 2 refers to the mandatory exemption from the social regulations of vehicles used for sewage, flood protection, water, gas and so on. It seeks to limit this exemption to vehicles used by public authorities or under contract to public authorities. The present regulations exempt all vehicles carrying out the specified transport operations. We fought hard to achieve that during the earlier negotiations. If private operators are competing with public authorities for the same work, they must compete on equal terms. That is fundamental to this Government's policy and the requirements of the single market. We would not find the proposed amendment acceptable.
Article 3—amending article 6 of the existing regulations —would limit driving to nine hours—10 hours twice a week—in any 24-hour period. The present regulations define these driving period limits as coming between claily rest periods. This amendment would prevent a driver who had driven for nine hours and then taken an 11-hour claily rest from driving again for another four hours. That seems to be an attempt not only to limit driving, but to limit total working duty time. The House will recall that that was raised during the discussions of regulation 3820 but found no support among member states. We would not wish to see duty limits reintroduced through the back door by this proposed regulation.
There is a great deal more at this level of detail inherent in the draft amending regulation. I would be willing to explain further if the House wishes. I have probably sufficiently demonstrated the point that if the laudable aim of the draft regulation were to clarify definitional points, the draft before the House is flawed. I would not claim that the regulations as we have them are perfect, but they represent a reasonable compromise set of rules capable of practical enforcement. If and when the draft regulations come forward for detailed discussion in Brussels, the United Kingdom Government would wish to make the points I have explained to the House.
10.6 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) asked about consumer interests, but the other interest that should be taken into account in our discussions is road safety.
We must establish a balance between the number of hours that drivers work and the costs to industry and the consumer, while ensuring that drivers are not forced to work overlong hours. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is in everyone's interests. In 1984, in

503
a transport debate, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
"There is no disagreement about the broad objectives of the regulations. Since the 1930s, Governments of all complexions have recognised that commercial pressures can lead transport operators and drivers to indulge in excessive driving that can endanger both themselves and other road users … one's own common sense is enough to show that tired drivers are dangerous."—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 132.]
I agree with the Minister that the regulations, in common with a lot of European legislation that comes before the House, are not helpful. It is a mystery to me why there is such mad pressure to introduce some sort of European standardisation when it would not be in the interests of the consumer or road safety.
The way in which this matter will be dealt with by the Council of Ministers is important. I hope that when the crunch comes the British Government—should they find themselves isolated—will be able to prevent the introduction of the regulations.
The directive is a different matter and it contains some things of merit. However, the Minister is right to draw attention to the nonsensical idea of having four days a year.——
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Eurodays.
Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Eurodays on which the forces of law, order and enlightenment will move to prevent abuse by the already extremely suspicious travelling commercial traffic. It is obvious that they will be just as prepared for those Eurodays as the Department of Transport. It is a ludicrous idea and why the Commission put it in the directive is a mystery.
It would be wrong not to acknowledge the sense of the Commission's suggestion that about 30 per cent. of vehicles should be checked every year. The Minister claimed that the Department would have no problems with that, but I am a little more sceptical. I know that the Department of Transport insists that it is on the way to being able to check such numbers, but I am not sure whether that is based on accurate statistics of how many vehicles are already checked. There are considerable difficulties with enforcement. The number of traffic inspectors is relatively small—perhaps fewer than 200 are in charge not only of enforcing tachograph compliance, but of the overloading of lorries and so on, all of which takes considerable time.
In June this year Department of Transport inspectors, in co-operation with the police, cracked down on foreign vehicles on the Ml. It was found that about nine out of 10 of them were in breach of regulations of one sort or another—not all to do with tachographs. If we are serious about enforcement we shall need more traffic inspectors, and unless the Minister can tell the House that the money and political will are available for such enforcement, by providing more inspectors, it will not take place.
The aim of checking 30 per cent. of vehicles a year is laudable, but enforcement is bedevilled by various factors, including the growth of international traffic. With the approach of 1992 and of much traffic from the non-English speaking world, Britain's police will face considerable problems. I note in the directive the suggestion that police should be issued with a language
504
chart which will allow them to converse at least at a basic level with non-English speaking drivers—or with those who choose to be non-English speaking when their vehicles are pulled up at the roadside. I am assured that the scheme operates successfully in Germany, where the police have comprehensive language charts that allow them to monitor and enforce their traffic regulations. That is not done here, so I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the quality of the charts for his inspectors and the police who will be involved.
I also draw the House's attention to another point raised by the Minister—the connection between roadside checks and checks at premises. It is critical that both are done. Roadside checks are important, but if there is no follow-through at the place of work where the tachograph records are kept for a longer period there can and will be widespread abuse of the system.
It might be useful if I mentioned to the Minister an amendment to the directive that was proposed in the European Parliament by a Labour Member, who said that it would make sense to have a regulation that made it compulsory for all drivers to be issued with consecutively numbered record tachograph discs, so that when stopped drivers would have to show—this could easily be checked —their tachograph records. Otherwise, they could say that they had slipped in new ones five minutes before and did not have the other ones because they had just taken over their cabs. It is important that such physical checks take place.
The relevant trade unions, which have always taken a line that is undeniably related to the safety of their members and that would avoid their being pressurised by their employers, have told me that it would be valuable if the discs were signed by an authorised employee of the company concerned. The argument runs that an authorised signature would wonderfully concentrate the minds of those involved, and there would be no systematic attempt to abuse the tachograph system. Such abuse is unfortunately all too prevalent now.
I want to make a number of points on the existing situation. The Minister has drawn attention to the importance of recognising how impractical the proposed new regulations are, but it is equally important to recognise the problems of the present system. There is no particular merit in the European Commission's proposal. The Commission has not helped us, but we must recognise that there is the potential—some would suggest that it exists already—for large-scale abuse.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that tachograph charts should be signed by the operator when they are issued to the driver or when they have been checked by the operator after being used by the driver?
Mr. Lloyd: Both. It would be helpful if the company took steps to guarantee that the discs issued to drivers were recorded and that they were signed back in at the end. That would establish a proper mechanism by which to check which discs went out.
There are abuses of the present regulations. Under the present system there is a global limit of 90 hours over two weeks and an allocation of up to 56 hours in any one week. It is difficult to avoid the possibility of a driver working 56 hours in two consecutive weeks. In the first week of a four-week cycle he could operate for only 34 hours a week, allowing him to operate for 56 hours in the second and

505
third weeks, to be followed by 34 hours in the fourth week. That is against the spirit and perhaps even the letter of the regulations. However, without enforcement, that is difficult to stop.
Article 3 provides for limited driving periods of 56 hours for one week or 90 hours for two weeks. Does that mean any period of two weeks, however defined, or two consecutive weeks? That may be a question of semantics, but it is not unimportant if a driver operates 56 hours on two consecutive weeks.
In the same vein, there is a real question about rest periods. The Minister said that he did not want to reintroduce the old system of duty hours through the back door. Nevertheless, there is a widespread practice of getting round the regulations whereby a driver uses his rest period for loading and unloading so that rather than being a rest period it is merely a period during which the tachograph is not operating.
It is important that the rest period should be a physical break, not simply an alternative form of work. Drivers can operate many hours a day while still complying strictly with the letter of the regulations. Fatigue is dangerous, as the then Minister for Public Transport said in 1984. That fatigue is dangerous whether it is caused by loading and unloading or by driving. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
It has also been suggested that there is fairly wide abuse of the tachograph system in terms of the weekly break entitlement. It is possible to ask a driver to pull over to the side of the road, but the driver's tachograph record over a long period is not always examined. The weekly break entitlement of 45 hours is spelt out in the regulations, but, because it is possible to take advantage of the exemptions and move to a 36-hour break, or even, in some circumstances, a 24-hour break, drivers can regularly operate with 36-hour or 24-hour breaks without compensating in the following weeks, and that is a widespread abuse.
There is some advantage in article 5 of the Commission's regulations because that makes it clear that any compensation has to take place in the following week, not simply over a prolonged period. That depends on the mechanisms for enforcement. I hope that the Minister will turn his attention to how that breach of the regulations could be avoided.
I should like to put a technical point. Under article 4 the break of 45 minutes in every four and a half hours driving period would have to be taken within that period. The present position is that the 45-minute break can be taken after the four and a half hour driving period. There is a difference of interpretation between the police and the Department of Transport. The police argue—they are supported by some of the trade unions—that for every four and a half hour driving period there should be a 45-minute break. The Department of Transport seems to argue that as long as the 45-minute break is taken after the initial four and a half hours, it is possible to continue the rest of the nine or 10 hour driving period without any extra break. To that extent there would be an advantage in the idea promoted by the Commission that the 45-minute break should be integrated into the four and a half hour period. It would avoid dispute between the Department of Transport and the police. On this issue I think that the Department of Transport is wrong.
This is a fairly technical debate, but it is important because we are talking about road safety. I have already
506
made it clear that I do not see the relevance of the European Commission's proposals for new regulations. However, some aspects would be useful. The Minister should continue with his declared intention to ignore the Commission on the regulations. I note that tonight the Prime Minister was distancing herself significantly from the European Commission. I am sure that that will give heart to some Conservative Members. On that issue, if not on much else, I have some sympathy with the Prime Minister's position. The Minister should note the position of his leader and make it clear to the Commission that the regulations would be dangerous in terms of what we are trying to promote. However, I hope that he will accept that it would be sensible to introduce some aspects into the British legal system because they would enhance road safety in Britain.
10.23 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I want to ask three specific questions. The Commission's proposals on driving hours are outrageous. The starting and finishing times for weekly and daily driving would become less suited to the irregular patterns of work within the road haulage and passenger transport industries as would the compensating rest period arrangement. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the outrageous proposals.
How will the regulations be determined? I have become concerned—from what she said today it seems that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is also concerned —about the attitude of Ministers in the Council to the issue of majority voting or unanimity. The Prime Minister said that she is concerned that some of the directives coming before the Council are unsuited to common sense and to the interests of the United Kingdom. When we discuss the directives I ask Ministers repeatedly whether we are dealing with an issue of majority voting or unanimity. The Minister, as always, has been extremely courteous and said that this was an issue for majority voting.
The biggest worry is that the Commission in its quest for an extension of its powers is forcing, under article 100A, issues that should never be matters for majority voting. I suspect that the proposals should probably be dealt with under article 75, which would, according to the paper, have been an issue for majority voting and that the proposals are simply an extension or clarification of the 1985 regulations on driving hours.
Whenever proposals come up before the Council, the Government must first ask whether there will be an unanimous or a majority vote. If the Government take the view that the decision should not be taken by a majority vote, they must challenge the decision at the first instance because, unless the challenge is issued immediately, it is impossible to alter the basis of the consideration, unless there is unanimity in the Council.
Even if the provisions will not be effective—I suspect that they may come under the treaty of Rome's regional article 75—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to inquire about the basis of voting before discussions start. If they do not, they may find themselves with their trousers down, having something pushed through by majority vote. I appeal to the Minister to have a word with the Home Secretary on the issue of summer

507
time which was found out, belatedly, to have been decided on the basis of majority voting. It is too late to change that, unless everyone else agrees.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what was the view about article 2 of those who were at the Council meeting. The most worrying things about the proceedings in the Commission are the extension of Socialism and the favours for public enterprises. The Minister will know that, in almost every aspect of the Commission's current policies, we see all the things that we thought a Thatcherite Government were against—extension of subsidy, control, centralisation and protectionism. The Minister must surely be aware that the Commission, under the present leadership, and the Council are forcing through measures that we in this country have fought against.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, for example, local authorities are now instructed that they must put services out to competitive tender to ensure a fair balance of decision-making, but, if he looks at article 2, he will see that there is a specific proposal that private contractors should not be treated in the same way as public authorities. I appeal to him to look at page 7 of the document where it states specifically that article 2 would amend article 4
"by excluding from its scope only those vehicles used by Public Authorities or under contract to Public Authorities in connection with the provision of the public services listed in paragraph 6."
It goes on to state that
"With the increasing 'privatisation' of public services, this ensures that private operators who provide such services are not exempt … unless they are under contract to Public Authorities."
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to say what were the views of the various members of the Council on article 2, which is simply an extension of Socialism and undermines a Bill that the Government fought hard to get through this Parliament. The Minister must be well aware that under majority voting, although drivers' hours themselves may be rejected, it is possible for some compromise to be brought forward which might include something of that sort. I hope that the Minister is watching that, and that he can give us some kind of assurance.
I also appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us what he means by saying that we must ensure that enforcement is improved. He must know what the rules are and what is happening. He must know some of the standard stories that I have been passing on to him, for example, about Southend. He will know from his colleagues and from Ministers in the Foreign Office, who have been helping me, that although Community regulations made it an essential part of Community law that a bus could go from Ostend to Frankfurt, there were discussions four years ago between the Foreign Secretary and Herr Genscher, who was then the appropriate German Minister. The Minister will know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office took infraction proceedings at the Commission and that there were flights across the sea to German Departments, but that there was constant blockage against Community rules. The final blockage was when the authorities in Frankfurt claimed that they could not find a parking space for the bus.
508
My hon. Friend the Minister may also be aware from a question that I asked this week that a firm called Upsons in Southend runs splendid buses to Germany. The company has been astonished to find out that it is now being charged a levy of so much per metre, per passenger for taking a bus into Germany. If we are to have equal treatment and fairness, it is unlikely to be lawful for that to be done.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a rather different attitude is adopted to transport regulations from that adopted to other regulations. I hope that he will come to Kent to see some of the ports where we have the appropriate arrangements for testing vehicles that come from abroad. He should ask some of the operators and inspectors about the percentage of vehicles found not to conform with the current regulations.
I hope that the Minister will think about my three questions and give me some assurances. I ask him to clarify the status of the proposal to amend European Community document No. 3820/85. Is it dead? Will the Council not discuss it again? Is the Council planning a mini-directive to cover only certain parts of the document? It is rather a sad moment for parliamentary sovereignty, this being a day when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made some splendid remarks about Parliament's control of this sort of matter. We are discussing an issue which was discussed in the Community on 20 June. We want merely to know what the next step will be. Is the issue dead or is it still alive? Will we see a mini-directive, with article 2 being passed by a majority vote?
10.31 pm
Mr. David Marshall: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has made most of the main points, I wish to ask the Minister only four simple questions, which I hope he will answer.
First, will it be possible for a driver to work two weeks of 56 hours each back to back, and to continue to do so?
Mr. Peter Bottomley: No.
Mr. Marshall: Thank you. Secondly, can the Minister guarantee enforcement of the regulations? There are only about 200 Department of Transport inspectors. How will he manage to achieve his target of 1 million checks per annum? Is that figure sufficient? It will amount only to about a 30 per cent. check. Should not the Minister be setting his sights higher?
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has asked an important question about 56-hour back-to-back weeks. Would he care to——
Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lloyd: With respect, I do not think that I am in a position to do so.
Would my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) care to press the Minister on the issue? The Minister maintains that the regulations will prevent the working of 56-hour back-to-back weeks, but are the enforcement provisions sufficient to guarantee that a driver who is confronted with two 56-hour weeks will not say, "Of course, I am going to work the two weeks." Enforcement is important.
Mr. Marshall: Some of us have doubts about the sufficiency of the enforcement provisions. The Minister may be able——
Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) would not allow me to intervene. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for allowing me to do so. The hon. Member for Shettleston has more courtesy than the hon. Member for Stretford.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) was intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) when the Minister asked him to give way. That is why the hon. Member for Stretford did not give way.
Mr. Bottomley: I did not think that I would get away with that observation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There cannot be more than 90 hours worked in any fortnight. That means that anyone who works two 56-hour weeks back to back is breaking the law. Sadly, we have
510
begun to learn—if we did not know before—that passing laws does not make people obey the law. We know, however, that there cannot be total enforcement, for that would mean that nothing else would happen. We must create the right conditions and penalties so that individuals find that the chances of being caught, multiplied by the penalty, bring them into the paths of righteousness.
Mr. Marshall: I have my doubts. I think that there will still be a temptation to break the law.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to estimate the increased costs that will be incurred by the road haulage and coach industries, and by Government, who will be responsible for implementing the regulations.
Fourthly, thousands of overloaded lorries are entering Britain. If the inspectors are spending all their time checking drivers' hours, how will they be able to check vehicles to ensure that they are not overloaded, especially those that are carrying hazardous and toxic substances or dangerous chemicals? What measures does the Minister propose to take to prevent overloaded lorries entering and leaving Britain in even greater numbers when inspectors are spending all their time checking drivers' hours?
10.35 pm
Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend the Minister has told us that steps are being taken under article 100A. I have said on many occasions as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation that the expenditure memorandum, copies of which we have been supplied with, states clearly that matters are proceeding under article 75. I have great difficulty in understanding how that switch is taking place. One can only conclude that it is more convenient to deal with it under article 100A, for the reason that it will be dealt with by majority voting. On 23 June, an article of mine appeared in The Times in which I clearly stated that I was very concerned about the way in which this matter was proceeding. There is increasing evidence of creeping federalism in Europe.
It may be that at this late hour this is a glazed-eye subject, and that it is just too boring for the British Parliament, whereas this issue is being suborned—and this is just one instance of it—by a system within which there is an increasing tendency for the Commission to take more and more power over this Parliament. We must face the fact that that is happening.
The Prime Minister has made her own position entirely clear. She is deeply concerned about that drift. M. Delors of the European Commission has made it clear that he wants European government. I am not—emphatically not —against the European Community. Nor am I against sensible conclusions, some of which may have to be discussed and negotiated within the Council of Ministers. What I am against is the apparent bypassing of the House in respect of important legislation. A matter of this kind would be dealt with in a Bill on a line-by-line basis. Instead, we are presented with a series of continuing documents, which come before the Select Committee on European Legislation, and which are then referred back to the House at a late hour, when they are not capable of being intelligently discussed. I note that my hon. Friends seated behind me are nodding in approval at what I say, for the simple reason that what I say is absolutely true. There is no question about it.
Even in our own governmental paragraph, under the heading "Policy Implications" there is almost total condemnation of the provisions we are now considering. However, my hon. Friend the Minister, understandably, has made the best of the dog's dinner with which he has been provided. He has said that there are two halves——
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that some of this is absolute nonsense. However, it is clear which bits are nonsense and which are not. The reason why I am delighted to move the motion is that we want support in achieving the sensible bits, and support in getting rid of the nonsense.
Mr. Cash: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that. He is receiving great support from me in making the argument for continuing opposition to those parts which, from the point of view of the consumer, and from that of my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), contain a considerable amount of nonsense. It is nonsense of a kind that would do credit to Edward Lear.
512
As I recently stated in a memorandum I wrote on this very subject, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to return to Brussels in the knowledge that the United Kingdom Parliament profoundly disagrees with the nonsensical parts of the provisions.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I hope that I am not beating the hon. Gentleman to his punch, but he makes an important point. It is not good enough to acknowledge that some parts of the provisions are nonsensical and to seek agreement at Council of Ministers level or wherever. It is important that Parliament should recognise that, almost by definition, much of this legislation—whether it concerns traffic regulations or any other matter—is totally irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman addressed a point of principle about which areas are sovereign.
Perhaps the Minister will address another question. Given that the Prime Minister has placed on record the fact that she is extremely suspicious of this creeping federalism, to use the hon. Gentleman's own phrase, why does she not do something serious about it, because she is head of the Government?
Mr. Cash: The plain fact is that we have passed the Single European Act, and within the context of that Act are provisions that are subject to majority voting.
According to the explanatory memorandum, these measures are being taken under article 75. In his introduction, however, the Minister said that they were being taken under article 100A. The Select Committee on European Legislation—I was present at both sessions— recently cross-examined the Treasury solicitor on the use and misuse of article 100A. The Minister may or may not know—I am telling him because it is something with which the Committee is familiar—of the increasing tendency for the Commission to say, "We want the Common Market to operate." We in the United Kingdom Parliament also want the Single European Act to work effectively, but if there is a tendency for article 100A to be misused, we are forced to abide by majority decisions that may be invoked in a manner that is—to use the technical expression—ultra vires.
How can we deal with that? Not by saying, "Oh, well, that is just too bad; it is ultra vires." We must go off to the European Court for the matter to be determined on judicial review, in the context of the powers of the Court of Justice and article 177 of the treaty of Rome. We are in a new ball game. It is a question not of whether the House wants something done, but of viewing the matter through the telescope of the treaty of Rome and working out whether we are in a position to defend ourselves after the event.
If the Minister has grave doubts about whether the policy implications of his document dated 13 June suggest that the nonsensical parts should be dealt with effectively, he has no option but to take appropriate action in the Court of Justice. That appears to be the only means by which we can retrieve the situation at this stage. It is not good enough for us to wring our hands in the House and to say that we do not like this, that or the other.
Will the Minister bear in mind that a great deal of time would be saved, over and over again, if the United Kingdom Parliament were brought into consideration of these questions earlier rather than at this late hour? I notice my hon. Friend the Minister looking at his watch, and I do not blame him. We would then be in a position

513
to influence such consideration. Matters of this kind that would otherwise be dealt with by a billion Parliaments on a line-by-line basis should not be dealt with in such a truncated fashion.
If we are to do what the Prime Minister wants us to do, for heaven's sake let us consider the legislation earlier and in a proper way. By improving the scrutiny process of the European Legislation Committee and other Select Committees, we may at last be able to retrieve some of the power that has moved from this House.
10.43 pm
Mr. Roger King: I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has said. I was gratified to hear my hon. Friend the Minister comment on some aspects of the proposed change in the legislation, especially those relating to article 1.
Let me first declare an interest, as I want to mention a specific example of how badly article 1 will affect the operator concerned if it becomes law. I am a non-executive director of National Express Ltd., which is one of the success stories of the Government's deregulation policy in that it is now a privatised business and performs a vital and valuable function for the community.
A few facts and figures will give the House some idea of the extent to which this operator—the biggest national operator—has grown during the last few years. It carries 15 million passengers a year and its vehicles travel 5 million miles a week. There are 1,500 services and 900 coaches. It is an extensive operation. That does not include the Scottish City Link partner, which has about 150 coaches. It is a much smaller operation but it is extremely important. It is a unique European organisation. Its services are interlinked. They convey passengers from Penzance to John O'Groats and right across the country. They go to parts of the country that British Rail cannot reach and they are provided at a price with which the user is well satisfied.
The cost to the company and to other coach operators of having to accept article 1 and a return to the rolling seven-day week would be substantial. As the services are interlinked, to have drivers and those who run the coaches starting their weeks at different times and on different days would make it very difficult for the company to get the drivers on the right services at the right time.
When the European Commission looked at this aspect I do not think that it was aware of the extent of this type of operation, thanks to our policy of deregulation and free enterprise. There is no equivalent operation on mainland Europe. More power to my hon. Friend's elbow in combating the effects of article 1. It will only lead to passengers having to pay considerably more if article 1, the rolling seven-day week, has to be implemented.
Mr. Cash: Can my hon. Friend say how the Council of Ministers would be able to deal with his point?
Mr. King: I regret that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. I am presenting a factual case that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board and use in evidence to the European Commission. I hope he will say that there are exceptions to what is happening elsewhere in Europe and that our Government's
514
deregulation policy will almost certainly be extended to Europe in 1992 when European operators develop similar systems.
The rules are designed to ensure safety. Despite all the miles covered and the number of passengers carried, I am happy to be able to tell the House that according to the statistics with which the company has supplied me nobody has been injured or killed in the last two years. Many people believe that coaches are unsafe and that they are more prone to accidents than otherforms of travel, but the facts do not support that belief. Coaches provide a particularly safe form of travel. I hope the company's record of nobody having been injured or killed in the last two years will continue indefinitely. The safety of passengers must come first. The present rules and regulations came into effect two years ago. They have probably played their part in ensuring a high standard of safety.
It seems to me that there is often wide discrepancy between how each country interprets the spirit of the rules that are laid down. An olympic contestant has been banned from competing for life because he took steroids, yet some other European countries might not have inflicted such a high price. Russian children are probably fed steroids for breakfast. The requirements are laid down generally and we are all supposed to obey them, but some member states—and ours in particular—are a little more disciplined than other countries in enforcing them. Can we be sure that Spain will adopt the same determination to check vehicles, to look at tachographs and to implement safety requirements? The existing European laws say that it should, but there is some argument as to how conscientious some of our European partners are in containing drivers' hours, vehicle weights and so on.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a question whether the member states can look into these matters; that it involves their manpower, whether they can afford to do that, and whether the European Commission can provide the level playing field that is supposed to result from the proposals? Fair competition is not possible without an enormous amount of extra bureaucracy and expense for the member states and the consumers, unless there are sufficient people to make sure that the laws are being exercised in a manner which is fair to all.
Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not suggesting that there should not be European laws. We want to get those laws absolutely right. Of course their implementation will vary from state to state, depending on financial ability and the determination to police those laws, but that does not remove the necessity of having laws that are sensible and are worth implementing. We require uniformity across Europe for the standards whereby we produce, trade and provide services, but that may take some time.
The proposals that we are considering do not go very far to establish a broad consensus as to how we should regulate drivers' hours. As I have illustrated, in the United Kingdom there are circumstances which make the implementation of the rolling seven-day week which the European Commission would like, very difficult and wholly unneccessary.
10.53 pm
Mr, Peter Bottomley: I remind those who read Hansard that our debate has shown that the House of Commons, on both sides and in many ways, takes seriously its debates on European draft directives. A variety of points have been made. We have heard the major constitutional points, which may be seen to follow from the Single European Act. Other issues have been brought forward concerning precisely when a three-quarter hour break may come in a four and a half hour driving period. We have heard examples from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), from the Chairman of the Select Committee and from my hon. Friends who have spoken for the general interests of drivers and for the coach industry. I also understand that our debates are of concern to people in other parts of the country. I had to decide whether to wear my Transport and General Workers Union tie or my United Road Transport Union tie today. I am not a member of the URTU. I was sent a tie because it was rather jealous that I was always wearing the TGWU one.
I look forward to Friday when, at the suggestion of a member of the national executive of the TGWU road haulage section, I shall go and see it at work in west London. I suspect that I shall not hear too many complaints about the regulations that were taken through the House two years ago. There may be some, but in general we have managed to combine safety with flexibility.
The hon. Member for Stretford rightly reminded us that this is, in effect, a continuation of yesterday's debate on transport safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) reminded us how safe coach travel is. We intend to make it safer still by, for example, having speed limiters which will ensure that the reduction in speeding by coaches continues. There is less speeding in the road haulage industry. That is not true for light vans, but there is an improvement in major freight distribution.
The professionalism of drivers must be praised again and again. Not everyone reaches the highest standard, but we want to get the average standard up, the bad people out and the good to be able to earn their reward rather than for them to be cheated by the cowboys who break the hours regulations and the weight limitations.
I shall not go into enormous detail about our enforcement plans, but even without allowing for the efforts of the police, the Department of Transporfs own plans would meet the acceptable part of the draft directive's targets on checking tachographs. We take all the actions mentioned anyway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned buses. I understand that the service from Southend to Frankfurt has now been approved. I shall not even dare read out Germany's explanation for the levy because I am not certain that it is acceptable to me, let alone to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What does the Minister think of it?
Mr. Bottomley: I have not had responsibility for buses for very long and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State may want to take a view of his own. The change in the ministerial team took place only about 24 hours ago, so my hon. Friend ought to allow us slightly longer to have some effect.
516
The House should not be too frightened of getting involved in discussion and negotiation in Europe. When I was at another Ministry, an anonymous Minister from another Community country asked me to explain why Britain is not so keen on the Vredeling draft fifth directive. It was after dinner and I was tired, and I said that half the people in Britain who oppose it have not read it and the other half who oppose it have read it. I thought that that was quite an entertaining answer, but he nodded wisely and said, "Nobody has ever explained it to me that clearly before."
If necessary, I shall continue to explain clearly in Europe, and to others who are interested, why some of the definitional changes that are proposed are crazy. I shall also explain why we should not put the private sector at a disadvantage when it provides services which were provided in Britain by a state authority, and still are in some other countries.
I should like to refer to the first joke in the April edition of Reader's Digest. Mr. Gorbachev is supposed to be driving to Moscow airport to meet the Prime Minister, and his driver refuses to break the speed limit, so they change places. They are stopped by the police but are let off because the junior police officer who stops them tells the senior officer that there is a very important person in the car. "Who was it?" asks the senior officer. "I do not know," says the junior one. "How do you know they are very important?" asks the senior one. "Well, the person in the car had Comrade Gorbachev as his driver."
I argue that the House provides the very important person for the country. When people make a half-baked proposal which they think will improve safety or flexibility, but which will not, they should see how Russia is learning the British lesson. It is that deregulation, competition and privatisation, while maintaining necessary safety standards, are all-important. If we had not had competition in the coach industry, as a result of which National Express is doing quite well and firms in Southend are running services to Germany, consumers would not be in such a good position. They would not be in that position if we did not have that small extra flexibility combined with protection for the driver in the drivers' hours regulations.
I doubt whether we would have obtained that flexibility without the European Community taking an interest. We would have found it more difficult to make changes domestically. We owe something to Europe, and many of us are willing to move forward with the single European market and we will be willing to argue our case. We will not succeed all the time, as I said two years ago when we discussed other draft regulations.
If the House will forgive me, I will not become involved in too many of the arithmetic questions raised by the hon. Member for Stretford. I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman persistently does his homework and brings forward interesting points.
We should understand that the key point made by the hon. Member for Stretford related to the 56 hours back-to-back. That would be illegal. The sensible proposals included in the motion and my speech related to how it will be possible to achieve higher standards of enforcement in other European partner countries. That is what the good bit achieves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) reminded the House that we should be very careful about simply accepting declarations of article 100A and should

517
be prepared to use the European Court. I do not think that I am fully qualified to answer my hon. Friend's points, but I will ensure that they are passed on to those who wish to know that there is very strong support in the House for ensuring that, where possible, the European harmonisation is achieved to maintain minimum standards and to recognise equivalent standards elsewhere rather than simply to go for the common denominator which may be most convenient for the person who knows very little of what he is talking about.
One example is driver licensing. It is worth reminding the House, the people of this country and the rest of the European Community that this is the only country—with the possible exception of Ireland—which has a thriving minibus industry, not just in their manufacture, but in use by community groups, student organisations and people going to parties who hire them when one person drives and the others drink. No other country has that provision because their licensing requirements do not allow people to drive a minibus or vans weighing between 3·5 and 7 tonnes.
I hope to convince the rest of Europe not that Britain must eliminate that provision and service for the handicapped, poor, unprivileged and the elderly, but that the rest of Europe should consider what is happening in this country. I hope that they will discover that there is no road safety case for this ludicrous harmonisation although we are slightly bound by that in the Vienna convention. I hope that we can extend the provision to the other 200 million or more people in Europe so that they can enjoy what we have enjoyed here, so long as the safety case is made.
Mr. Cash: Which member states are in favour of the nonsensical provisions? Given that there is majority voting and presumably the member states in favour of the nonsensical provisions are against my hon. Friend the Minister, how can we carry the day? What can we do about that when we make protestations under the provisions of the explanatory memorandum policy, the implication of which could not be more emphatically condemnatory of the provisions? What on earth are we going to do about it?
Mr. Bottomley: I was not at the Council of Ministers meeting. However, I understand that no country supported the redefinition point. If one did, I suspect that the point would have made further progress. It is worth noting that the implementation date is supposed to be September this year. If others had supported it, that support would have been declared and I could have given the names off the cuff. I do not think any one else supports it.
A child who experiences darkness for the first time thinks that it will never become light again, but it becomes light in seven hours; the cycle is repeated. There may be, discussions, the cycle will be repeated and we will end up with the nonsense being jettisoned. The good things will be brought in and the level of enforcement will rise for the rest of the Community to the levels enjoyed in this country.
I hope that, partly as a result of this debate, there will be an opportunity for the private sector to come in and for competitive tendering—this is one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East—to come about. We want improved enforcement and opportunities
518
for the private sector. However, the basis of the consideration is an issue to which the House will want to return rather than have me go on too long about it now.
This has been one of the better debates which should inform people in the Community and the Commission. I hope that the European Paliament will come to the same view as the House—that we want to do the good things, not the bad ones.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has not answered my question about article 2, but perhaps he will say under which article the directive is proposed. Is it article 75 or article 100A? If it is article 75, will he ask his clever advisers —some of us are worried about the extent to which they are keeping up to date with European affairs—why the explanatory memorandum says that the voting procedure and a qualified majority apply, because article 75 of the treaty of Rome says:
"For the purpose of implementing Article 74 …the Council shall, acting unanimously until … the second stage, … lay down, on a proposal from the Commission".
It clearly says that under article 75 there is not a majority vote but unanimity until the end of second stage.
Will the Minister say under which article the directive is proposed and why he mentioned qualified majority voting when article 75 of the treaty is abundantly clear? Is it not time that he arranged for his clever people to go on those splendid courses on Community law? These matters are terribly important, because every one of us will be affected by what the Community does.
Mr. Bottomley: I hope that those who read the debate will realise that the House is united about enforcement, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East supported, is unanimous in wishing to get rid of the nonsense in the draft directive and will not be too put off by the dissection of article 75 and the issues on majority voting that my hon. Friend raised. I do not want us to appear reluctant to work with others in the European Community because to achieve enforcement we need to do so. The best thing that I can do about the precise point that my hon. Friend raises is write to him and have a copy put in the Library. If that is unacceptable to my hon. Friend, he can now say why.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: We are having a vital debate about future transport policy. I am merely asking under which article the directive is being proposed. This is one of the few opportunities that we shall have to discuss a Common Market proposal that will affect every person in the land. If we do not know under what article the scheme is being proposed, we do not know on what basis the majority voting will be conducted or on what basis the Minister will address the Council. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are one of the fairest-minded people that I have known in the Chair, but we must be given an answer before the debate concludes.
Mr. Bottomley: The simple answer is article 75.I do not want to go into detail about the more complicated answer, because I suspect that my hon. Friend knows more about it than I do. I encourage my hon. Friend to listen to me for one moment because it might be helpful to him and the House. We want to lift the parliamentary reserve on the good things, such as enforcement in other countries. We believe that not one other Community country supports the proposal to amend the regulations. We should send a clear message from the House that we are all united about

519
that, rather than have our lawyers and those of the Community spend time on a point that my hon. Friend makes inside and outside the House effectively and frequently.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why does the explanatory memorandum say one thing but the treaty of Rome something different?
Mr. Bottomley: I thought that it was the right answer. If it transpires that I was wrong, I shall have no difficulty in saying that I was wrong. If it transpires that I was right, I shall write to my hon. Friend and say why I was right.
Mr. David Marshall: Earlier, I asked the Minister to give some idea of the costs involved, but it appears that he will not answer that question. I draw his attention to his Department's memorandum to the Select Committee on European Legislation. It says:
"changes envisaged would impose further expense and new burdens on the road haulage and coach industries"
and
"would involve significant cost to central Government."
The Minister must have some idea what the additional costs will be. Will he give them to the House?
Mr. Bottomley: I believe that the additional costs of the first part of the enforcement will not be significant because our existing enforcement plan covers what the draft directive would require. That is why we would be prepared to accept that part, subject to this debate and the parliamentary reserve that would have to be put on in the Council of Ministers. We have made it plain that we regard the regulation to amend the regulations as unacceptable, and we have given our view that we think that other member states regard it as unacceptable as well. We have said that if members states came together and said that they wanted to accept the regulation to amend the regulations, there would be significant costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsburg) made that point first, and it was then made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. As we have the implicit support of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, people in Europe had better watch out, We are not having it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6048/88 on social legislation relating to road transport.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c).

PESTICIDES
That the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 12th July 1988, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
CHROMIUM IN WATER
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4236/86, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 11th July 1986 and 4498/88 on water quality standards for chromium; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that any such standards are based on clear scientific principles consistent with the proper protection of the aquatic environment.
ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9715/87 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th June 1988 on electromagnetic compatibility; and supports the Government in seeking adoption of the measure and in seeking to ensure that any Commission action in this field takes account of United Kingdom interests.

ANTI-DUMPING
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5017/87 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports and 6358/87 and 5151/88 on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy activities in 1985 and 1986; and supports the Government's aims that anti-dumping measures should not be circumvented by assembly operations whilst ensuring that genuine inward investment is not discouraged and that United Kingdom interests should continue to be taken fully into account in the Commission's anti-dumping actions.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Opencast Mining (Marley Hill)
  11.11 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: Rather than delay the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who has a most important Adjournment debate this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and I have decided that I shall present this petition, although it is signed by 684 of my constituents and by 349 of his. The petition reads as follows:
  The Humble Petition of residents of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead.
  Sheweth,
  That the proposal to opencast mine coal in the area to the south of Marley Hill and remove the coal by road would result in the net destruction of jobs, cause blight to the countryside and congest the already inadequate roads.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment to resist this proposal.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Camden (Right-to-buy Legislation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  11.12 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: This is only the second Adjournment debate that I have had in 18 years, which is a signal of how very angry I am at the way in which the London borough of Camden has been operating the right-to-buy scheme, and my extreme unhappiness about the way in which the Department of the Environment has been trying to permit my constituents to operate within the law.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his first debate on this subject. I hope that he will spare the House and me details of how the right to buy operates and concentrate on telling me why the Department has been so unwilling to help my constituents, and to implement our Act of Parliament. With my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew), I had a hand in drafting the legislation, and we included measures to be used against recalcitrant authorities. I am a little puzzled to know why my successors have been unwilling to follow our example. For example, Norwich council would not operate the right to buy. It took us to court and lost, and we did not need to take over its functions.
  The London borough of Camden has, from the beginning, expressed its outright opposition to the right to buy. In May 1987, it made this very clear by removing official right-to-buy leaflets from the shelves in all its libraries. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction warned that he would send a task force of Government commissioners to sell council houses unless the hard Left toed the line. That was in May 1987 and after that Camden turned to dumb insolence and pretended to let the scheme operate. For example, one member of staff was doing all the work. It refused to sent out right-to-buy forms to tenants who asked for them and told those tenants that they had to call for them. I have already said that those forms were not available in the libraries. I circumvented that by obtaining a stock of them, which were available at my advice bureau. However, it was not my job to do that; that is what the council should have done.
  The council also used other ways to put off its tenants from buying. It inflated service charges, but, fortunately, the Government have changed that part of the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—I do not blame him for his absence at this late hour—has some Camden properties in his constituency. He has been most active on behalf of those Camden tenants and he managed to make Camden offer an even more extraordinary reason for the delay than usual. It told him that it cannot define the correct boundaries of a particular property. I am sad to say that, in correspondence, the Department was apparently willing to accept that that was possible and that it was an acceptable reason.
  Whenever tenants inquire about valuations or anything else they are told of massive delays. I have been receiving monthly performance, or lack of performance, figures, and at the end of June there were 1,884 overdue section 125 notices. I do not believe that the Department should ever have permitted that.
  522
  When tenants have bought their properties, the council has got back at them. It charges those people a higher rent than council tenants for the use of a garage. In some cases there is a £6 differential in such rents. I appreciate that, under present legislation, the Government can do nothing about that. Such practices, however, put off tenants from buying.
  Alas, when I have drawn such cases to the attention of the Department, it has been rather slack about taking action. First, it summoned the leader and chief executive of Camden and wrote to me to say that it had met representatives of that borough on 14 May. Camden promised to put positive proposals before the Department. By August, Camden had not even recruited the staff, but it offered "news" in September. After further pressure from the Department, it was forced to employ 19 extra staff, but it took as long as was decently possible before appointing them—they were not all in post by November. My hon. Friend should note that, because of the Departments attitude, Camden got an extra six months' grace before complying with the legislation.
  I asked the Department whether it would make Camden put conveyancing and valuations out to the private sector, but the answer was, alas, no. Even now, when I draw attention to individual cases, the Departments attitude is less than urgent. I informed the Department about a complaint that I had received from a constituent in Lissenden gardens. In March 1988 the London regional housing division wrote to Camden about that and said:
  "Bearing in mind that your authority is under a statutory obligation to issue an offer notice within 8 weeks of the admittance of the right to buy (or 12 weeks in the case of a leasehold sale) I am to say that Ministers are concerned at the delay that is occurring in this case. In the circumstances, I would be pleased if you could let me have your detailed comments on this matter, together with your best estimate of a date by which you now expeet to despatch an offer notice. I should be grateful for an early reply to this letter."
  When someone is in statutory breach, one should ask for a reply within seven working days and not
  "for an early reply to this letter."
  It took the Minister six weeks to fix another meeting with the leader of Camden council. Camden is laughing behind my hon. Friend's back and behind the back of the Government. Its message to me is, "Your Government are doing nothing," but I know that the Government will catch up with it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell me that nemesis has caught up with it. My hon. Friend does not have to face tenants week after week in his advice bureau. Five or six come to each of my surgeries complaining that they have to pay £40, £50 or £60 a week in rent when that money should be set off against their mortgages.
  All the letters tell me that the purchase price is fixed at the date of application. That is marvellous, but many of my constituents have paid out hundreds of pounds in rent that they would not have had to pay if the Department had been willing to act more swiftly. As tenants grow one or two years older and their cases become one or two years out of date, mortgages become less easy to deal with. Now, after a certain amount of pressure from me, the Government say that they will introduce an amendment in another place to the effect that if, after a certain period, the council is in default, the rent will be set towards the purchase price. The Government are not even prepared to backdate that to Second Reading. They are producing a

  523
  lawyer's paradise—almost a page-and-a-half schedule of notice and counter-notice which not even I, who helped draft the original legislation, am sure I understand.
  I ask my hon. Friend, who is new to his responsibilities, to put this schedule in workmanlike English and to simplify it to state that, if a property has not been sold by a certain date, or if the council has not complied with the statutory requirement, rent will automatically be set against purchase price unless the council can prove that it should not be. It should not be up to my constituents to serve notices on Camden; they have done that. It is up to Camden to comply with the law.
  A greater difficulty has now arisen, and I ask my hon. Friend to recognise it. The Finance (No. 2) Bill provides that tax relief on purchases not completed by 1 August will operate on the property, not the people involved—unless they are husband and wife. Two sisters in my constituency were purchasing a property from Camden. Because Camden would not comply by 1 August, they ran the real risk of losing half the tax benefit that they should have had. Fortunately, they had a good solicitor, who has prepared a document that will satisfy the Inland Revenue, but there must be hundreds of such cases—I note that the Law Society is concerned about them—of people who will lose because Camden and other local authorities are failing to comply with the law.
  I ask my hon. Friend to take this up with the Treasury. The Finance (No. 2) Bill cannot be amended now, but the Revenue should be persuaded to produce an extra-statutory concession to cover people whose only fault is that they happen to be buying from the London borough of Camden. I bet there are people in a similar position in Islington, Lambeth and Hackney, all of whose councils are defying the law and getting away with it.
  I am sorry for being more vehement than my hon. Friend might have liked, but I have reached the end of my tether. I ask my hon. Friend to tell Camden that it has four weeks—or two months—in which to get its act together. I said earlier that there are 1,800 section 125 notices. They are valuations, and my hon. Friend could force Camden to go outside to have them done. The conveyancing could be done by outside solicitors. If Camden does not dramatically reduce the number of cases pending in the time stipulated, my hon. Friend should use the powers provided in the right-to-buy Act to take over the council's functions. I remind my hon. Friend that it will cost the Department more to carry out those functions. Then perhaps an action for surcharge could be taken out against the council by the district auditor. That would double the threat.
  Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend not to allow the new schedule and the notice and counter-notice to set rent against purchase price stay in their present gobbledegook form. I apologise again for keeping my hon. Friend the Minister here late tonight, but this is a matter of real anxiety to many of my constituents.
  11.24pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): It is essential that I should at the outset pay tribute to the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and
  524
  Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has represented his con-stituents seeking to exercise their right to buy. Many of them, I know, suffered enormous frustration as a result of the shortcomings in Camden's performance, which my hon. Friend has so ably described. They could have no more determined champion. He has corresponded with Ministers regularly on this matter, both on behalf of individual constituents and more generally.
  My hon. Friend's complaint is that Camden's performance in carrying out its right-to-buy responsibilities has been woefully inadequate, and that can hardly be disputed. Camden is one of the 11 authorities whose right-to-buy performance is formally monitored by the Department so that we can keep a regular check on its performance. The evidence of the figures suggests that the council has not been dealing with applications at a rate anything like sufficient to ensure that its tenants applying to exercise their right to buy are able to do so reasonably speedily.
  There are two stages in the right-to-buy process for which statutory time limits are laid down and, rather than indulge in explaining the right-to-buy legislation, which my hon. Friend urged me not to do, it is important that I should explain precisely what that procedure is, so that I can explain how bad Camden has been.
  The first stage is the landlord's notice admitting or denying the tenant's right to buy. That must normally be served within four weeks of the tenant's claim to exercise his right to buy and is not complex for the landlord in the vast majority of cases. Yet in May 1987, when Camden had virtually ceased issuing notices, there were over 800 cases where it had not complied with the statutory time limit.
  However, I am glad to say that the latest report shows that there were no cases in which the first notice had not been served by the due date. Therefore, it is clear that the intensive lobby that my hon. Friend has mounted, and the way in which Department of the Environment Ministers have responded, have had that effect already.
  The other stage for which there is a statutory time limit is the service of an offer notice under section 125 of the Housing Act 1985, giving the landlord's opinion of the price at which the tenant is entitled to buy. That must also include a statement of known structural defects and, in the case of a leasehold sale, details of service charges payable including binding estimates for repair and improvement costs in the first five years of the lease. The landlord has eight weeks in the case of a freehold sale and 12 weeks in the case of a leasehold sale to prepare that, starting from the date at which the tenant's right to buy is admitted.
  The number of cases in which Camden council has not met that deadline has been rising alarmingly in recent months and is currently almost 1,900. The rate at which Camden issues offer notices has increased—I shall say more about that later—but not by nearly enough to match the increased number of applications.
  We know from complaints passed on by my hon. Friend, and those that we receive direct from his constituents or others, that there are also delays in completing the legal formalities leading to sale when a tenant has decided to continue with his purchase on the basis of an offer notice. Statistics are less easy to interpret, since delays may be attributable to a variety of causes, some ascribable to the tenant, some to the landlord.

  525
  However, at the end of June there were 665 cases where completion was awaited, against an average this year of about 22 sales a month.
  Against that background, I can understand my hon. Friend's wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should use his powers to take over Camden's role in processing sales, and I shall return to that specific point later.
  It may well be that Camden is not the only authority in London whose performance in handling right-to-buy sales is less than satisfactory, but in numerical terms, the problems in Camden seem to be the most acute. All the evidence reflects that. A number of inner London boroughs have had difficulty in handling right-to-buy applications over the past 18 months. A major factor in that has been a substantial increase in the number of applications received. The number of applications by Camden tenants was, on average, 79 a month in 1986. That rose to 165 a month in January 1987, no doubt due in part to the higher discounts introduced in January 1987 for those buying flats under the right-to-buy. The trend has continued into 1988. The average monthly number of applications so far is 281, with 467 received in June alone. The Government are delighted that so many people are expressing an interest in becoming home owners. However, the number of applications is not easy to predict, and it is hard for local authorities to adjust to such an increase overnight when staff are scarce. I understand that.
  I shall turn now to the steps that Camden council has taken in the past year to try to improve its performance. As my hon. Friend is aware, these have had some, albeit limited, success. Following a meeting to discuss the council's right-to-buy performance held last July, the council informed us that 19 additional posts were to be approved with the intention that the output of section 125 offer notices would increase to between 120 and 140 a month once they were filled. Those additional posts were approved, we were told, against a background of reductions in staffing and funding in other areas of the council's responsibility from which the right to buy was protected.
  The council's output did begin to improve as the additional posts were filled. The number of offer notices issued in any month did not exceed 20 between February and September 1987, and has never been below 72 since. The council now seems to have reached its target of 140 notices a month promised last year. Greater central co-ordination, helped by additional staff, seems to be at the root of the improvement. I understand that the council's valuer and estates surveyor took on overall responsibility for right-to-buy matters in September 1987.
  At a meeting earlier this week, the leader of the council acknowledged that the improvements delivered by the council were not sufficient to keep pace with the larger numbers of applications now being received, but said that the rate is over three times that in 1986. He said that the council is now considering proposals to establish a central
  526
  unit of administrators devoted to right-to-buy work and that that would involve some extra staffing. It was expected that that should enable the output of offer notices to be increased to some 180 a month well before the end of the year—possibly more if a greater number of those involved in right-to-buy work could be located in the same building.
  That is a significant increase. However, it is clearly not sufficient if applications continue to be received at the present level. The leader therefore agreed that, in the light of the trends in applications in the autumn, the council will also consider whether further staff resources for right-to-buy work are necessary in the medium and longer term.
  It is clearly important that the council should make the best possible use of existing resources, as well as devoting more to the right to buy. The leader said that there was no obstacle to staff working overtime on a voluntary basis and that the council was making every effort. The leader did not rule out the use of the private sector, for example in conveyancing, where that would help.
  The leader has confirmed—he is prepared to be quoted —that it is the council's policy to fulfil its statutory obligations. That needs to go on record. He also pointed to the fact that additional staff resources had been devoted to the right to buy at a time of reductions elsewhere He also stressed—this is something that I welcome—that the council was dependent on the capital receipts from housing sales to maintain its repair programme. Against that background, he gave assurances that the case for extra staff would be considered urgently if the proposed reorganisation did not prove adequate.
  The Department will continue to receive monthly progress reports from the council and will keep in contact with it over the steps it is taking, so that the Secretary of State can review the possible use of his powers of intervention. I shall give my hon. Friend a clear undertaking. It is abundantly clear to me, as it will be to him, that, if the situation does not improve in the short term, we should have no alternative but to use those powers.
  My hon. Friend is, of course, primarily concerned about his constituents who have suffered unconscionable delay. I remind him, if I need to, that the amendments to the Housing Bill were designed to meet his concerns and those of many other hon. Friends on that issue.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the specific points that I have made and the assurance that I have given him. Although I took on these additional responsibilities only some 24 hours ago, I am nevertheless aware of his grave concern about this matter. I have enormous sympathy for the points that he has raised and am grateful to him for the additional information that he has supplied in the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve O'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the chief land registrar with a view to reducing the incidence of mortgage fraud.

  The Attorney-General
  I have had no discussions with the chief land registrar about mortgage frauds. Such frauds occur in areas of the conveyancing process with which the Land Registry is not directly involved.

  Magistrates (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list the new magistrates appointed in June 1988 to the Hertfordshire bench, Dacorum division, together with their ages and occupations.

  The Attorney-General
  Five new justices were appointed by the Lord Chancellor in May 1988 to the dacorum Bench. They were:

  Mr. N. G. Crispin, aged 44, a school teacher;

  Mrs. C. M. Dogherty, aged 44, a pharmacist;

  Mrs. M. Morris, aged 51, a nurse not presently employed:

  Mr. D. A. D. Smith, aged 52, a company director; and

  Mr. H. K. Wilson, aged 40, a principal scientific officer with the Health and Safety Executive

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many inquiries have been raised by personal attendance(a) at the London office of the social security commissioners in (i) English cases, (ii) Welsh cases and (b) Edinburgh office of the social security commissioners.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not recorded.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the implications of the proposed transfer of the central DHSS administration to Wales for his Department's policy towards having a resident social security commissioner in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the administration of the office of the social security commissioners. Any changes to the central administration of the DHSS or its location would not affect directly the current administrative arrangements for the commissioners in Cardiff or elsewhere.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals to the social security commissioners have been heard in Cardiff during 1988; and how many cases from Wales have been dealt with during the same period without an oral hearing.
  242
  The Attorney-General
  During the first six months of 1988, 26 oral appeals were heard by social security commissioners in Cardiff. Of that number, 22 were appeals by Welsh residents; the claimants in the other four appeals were resident outside Wales but within reasonable travelling distance of Cardiff. During the same period, 37 cases from Wales were disposed of without an oral hearing.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff of the social security commissioner's office are employed in Cardiff permanently to assist visiting commissioners.

  The Attorney-General
  None. Social security commissioners visiting Cardiff are accompanied and assisted by a member of staff from the office of the social security commissioners in London.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many social security commissioners are permanently resident in the Edinburgh office; and what is the total number of staff employed in that office.

  The Attorney-General
  There are three social security commissioners resident in Edinburgh and seven staff employed in the Edinburgh office.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  16 to 18-year-olds
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the latest year for which figures are available, what proportion of young persons between the ages of 16 and 18 years were in full-time education; and what were the corresponding figures for France, West Germany, Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Butcher
  The readily available information for 16 to 18-year-olds is shown in the table. Rates for part-lime students, including the youth training scheme for the United Kingdom, are shown where available as they form an important element in certain countries. It is planned to have more timely statistics available later in the year.

  Participation in education and training1 of 16 to 18-year-olds. 1981

  Percentage of age group

  Country

  Full-time2

  Part-time1

  All education and training

  France

  58

  8

  66

  Germany, Federal Republic of

  45

  340

  84

  Japan4 5

  69

  3

  73

  USA5

  79

  —

  79

  United Kingdom6

  (1981)

  32

  32

  63

  (1987)

  31

  33

  64

  Source: Statistical Bulletin 10/85.

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom.

  1Including apprenticeships, YOPs, YTS and similar schemes.

  2Including higher education for some 18-year-olds.

  3Including compulsory part-time education for 16 and 17-year-olds in Germany.

  4Estimated from new entrant and enrolment data; excludes some 18-year-olds, in "special training schools"—which provide certain types of vocational training for those aged 18 and above.

  5Including private sector higher education.

  6Includes estimates for those studying only in the evening. Includes private sector full-time further education and training, estimated as 6 per cent.

  Chess Associations
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will indicate total value of grants made by his Department to chess associations in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and what he expects it to be in current financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department of Education and Science pays grant to the British Chess Federation to assist with its administrative costs and with expenditure incurred in participating in international competitions. The total grants made in the last five financial years are as follows:

  £

  1983–84

  31,123

  1984–85

  27,256

  1985–86

  31,492

  1986–87

  35,273

  1987–88

  36,349

  The grant allocation for the current financial year is £37,300.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for chess associations in Wales.

  Training Allowance
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost of extending the training allowance payable under the YTS to all those between the ages of 16 and 18 years currently engaged in full-time education, net of the cost of child benefit.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  After deducting child benefit, the annual cost of paying an allowance at the same rate as YTS training allowances to all 16 to 18-year-olds currently in full-time education is estimated to be £800 million.

  National Advisory Council for the Youth Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reach and publish conclusions on the future of the National Advisory Council for the Youth Service; and what representations he has received on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received no formal representations about the future of the National Advisory Council for the Youth Service. He expects to make an announcement before the end of the year.

  Grenoble Reactor
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 14 June, column 106, on the ILL multilateral high flux test reactor at Grenoble, the inspection to which it makes reference covers both (a) safety issues and (b) safeguards issues.

  Mr. Jackson
  The inspection covers both safety and safeguard issues.

  Polytechnics and Colleges
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has decided which 244
  additional institutions to bring into the polytechnics and colleges sector from 1 April 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to the passage of the Education Reform Bill and any further representations that may be made before I reach a final decision, I have provisionally decided to exercise the power conferred by clause 120(1) to incorporate Buckinghamshire college of higher education, Cambridgeshire college of arts and technology, Salford college of technology and Luton college of higher education as higher education corporations within the polytechnics and colleges sector. I have provisionally decided not to exercise that power in respect of two other institutions which made provisional applications: Harrow college of higher education and Gloucestershire college of arts and technology.

TRANSPORT

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have died in the past five years because of the absence of a system of separation between the carriageways on dual carriageways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The absence of a system of safety fencing is not in itself a cause of accidents.

  The accident report forms used by the police do not record causes of accidents. Even if details of all candidate accidents were readily available, the number of cases in which fatal consequences would have been avoided had a system of safety fencing been present could only be a matter of speculation.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects the A1 and A74 dual carriageways to receive complete crash barrier protection;

  (2) what extent of the A1 and A74 dual carriageways are protected by crash barriers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Some 115 miles, 53 per cent., of the A1 is already protected by central reserve safety fencing. A programme of installing central reserve safety fencing on the A1 is under way. It will be completed by the early 1990s.

  The A1(M) and the A74 in England have full central reserve safety barrier protection.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he was further plans to increase the extent of crash barrier cover on dual carriageways;

  (2) what is his policy on enforcing the erection of crash barriers when planning new dual carriageways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes.

  A programme to provide central reserve safety fencing on most existing and new dual carriageway trunk roads was announced on 17 December 1986, at column 537. Safety fencing on existing and new non-trunk road dual carriageways is a matter for local highway authorities.

  Mr. Belllingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the total mileage of dual carriageways covered by crash barriers and (b) the percentage that represents the total mileage.
  245
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Some 598 miles of trunk road dual carriageway are protected by central reserve safety fencing. This represents 37 per cent, of the total mileage of trunk road dual carriageways.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what distance of dual carriageway is not covered by any form of crash barriers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Some 1,036 miles of trunk road dual carriageway are now not covered by central reserve safety fencing.

  Drunk Driving
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, in the latest year for which figures are available, how many persons have had their driving licence returned to them after a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol and, of those, how many were required to produce evidence of education or treatment for alcoholism; and how many were refused the restoration of their licence because of their inability to produce such evidence.

  Receipts in the Department of Transport programme in respect of running costs expenditure

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Central Government

  Licensing and testing schemes (receipts from the driver testing and training organisation and from the vehicle inspectorate for support services)

  4

  5

  5

  6

  7

  7

  8

  8

  8

  Research and development (receipts in respect of research carried out at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on repayment terms)

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Driver and vehicle licensing (mainly fees for transfer of cherished marks and for duplicate licences)

  4

  6

  6

  7

  9

  10

  10

  10

  11

  Notes:

  (1) None of these receipts was in respect of payments included in other Departments' running costs.

  (2) Figures in the table are consistent with Cm 288.

  Infrastructure Investment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet private sector firms to discuss transport infrastructure investment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Secretary of State and I met 40 private sector firms on 18 July and will continue to take forward this initiative.

  Association of County Councils
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met representatives of the Association of County Councils at the national annual consultative meeting on 5 July. A wide range of matters relating to roads was discussed. A joint approach for the reduction of road casualties was agreed.
  246
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as the written reply of 7 July, Official Report, columns 687–81, on receipts classified as charges in respect of his programme expenditure over the years 1982–83 to 1990–91, indicating the receipts in respect of running costs expenditure together with a supplementary analysis indicating, separately, the amounts of receipts in respect of programme expenditure and of running costs expenditure estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table shows receipts in respect of running costs expenditure, none of which is estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes. None of the receipts in respect of programme expenditure, which were shown in the written reply of 7 July, at columns 693–94, is estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes.

  Hell's Angels, Kent
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the recent ministerial visit to the Hell's Angels gathering in Kent; and if he will publish the subsequent ministerial correspondence about this event.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. I visited the Hell's Angels 10th Kent custom bike show at Snargate on 8 July. I enjoyed the show and the opportunity to talk to Dr. Maz Harris and the other Hell's Angels who organised the event.

  I congratulate the Hell's Angels on raising £2 for charity from every person attending the show.

  In my letter to Dr. Harris of 13 July, I said:
  "We clearly share much common ground on motor cycle safety even if we don't see eye to eye on all areas. I believe the rest of the weekend went well. If all road users behaved as sensibly and safely as the motor cyclists I saw coming to the Kent show on Friday the roads would be safer for us all.
  I was impressed with the smooth running of the event—organisers of major sporting events might have something to

  247
  learn from you. I told The Times on Friday night that I expected neither arrest nor trouble from the 20,000 bike enthusiasts. I was told 'That's a rash statement.' It was not.
  I am giving this letter a fairly wide circulation.

  An idea: why don't you approach David Evans MP of Luton Football Club for a Hell's Angel charity game against MPs?"

  Dr. Harris, in his reply of 19 July, said:
  "The show did indeed go off entirely trouble free and succeeded, with the aid of the Elham Valley Lions Club, in raising over £30,000 for local charities. Nearly 25,000 bikers enjoyed themselves in fine style, their behaviour throughout the event being lauded and applauded by newspapers throughout the area.
  I feel strongly that the continuing success of the Kent Custom Bike Show proves that motor cyclists are more than capable of behaving themselves in public if treated with the same degree of respect that is accorded to other groups in our society. One wonders whether or not the trouble which erupts from time to time at the British Grand Prix and similar motor cycle sporting events is not precipitated by the high-handed attitude of the organisers of those events whose sole aim seems to be to fleece their customers as heavily as possible and give them as little as possible in return.
  I'm none too impressed with conspiracy theory, but isn't it odd that no motor cycle magazines, apart from Back Street Heroes, publicise the success of the Kent Show as Britain's—or should I say mainland Britain's—premier biking event?
  As for your suggestion about arranging a charity football match between a team of Hell's Angels and a team of MPs, I must say that the idea appeals and will follow it up at the earliest opportunity.
  Once again, many thanks for your encouraging comments about our show. I look forward to talking to you in the future."

  Radioactive Materials (Transit)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why information on the incidence of radioactive materials lost in transit over the period 1979 to 1982 is not kept.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It was not kept centrally.

  It has been since 1982.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by date, radioactive content, quantity and transport route each of the six occasions on which medical isotopes have been lost in transit from 1983 to the present.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The radiological consequence of these six losses of medical and industrial isotopes since 1983 is considered to have been minimal. The details are as follows:1987, an americium-241 source of 11 GBq was lost possibly from a bonded warehouse near Heathrow airport.
  1987, a carbon-14 source of 12 MBq was reported by Lufthansa German Airlines to have gone astray at Heathrow airport.
  1986, an iodine-125 source of 2·25 GBq was reported by Lufthansa German Airlines to have been lost at its cargo terminal at Heathrow airport.
  1985, an iron-55 source of 200 kBQ went missing from a scientific instrument despatched from Clandon Scientific Limited, Aldershot, to its parent company in Finland via Heathrow airport.
  1985, five sources were stolen from a locked car in a car park in Lancaster. The items stolen were mainly static eliminators comprising:

  (i) Model 703 static meter containing 7400 MBq of tritium,

  (ii) Model 210 static eliminator containing 880 MBq of polonium-210.

  (iii) Model 315 static eliminator containing 440 MBq of polonium-210.

  248

  (iv) Model 205 spot eliminator containing 370 MBq of polonium-210.

  (v) Model 902F ionising air gun containing 370 MBq of polonium-210.

  1984, a consignment of four industrial sources was washed overboard from an offshore support vessel going from Aberdeen to Dundee Kings North drilling rig. The details of the sources lost were:

  (i) An americium-241/beryllium source of 590 GBq.

  (ii) An americium-241/beryllium source of 18·5 GBq.

  (iii) Two caesium-137 sources each of 55·5 GBq.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if any nuclear materials designated by(a) his Department or (b) the Environment Directorate General of the European Commission, as nuclear waste are transported within United Kingdom national boundaries by air.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Motorways (Vehicle Use)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how many vehicles used each of Britain's motorways in each of the last five years; and if he will express the figures by class of registration.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Motorways (Access)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state his policy for allowing direct access to motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our policy on motorways is against allowing direct access to the main carriageway or slip roads from any development other than service areas and related facilities. This was set out in my answer to a question from the the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 16 November 1987, at columns 405–6.

  Exceptions are made for motorway service areas on land owned by the Department and for maintenance depots. In addition, special consideration may be given to major transport infrastructure requirements, such as airports. Local planning authorities will be directed to refuse planning permission for unacceptable developments.

  This policy recognises the importance of special roads as high-speed through routes and the heavy investment in them. It is essential, if they are to realise their design potential, that they should be kept free of accesses, apart from road junctions and the other exceptions stated. In this way, traffic flows and speeds may be maintained and the risk of accidents and interruptions to traffic flow minimised.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now satisfied that the Woolwich ferry will now be able to provide a regular and reliable service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am happy to say that the staff have now agreed the new working arrangements arising from the management review of the ferry. These provide
  249
  more efficient staffing and operating schedules. They have now been implemented. A reliable and cost-effective service should now be maintained.

  Road Hump Regulations
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the current road humps regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are currently reviewing the regulations to make a greater diversity of road humps and locations available to local highway authorities. We want to adopt a common sense approach to these regulations so that maximum benefits can be gained from the use of these cost-effective accident reduction measures. We intend to begin consultations with local authorities and other interested organisations in early autumn of this year.

  Bridges (Damage)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has been giving to the problems of damage caused to bridges by overheight road vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These problems have been considered by a departmental working party. A copy of its report, "A Strategy for the Reduction of Bridge Bashing," has been placed in the Library.

  The working party points out that the bridges mainly at risk are some 3,400 rail over road bridges of less than 16' 6" (5·03 m) in height, most of them on local roads. Bridge strikes can cause not only road casualties, but also death and injury to rail users in cases where the track is dislodged by the strike. In addition, substantial damage to property can occur.

  The working party notes that in 1987 an average of some 23 bridge strikes a month were recorded, most of these not having serious consequences. This represents a substantial reduction on the rate 15 years ago. So far, road casualties in the United Kingdom from bridge strikes have been few, and there have been no rail casualties. None the less, there have been a number of bridge strikes which could have led to more serious consequences, and the working party's assessment is that the risk of a strike causing loss of life from a train derailment is of the order of one in 10 years. They identify a package of possible measures for consideration, assuming that it was desired to reduce substantially over five years the incidence of the more serious categories of bridge strike. These include:

  (1) improved road signing, including replacement of advisory bridge height signs with mandatory ones, and in particular cases where justified by the risk, installation of infra-red systems which detect overheight vehicles in advance, and trigger display of a sign to the driver;

  (2) structural measures to increase the clearance at certain vulnerable trunk road bridges (in the context of the general bridge strengthening programme already announced);

  (3) procedures for notifying local highway authorities and the police of movements of vehicles above certain heights;

  (4) extensions of requirements for display in drivers' cabs of the height of vehicles, and installation of warning devices on certain vehicles to show when lifting gear is raised;

  (5) consideration by British Rail of the installation of emergency telephones in certain cases;

  (6) further development of facilities for offering route plans for movements of high vehicles;

  (7) advice to licensing authorities to take into account bridge bashing incidents when administering licensing of heavy goods vehicles and their drivers;

  250

  (8) legislation to permit erection at bridges of beams and other devices not forming part of their structure which are designed to arrest an overheight vehicle, although the working party considers the practical problems and cost of such devices make them unattractive, at least in the short term.

  It will never be possible to eliminate the risks of bridge bashing. The basic problem is one of driver awareness and driver error. The need is to consider ways of increasing this awareness, and reducing the scope for error. The working party's report is a useful contribution to this. We intend in the light of it to improve road signing at our lower trunk road bridges, and to assess case by case whether the risks warrant installation of an infra-red detector system. We intend to consult the local authority associations on the analogous action which local highway authorities might take in relation to local road bridges. An amendment will be made as soon as possible to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 to enable mandatory instead of warning signs to be installed at bridges without the expense of a traffic regulation order.

  The Department also invites licensing authorities to take into account bridge bashing incidents in the exercise of their functions, in so far as this is possible under the present law.

  We are already consulting industry on the question of installing warning devices on skips and tipper lorries and will similarly consult bodies representing manufacturers and users on the working party's recommendations for an extension of the requirements for displaying height in vehicle cabs. In addition, the Department will want to seek the views of representatives of users, local authorities and the enforcement authorities about a system of notification for movement of high vehicles. Any new regulatory measures will be taken only if they are justified in the light of both their benefits and the financial burdens they impose on industry, local authorities and regulatory bodies. Decisions on any notification system will need to be considered particularly carefully from this standpoint.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will carry out separate, parallel consultations on the working party's recommendations with local authorities in Scotland and Wales. In addition to consulting specific organisations on the working party's recommendations (copies of the report are being sent to them) we would very much welcome other views and suggestions. These should be addressed to: Highways Maintenance Branch, Department of Transport, 2 Monck Street, London SW1P 2BQ. Copies of the report are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, priced £6.

  Trunk Roads (London)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether accident investigation and prevention techniques are being used to reduce casualties on trunk roads in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1987–88, using systematic AIP analysis, the Department identified over 100 sites on trunk roads in London where casualties could be reduced by low-cost engineering solutions. It is now organising remedial measures, including anti-skid surfacing, new or improved signs and road markings, better lighting and different signal timings. The estimated first year rate of return for the first 100 sites is 312 per cent.: an estimated reduction of 325 casualties every year.
  251
  The systematic AIP approach reveals the common factors in accidents at a location. It also provides a flow of work suitable for bulk purchase contracts.

  Last year the savings on such a contract for anti-skid surfacing were approximately £300,000 and effectively halved the cost of treating each site.

  Shipping Companies (Crew Relief Costs)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making to use the power in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 enabling him to provide financial assistance to shipping companies in respect of their crew relief costs.

  Mr. Channon
  I am placing in the Library a document entitled, "A Scheme for Department of Transport Assistance with Crew Relief Costs," which outlines the assistance scheme I am introducing under powers contained in the Merchant Shipping Act which received Royal Assent on 3 May.

  I am fully aware that the shipping companies face a powerful financial incentive to employ cheaper Third-world crews. It is important for the continuing capacity of the United Kingdom merchant fleet to carry out its vital functions in time of emergency that sufficient United Kingdom ships are manned by British seafarers. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 contains a provision which enables me to provide assistance towards the cost of flying out and repatriating crews of United Kingdom, Isle of Man or Channel Islands registered ships operating outside the limited European trading area (roughly from Bergen to Cadiz). From 1 September, ship operators will receive reimbursement of approximately half the cost of such journeys undertaken on or after 4 July by seafarers who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or the Irish Republic.

  The availability of assistance should make it more attractive to employ British crews, and I hope that shipping companies will take this into account in reaching decisions on the crewing and flagging of their vessels.

  Registration Numbers (Sale)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the results of his Department's public consultation exercise on proposals for the sale of registration numbers; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  The consultation exercise on the sale of attractive registration numbers ended on 31 May, and most major consultees have now responded. Consultation papers were made widely available to the public and special interest groups: 210 responses were received from motoring organisations, motor traders and their representatives, historic vehicles clubs, police representatives and members of the public. Some 80 per cent, of the responses, including almost all of those received from trade and motoring interests, supported the idea of sale in principle. Some 3 per cent, contained objections. In the light of these responses and the general favourable public interest in the consultation exercise, I propose to continue to develop the proposals with a view to the necessary legislation being introduced in due course.

  Many respondents, however, expressed reservations about the idea of selling previously issued numbers. This
  252
  has strengthened my view that the scheme should, initially at least, be restricted to unissued numbers—of which there are more than adequate supplies.

  Arundel Bypass
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Arundel of 12 April,Official Report, column 81, a decision has been reached on the possibility of constructing the Crossbush section of the Arundel bypass in advance of the rest of the scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am pleased to say that we are going ahead. The case for proceeding with the Crossbush section in advance of the main scheme is acceptable. The necessary work is now under way for publication of draft orders under the Highways Act this autumn.

  London Airspace
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many times in the last year the helilanes into London airspace have been closed without warning to those using them.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 May 1988, c. 56]: I want and need to make a correction. Wrong information was given. I apologise.

  Advance notice was not given in each of the closures mentioned in my earlier answer. The closures were the subject of telephoned advice at the time of closure.

  Only 13 of them were preceded by warning through notices to airmen (NOTAM). The NOTAM action gave very little advance warning.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of overseas aid in the current year in real and money terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The current year cash planning figure for the aid programme, not including aid administration, is £1,307 million.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of aid to front-line states in the light of recent developments in southern Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 13 May at column 250. We shall continue to maintain aid to the countries of the region at a substantial level.

  Overseas Development Administration Annual Review
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the latest edition of the Overseas Development Administration's annual review.
  253
  Mr. Chris Patten
  The 1987 annual review, which for the first time includes articles from the business and voluntary sectors, is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministers (Advisers)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report the terms and conditions of service attaching to political and special advisers to (a) herself, (b) Secretaries of State and (c) Ministers, with particular reference to political activity outside their paid duties.

  The Prime Minister
  Special advisers are civil servants. They have the same conditions of service, except as regards superannuation and severance, and are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with the exception of the rules governing the acceptance of outside appointments after resignation or retirement and certain aspects of the rules on political activities. All the other provisions of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code therefore apply to them.

  There are two areas of political activity where special advisers may be allowed more freedom than other civil servants. With the approval of the Minister they may (a)attend party functions and maintain contact with party members; and (b)take part in policy reviews organised by the party.

  In addition, and subject to the approval of the Minister, special advisers are permitted to undertake all forms of local political activity provided they observe the rule of discretion applicable to civil servants. This does not include local activites in support of national politics.

  Political advisers are not civil servants and are not paid from public funds. Although the provisions of the Civil Service code are not generally appropriate, political advisers are required to avoid conflict of interest between their work for Ministers and their private and business affairs.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received any letters in support of the privatisation of the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride; and if she willmake a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  To date I have received no letters in support of the privatisation of the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.
  254
  Mr. Fowler
  [holding answer, 19 July 1988]: I am pleased to announce that in 1987 the number of businesses registered for VAT increased by 45,000. This is the largest increase since 1979. In the period 1979 to 1987 the number of businesses registered for VAT has increased on average by more than 500 per week. In 1987 nearly 900 additional businesses were created each week.

  Between 1979 and 1987 the number of self-employed people increased by 50 per cent, to 1·9 million. From 1986 to 1987 alone there was an increase of 230,000 self-employed people. These figures show clearly the strength of the small business sector, which has resulted both from the encouragement given to it by the Government and others and from the willingness of individuals to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in the United Kingdom today.

  I set out below some of the measures for which my Department has been responsible over the past year.

  The Small Firms Service

  The small firms service offers advice, information and counselling to small businesses. During 1987–88 the SFS continued to maintain emphasis on counselling established businesses and on supporting and working with other small business advisory services.

  On 5 July my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State announced that the national reference book, a database of information sought by small firms used and developed by the small firms service inquiry staff, is now available to other advisory services upon subscription. Statistics about the work of the service in England are set out below:

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Inquiries

  283,537

  266,174

  New counselling cases;

  27,158

  27,259

  Counselling sessions

  38,210

  39,138

  The small firms service annual report which was published on 5 July provides further information. Copies are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Local Enterprise Agency Support

  The Local enterprise agency grant scheme was introduced on 1 April 1986. This is a five year scheme of financial assistance designed to establish a network of viable self-supporting enterprise agencies. In 1986–87 £2,359,960 was paid in grants to 168 agencies. A further £2,713,856 was paid to 186 agencies in 1987–88.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  Over the past year the scheme has continued to expand. The number of entrants in 1986–87 was 86,715 rising to 106,305 in 1987–88. Provision has been made for 110,000 entrants in 1988–89.

  The scheme continues to encourage the formation of viable businesses with the potential for growth and job generation. The most recent survey of applicants showed that of those who received the allowance for a full year, 65 per cent, are still trading three years after start up and, at that point, for every 100 businesses still trading 114 additional jobs have been created.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme

  This scheme was extended for a further three years in 1986, with the premium payable reduced from 5 per cent, to 2·5 per cent. An evaluation of the scheme has recently been carried out by consultants who are due to report shortly. In addition a telephone survey of current users of the scheme is taking place.
  255
  In 1987–88 1,234 loans to a value of £46·23 million were issued. This compares with 1,050 loans to a value of £40·37 million in 1986–87.

  In January 1988 simplified administrative procedures were introduced for loans up to £15,000. Since then the rate of applications has increased and is now running at around 200 a month.

  Business Expansion Scheme

  This scheme was introduced in 1983 and has played an important part in improving the flow of equity finance to small companies. It offers individual taxpayers the opportunity to offset the value of new equity investments of up to £40,000 a year in qualifying unquoted companies against their liability to tax.

  In his Budget statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a ceiling of £500,000 on investments under the BES in any one company in any period of 12 months. This will encourage prospective investors to examine smaller companies and gives a clear indication to smaller companies, investors and advisors that the BES is aimed at providing equity finance for smaller businesses.

  The Prince's Youth Business Trust

  The Department has agreed to match private sector donations to the trust. In 1987–88 £1·5 million was paid to the trust. The Department's contribution is to be used to provide loans to young people setting up in business or expanding an existing business.

  Training

  Expenditure by the Training Commission (previously the Manpower Services Commission) on small firms training was increased from £18·6 million in 1986–87, benefiting 67,000 people, to £19·3 million, benefiting 107,000 people, in 1987–88.

  In April this year the Department published a series of booklets aimed at encouraging graduates into the small firms sector by either starting up their own business or taking up employment in an existing small firm. The Department has continued its support for the Shell technology enterprise programme, placing undergraduates with small firms during the summer holidays.

  Inner Cities

  As part of the Government's action for cities programme announced on 7 March, new initiatives have been introduced to extend the wide range of help available to new and existing small businesses in inner-city areas and to make services to small firms more accessible.

  New offices for the small firms service are planned in Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Wolverhampton, Leicester and Derby; those in Sheffield and Middlesbrough are now open. A new local enterprise agency project scheme commenced on 1 July, establishing a fund of £0·6 million to support local enterprise agency projects to provide special help to inner-city businesses. On 22 June, a raised Government guarantee of 85 per cent, on loans to firms in the 16 inner-city task forces became available under the loan guarantee scheme. New initiatives are also being introduced to promote self-employment and provide extra training and advice for participants on the enterprise allowance scheme.
  256
  ACAS

  The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service produced a guide for small businesses entitled "Employing People" which received a Plain English award in 1987.

  Health and Safety

  The Health and Safety Commission's small firms working group has special responsibility for the interests of small firms. A number of publications aimed specifically at small firms have been produced and distributed by the Health and Safety Executive. The most recent is "Essentials of Health and Safety at Work" a handbook giving practical advice on health and safety problems.

  Purchasing from Small Firms

  There are regular contacts with other Departments at ministerial and official level to encourage purchasing from small firms. My Department has agreed to fund a post in the central unit on purchasing to promote the opportunities available for small firms. We publish a booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts" which gives guidance on what Government Departments seek to buy and the names and addresses of the relevant contact. My Department also produces its own leaflet "Selling to the Department of Employment" which is widely distributed through DE's small firms centres and regional enterprise units.

  YTS (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of (a) men and (b) women living in the Greater London area, up to the age of 18 years, who are on YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  On 30 June 1988, there were 7,743 males and 4,820 females under the age of 18 years participating in YTS in Greater London.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of industrial apprenticeships taken up in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information from the youth cohort study indicates that some 94,000 young people in England and Wales who reached minimum school-leaving age in the academic year 1985–86 were undertaking an apprenticeship in spring 1987. This is probably an under-estimate, as those who were unsure of their apprenticeship status have not been included. YTS is now the normal route into work for over two thirds of 16 year old school leavers in Great Britain, and is the basis for many modernised apprenticeships. About 393,000 young people are currently benefiting from the structured, quality training programmes offered under YTS.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment using the same definitions as in the 1981 census, what proportion of men aged 60 to 64 years are economically active, retired and permanently sick, respectively; and what proportion of those economically active are unemployed according to the latest figures which are available.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates from the 1987 labour force survey, using as far as is possible the same definitions as in the 1981 census of population, are shown in the table:
  257

  Men aged 60–64 years

  Great Britain Spring 1987

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  All persons

  100·0

  —

  of which:

  economically active

  54·6

  100·0

  retired from paid work1

  18·4

  —

  long-term sick or disabled1

  18·3

  —

  unemployed2

  —

  10·3

  1Main reason given for not looking for work in the reference week.

  2 Great Britain labour force definition.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what, according to the latest estimates, will be the size of the labour force in each of the next 10 years in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the total population.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's latest projections of the civilian labour force were published in an article in the March 1988 edition of "Employment Gazette" (pages 117–129), a copy of which is in the Library. This contains projections up to 1995 of the size of the labour force in different age groups, in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population (the activity rates). Projections beyond 1995 are not available.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people aged 50 to 54 years, inclusive, have been unemployed for longer than six months(a)nationally, (b)in the north-east region and (c)in the Durham, North-West constituency;

  (2) how many people over 55 years have been unemployed for longer than six months (a)nationally, (b)in the north-east, and (c)in the Durham, North-West constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the requested age groups who had been unemployed more than six months in the United Kingdom, the north-east (the counties of Cleveland, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear) and the parliamentary constituency of Durham, North-West on 14 April 1988.

  Claimants unemployed six months and over—14 April 1988

  Aged 50–54 years

  Aged 55 years and over

  United Kingdom

  149,767

  236,578

  North-East

  10,996

  16,156

  Durham, North-West constituency

  325

  519

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged 18 to 25 are currently unemployed; what were the comparable figures in January 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 14 April 1988 (the latest available date) the number of unemployed claimants aged 18 to 25 years in the United Kingdom was 697,718. The corresponding figure for January 1986 was 1,060,136. This comparison will be affected by seasonal factors. Unemployment among 18 to 25-year-olds has fallen by 30 per cent, over the past two years since April 1986.

  Family Statistics
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many children aged(a)under 16 years and (b)under 19 years lived in families where the head of the household was long-term unemployed in 1979 and at the latest date available.

  Mr. Lee
  Information from the labour force survey indicates that in spring 1987 there were an estimated 723,000 dependent children under 16 and 766,000 under 19 in Great Britain in households whose head was unemployed and had been seeking work for at least a year. In spring 1981, the earliest date for which the corresponding information is available, there were an estimated 330,000 dependent children under 16 and 343,000 under 19 in such households.

  Dock Workers
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the ratio between the number of staff employed by the National Dock Labour Board and the number of registered dock workers in the(a) Cumbrian, (b) Fleetwood, (c) Hull and Goole, (d) Bristol and Severn, (e) Aberdeen, (f) west Scotland, (g) east Scotland, (h) London, (i) south coast, (j) Cornwall, (k) Plymouth, (l) Liverpool, (m) Manchester, (n) south Wales, (o) Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, (p) Grimsby and Immingham, (q) East Anglia, (r) Tyne and Wear and (s) Wash ports board areas for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I regret the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobcentres and Benefit Offices
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there are any plans to reduce the number of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices in towns and rural areas.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to close jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices; how many he expects to close in each of the next five years; what criteria he uses to decide on closure; and what will be the staffing consequences.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 July]:The network of offices is kept under continuous review. Any proposal to close an office or change the level of service provided in an individual office is put to the Minister responsible for the employment service for approval. In these cases, the Member of Parliament and local interests are given the opportunity to comment.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of staff employed in jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices in each of the standard economic regions.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 July]: The information is available only on the basis of employment services regions, which are not the same as standard economic regions. Details of the actual numbers of permanent staff employed in local offices at 1 July 1988 in each ES region are given in the table.
  259

  Region

  Full time

  Part-time

  Northern

  1,811

  330

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,741

  389

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,555

  391

  London and South East

  7,052

  850

  South-West

  1,880

  250

  Wales

  1,551

  283

  West Midlands

  2,660

  314

  North West

  4,278

  564

  Scotland

  3,490

  441

  Note: These figures include some specialist staff not engaged in local office work.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices in(a) June 1979 and (b) now, for each standard economic regon of the United Kingdom; and if he will give the total number of job-centres and unemployment benefit offices opened in each standard economic region in each of the years 1979 to June 1988, inclusive.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 July]: The information required is not available by standard economic region. However, the numbers of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices by employment service region on 1 April 1988 are as follows:

  Region

  Jobcentres

  Unemployment benefit offices

  Northern

  60

  66

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  84

  99

  East Midlands and Eastern

  100

  105

  London and South-East

  255

  253

  South-West

  103

  116

  Office for Wales

  99

  120

  West Midlands

  78

  90

  North-West

  133

  156

  Office for Scotland

  121

  153

  1,033

  1,158

  The information for 1979 is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans for the closure of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The network of offices is kept under continuous review. Any proposal to close an office or change the level of service provided in an individual office is put to the Minister responsible for the Employment Service for approval. Where a closure or reduced level of service is proposed the Member of Parliament and local interests are given the opportunity to comment.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether consideration of the future of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices will involve consultation with local right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: It is normal practice in the case of a proposal to close a particular jobcentre or unemployment benefit office or to alter the level of service provided there to give local right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to comment.
  260
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of those jobcentres in the Greater Manchester area which are presently being considered for closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The network of offices is kept under continuous review; any proposals to close an office or change the level of service provided in an individual office are put to the Minister responsible for the employment service for approval. In these cases the Member of Parliament and local interests are given the opportunity to comment. I have no proposals to put to the hon. Member at present.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to seek additional funds to keep existing jobcentres open.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: My right hon. Friend will continue to ensure that all the activities which this Department needs to carry out are adequately funded.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Vehicles (Unleaded Petrol)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority for which he has authority the number of motor vehicles held by each, and the number that have been converted to run on unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The total number of vehicles, excluding launches and aircraft, held by each force in England and Wales at 31 December 1987 was as follows:

  Force

  Number of vehicles

  Avon and Somerset

  668

  Bedfordshire

  198

  Cambridgeshire

  283

  Cheshire

  428

  City of London

  68

  Cleveland

  217

  Cumbria

  283

  Derbyshire

  264

  Devon and Cornwall

  609

  Dorset

  236

  Durham

  278

  Dyfed-Powys

  197

  Essex

  578

  Gloucestershire

  254

  Greater Manchester

  1,138

  Gwent

  160

  Hampshire

  805

  Hertfordshire

  381

  Humberside

  409

  Kent

  715

  Lancashire

  520

  Leicestershire

  354

  Lincolnshire

  258

  Merseyside

  704

  Norfolk

  289

  Northamptonshire

  262

  Northumbria

  561

  North Wales

  295

  North Yorkshire

  325

  Nottinghamshire

  371

  South Wales

  564

  South Yorkshire

  520

  Staffordshire

  338

  Suffolk

  253

  Surrey

  342

  261

  Force

  Number of vehicles

  Sussex

  637

  Warwickshire

  222

  West Mercia

  510

  West Midlands

  1,057

  West Yorkshire

  937

  Wiltshire

  240

  Metropolitan1

  3,972

  Total

  21,700

  1 As at 31 March 1988.

  Records of police vehicles using unleaded fuel are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of the part-time members of staff and 21 sets of job sharers employed in his Department are women; and how many and what percentage are from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Hurd
  There are 1,213 part-time members of staff in the Home Office, of whom 953 (78·6 per cent.) are women. All 21 sets of job sharers are women. Of the part-time staff who responded to the ethnic surveys, 26 (3 per cent.) described themselves as members of an ethnic minority.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of the members of staff in his Department who are on flexible working hours are women and from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what details of his equal opportunities policies related to staff were given to the National Association of Community Relations Councils and when; and whether he will place a copy of the document containing such details in the Library.

  Mr. Hurd
  Information about the equal opportunities policy was given orally to the National Association of Community Relations Councils at a meeting at the Immigration and Nationality Department in January. A representative of the NACRC has since visited IND and has discussed a number of subjects, including our equal opportunities policy.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which members of ethnic minorities have addressed internal training courses in his Department; and when.

  Mr. Hurd
  Records of individuals who have addressed training events are not kept in a way which identifies their ethnic origins. However, over the past 12 months, more than 20 courses or seminars are believed to have been addressed by ethnic minority speakers from outside the Department. More than that have been addressed by ethnic minority members of staff but only a minority of them in connection with equal opportunities.
  262
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what quasi-governmental bodies or other organisations 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 exercises have been carried out by each such department.

  Mr. Hurd
  Those non-departmental public bodies and other organisations sponsored by the Home Office which are responsible for the recruitment and personnel management of the staff they employ are encouraged to be equal opportunities employers, and to pursue practices in accordance with the codes promulgated by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. No central records are held of ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises carried out by them. Those bodies which are staffed by Home Office personnel have been included in the Civil Service regional surveys.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the equal opportunities officer for the prison service and for the rest of his Department, respectively, is female or a member of an ethnic minority or both.

  Mr. Hurd
  The equal opportunities officer for the prison service is male; the others, for the rest of the Department, female. Both are white.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which advertisements have been placed by his Department in the ethnic or local press; and when.

  Mr. Hurd
  Over the past few years my Department has placed a range of advertisements, seeking clerical and specialist staff, immigration officers and prison officers, in papers likely to have a high ethnic minority readership.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whom the continuous examination of recruitment, training and promotion is being carried out to see what further steps might usefully be taken to ensure equal opportunities; when formal meetings have been held in respect thereof; and where and with whom.

  Mr. Hurd
  Staff in the establishment department and prison department directorate of personnel and finance will continue to assess the results of the monitoring exercises and to consider, with others responsible for recruitment, the scope for further action. Meetings within the Home Office on the monitoring exercises have included discussion in the equal opportunities sub-committee of the departmental Whitley Council. Monitoring methods, the use of data, and action likely to promote equal opportunities, have also been discussed with other Departments, and at the joint working party on race relations.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings have been held with ethnic minority community and church leaders in connection with his efforts to promote greater racial equality employment within his Department; and when.

  Mr. Hurd
  Members of staff with responsibility for race relations have continuing contacts with black-led
  263
  Churches and other ethnic minority communities. These provide occasions for discussion about employment in the Civil Service. The prison department has had meetings in 1986 and 1987 with Church and community leaders.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of the respondents to his monitoring exercises who stated that they were of ethnic minority origin were in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively.

  Mr. Hurd
  Thirty members of staff in these or equivalent grades, mainly at the lower end of the range, described themselves as of ethnic minority origin. This is nearly 2 per cent, of the respondents in these grades.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the results of each of his Department's recruitment schemes since October 1987; by whom these are being assessed; when he expects to reach firm conclusions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  We aim to reach initial conclusions on the basis of the first year's experience on monitoring recruitment schemes by the end of the year.

  Prisons
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take action to ensure that prisoners at Durham prison get clean underwear more than once every four weeks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At Durham prison prisoners are issued with two sets of clean underwear each week. I understand that difficulties with supplies have occasionally resulted in clean underwear not being available immediately after bathing, but in that event prisoners have been able to collect a change of underwear within a few days.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many long-term prisoners are there in Durham prison; and what is the maximum number laid down in the relevant regulation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Friday 22 July Durham prison held 149 adult male prisoners who had been sentenced to over four years' imprisonment and 36 female prisoners and 20 young offenders who had been sentenced to over three years' imprisonment. The number of long-term prisoners held in the prison is not governed by regulation.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many toilets are there in the prison wings at Durham; how many prisoners and staff they cater for; how many toilets there are in the new administration block; and how many they cater for.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Wing facilities

  WCs

  Urinals

  For inmates

  47

  47

  For staff

  8

  5

  As at 22 July 1988, there were 1,138 inmates in Durham prison and 200 members of staff were engaged on wing duties.
  264

  Administration unit facilities

  WCs

  Urinals

  Female

  3

  —

  Male

  3

  3

  As at 22 July 1988, there were 41 staff employed in the administration unit.

  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many baths, showers, toilets and urinals are available for inmates at Bedford prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Facilities

  Numbers available to inmates and in use

  Baths

  9

  Showers

  18

  WCs

  37

  Urinals

  31

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of his proposals for restructuring the Home Office forensic science service, including(a) the grading of director posts, (b) the number of senior scientists at grade seven level, (c) the average grade of assistant court going officers, and (d) whether there are likely to be any compulsory redundancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department is discussing with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants a wide range of proposals for enhancing the effectiveness of the forensic science service and improving its efficiency. We expect to receive these proposals shortly and my noble Friend will write to the hon. and learned Member when we have considered them.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time between the arrival of an application for British citizenship at Lunar house, Croydon, and its being opened.

  Mr. Renton
  Applications for citizenship are currently being opened within three working days of receipt. On 25 July there were 90 packages containing applications for citizenship waiting to be opened which had been received since 22 July.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to deal with applications for British citizenship made to his Department.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 20 July 1988 at column 650.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British citizenship have been received by his Department; how many applications were outstanding as at 30 June; and if he will make a statement.
  265
  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 20 July, at column 650, and to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 25 July.

  Immigration (Edinburgh Airport)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration cases were dealt with at Edinburgh airport in each year from 1981 to 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  District and Port

  Assistant Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Chief Immigration Officer

  Immigration Officers

  Heathrow

  Terminal 1

  1

  4

  17

  81·50

  Terminal 2

  —

  4

  20

  128

  Terminal 3

  1

  6

  30

  199

  Terminal 4

  1

  5

  20

  111

  Luton

  —

  1

  3

  18

  Gatwick

  South Terminal

  1

  4

  18

  130·50

  North Terminal

  —

  2

  11

  64

  Metropolitan

  London City Airport

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Gravesend

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Scotland and Northern Ireland

  Aberdeen

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Belfast

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Edinburgh

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Glasgow

  —

  1

  2

  16

  Prestwick

  —

  —

  1

  6

  North East

  Hull

  —

  —

  2

  12

  Immingham

  —

  —

  —

  3

  North Shields

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Leeds/Bradford Airport

  —

  1

  1

  7

  Stockton

  —

  —

  —

  6

  North West

  Manchester

  —

  1

  4

  31

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  2

  11

  Preston

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Midlands

  Birmingham

  —

  1

  5

  24

  East Midlands Airport

  —

  —

  2

  10

  East Anglia

  Harwich

  —

  1

  4

  32

  Great Yarmouth

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Felixstowe

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Norwich

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Southend

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Stansted

  —

  —

  1

  8

  South East 1

  Folkstone

  —

  —

  5

  26

  South East 2

  Dover East

  1

  2

  15

  112·50

  South East 3

  Dover West

  —

  2

  6

  39·50

  Ramsgate

  —

  —

  2

  14

  Dover Hoverport

  —

  —

  3

  16

  Sheerness

  —

  —

  3

  10

  Southern

  Southampton

  —

  1

  2

  13

  Immigration Officers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of immigration officers employed at each point of entry into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of immigration officers, including management grades, employed at each point of entry into the United Kingdom as at 1 July 1988 was as follows:
  267

  District and Port

  Assistant Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Chief Immigration Officer

  Immigration Officers

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  4

  25

  Hurn

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Newhaven

  —

  —

  4

  19

  South West

  Cardiff

  —

  1

  1

  5

  Cardiff Airport

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Avonmouth

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Milford Haven

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Falmouth

  —

  —

  —

  1

  TOTAL

  5

  37

  199

  1,269

  Incident (Kensal Green)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  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 what steps have been taken to identify the owners and whereabouts of the cars referred to in the article by Jonathan Taylor on page 27 of the issue of The Independent dated 21 July; and whether those concerned in the affair have been apprehended.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that at the time of the incident the victims were unable to provide descriptions of the alleged assailants or registration numbers of their cars. However, the police are contacting Mr. Taylor to see whether he has information which might assist the investigation.

  Pentonville Prison
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unconvicted prisoners have been held in Pentonville prison for more than two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 March 1988 one unconvicted prisoner in Pentonville prison had been held there for more than two years.

  Hong Kong (Death Penalty)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy, before approving the extradition of any person to Hong Kong, to seek an assurance from the Governor of Hong Kong that the death penalty will not be carried out on that person; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section(4) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 provides discretion to refuse the surrender of a fugitive accused or convicted of an offence not punishable with the death penalty in Great Britain, if the death penalty could be imposed in the requesting Commonwealth country or dependency. It is the policy in such cases to seek an assurance, before surrendering the fugitive, that the death penalty will not be carried out. In the case of the return of a fugitive to Hong Kong such an assurance would be sought from the Governor.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce the appointment of the deputy chairman and members of the Broadcasting Standards Council.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am pleased to be able to confirm that Miss Jocelyn Barrow, OBE, has agreed to become the deputy chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council. She will take up the appointment later in the year, following her departure from the BBC board of governors.

  I am also pleased to confirm that Dr. Jean Curtis-Raleigh, the Rt. Rev. W. J. Westwood, Bishop of Peterborough, Mr. Richard Baker, OBE, Mr. Alf Dubs and Dr. R. Brinley Jones have all agreed to become members of the council.

  I shall announce details of the complete membership of the council as soon as possible.

  Hungerford (Shootings)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received the report of Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary on the Hungerford incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have received the report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and I have today placed in the Library a summary of it which includes all his conclusions and recommendations. Most of these are for chief officers to consider and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary will be bringing them to the attention of the Association of Chief Police Officers for this purpose. Some of the recommendations in relation to communications will be pursued by the Home Office police department science and technology group. Recommendations concerning firearms law are being considered in the context of the legislative changes proposed in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The recommendations which touch on the police use of firearms and in particular the use of armed response units will be considered by the Home Office working party on police use of firearms.

  Civil Defence College
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached any conclusions on the review of the Civil Defence College.
  269
  Mr. Hurd
  Yes. A document has today been placed in the Library setting out the ground covered by the review and the decisions which I have taken as a result.

  The college will have a greater analytical and developmental role in civil defence policy, within the framework of Home Office policy objectives. It will concentrate on training at senior level. The numbers of general courses will be reduced and replaced by workshops for civil defence planners. The college will continue to advise and assist local authorities with their training at local level. Some limited development in planning for peacetime emergencies within the framework established by the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 will be initiated. There will be new arrangements for liaison and advisory groups on which the local authorities and their staff will be represented. The co-ordination of volunteer effort in civil defence will be further examined.

  The work of implementing these changes will now be taken forward by my officials. There will be full discussions with the local authority associations, the professional organisations and the trade union side of the Home Office departmental Whitley council as the work progresses.

WALES

  Housing
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a summarised housing revenue account consistent with table 17.1 of Cm. 288-II, for each of the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 for (a) Welsh local authorities, (b) new town development corporations in Wales and (c) housing corporation-financed housing in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  For Welsh local authorities for the years 1982–83 to 1985–86 the requested information can be found at table 63 of "Welsh Housing Statistics 1987", a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House. Revised figures for 1986–87 and provisional figures for 1987–88 on the same basis are as follows. Figures for later years are not available.

  The information for new town development corporations and the Housing Corporation for the same years can be found at table 64 of the same publication which shows expenditure from 1982–83 to 1985–86. Revised figures for 1986–87 and provisional figures for 1987–88 are also shown in the following table:

  Housing Revenue Account: Income and Expenditure

  (£ thousands)

  1986–87

  11987–88

  Income

  Unrebated rent of dwellings

  227,098

  232,744

  Net rent of land and building other than dwellings

  2,314

  2,376

  Government subsidy

  8,698

  11,762

  Contributions from other local authorities

  239

  250

  Mortgage interest from former tenants

  13,311

  12,426

  Interest from unapplied capital receipts

  19,205

  18,843

  Contributions from the General Rate Fund

  2,318

  2,369

  Administration of rent rebates scheme

  2,998

  3,970

  Other (excluding rent rebates)

  11,815

  11,823

  Other income—Total

  287,996

  296,563

  Expenditure

  Supervision and management:

  General

  25,385

  28,083

  Special

  15,999

  17,844

  Repairs and maintenance

  88,213

  92,754

  270

  1986–87

  11987–88

  Debt charges:

  Repayment of principal

  23,481

  25,452

  Interest on outstanding loan debt

  122,578

  132,638

  Capital expenditure met from revenue:

  Revenue contributions to capital outlay

  4,453

  4,016

  Other

  Transfers to General Rate Fund

  1,448

  1,516

  Other Expenditure

  4,405

  5,135

  Total

  285,962

  307,438

  Dwelling in HRA at end of March

  253,000

  248,000

  1 Provisional.

  Public expenditure on housing

  (£ million)

  1986–87

  11987–88

  Housing corporation:

  Gross loans and grants to housing associations

  51·5

  64·5

  Receipts

  -5·1

  -7·1

  Total net Housing Corporation expenditure

  46·4

  57·4

  New towns:

  Gross expenditure:

  Land

  —

  —

  New dwellings

  0·6

  0·1

  Renovations

  —

  —

  Total new towns gross expenditure

  0·6

  0·1

  Receipts:

  Sales

  -1·4

  -5·5

  Repayment of sums outstanding on sales of dwellings

  -0·5

  -0·2

  Total new towns receipts

  -1·9

  -5·7

  Total new towns expenditure

  -1·3

  -5·6

  1 Provisional.

  Lliw Valley Borough Council
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give consideration to the designation of part or the whole of the area of Lliw valley borough council as an inner urban area.

  Mr. Grist
  The status of all Welsh districts is kept under regular review. At present, however, there is not sufficient justification to designate Lliw valley.

  Hospices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list hospices for the terminally ill in Wales, by county, indicating the amount of public money paid to these in the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make further funds available to health authorities in Wales for the provision of hospices for the terminally ill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Within their overall financial allocations it is for individual health authorities to decide on the resourcing of services in the light of specific local need.

  Social Science Research
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent by his Department in each of the

  271
  past five years on social science research; what percentage this constitutes of total departmental expenditure and of the Department's research budget; and how much of the research has been undertaken (a) within his Department, (b) by universities and polytechnics and (c) by independent research organisations.

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

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will allocate more funds to Clwyd health authority to enable the authority to meet the nurses' wages awards; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish his latest estimate of the likely full percentage overall pay increase for the nurses' pay award for each of the health authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will meet Clwyd area health authority to discuss the financial implications of the nurses' pay award; if he will grant the Welsh area health authorities £10 million extra cash to meet the nurses' pay award; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Responsibility for implementing the new nurses' clinical grading structure rests with health authorities; until the outcome of that exercise is completed the percentage increase for each authority cannot be known for certain. The review body estimated that the overall effect would be to add 14·5 per cent, to the pay bill. This, together with the costs of implementing the other review bodies' awards (for doctors, dentists and professions allied to medicine) is estimated to be £33·366 million—after taking account of the allowance for pay and price inflation already in health authorities' allocations for this year.

  I cannot comment on the need for additional funds until the implementation of the new grading structures has been completed.

  Airey and Unity Houses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) Airey type and (b) Unity type houses exist in Alyn and Deeside District council area; what is the estimated cost of reconstituting each of them by type; and if he will make a statement as to when he expects these houses to be repaired;

  (2) if he will increase grants to local authorities in Wales to ensure the priority repair of Unity and Airey type houses; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will increase the amount of grants to Alyn and Deeside council to enable the housing authority to meet its commitment to repair Airey houses and Unity type houses under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985; how much has already been granted for the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is the average grant given to reconstitute Airey type houses in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand that there is a total of 54 Unity and 39 Airey dwellings in the public and private sectors in Alyn and Deeside. For those dwellings in the private sector the provisions of part XVI of the Housing Act 1985 makes assistance available for eligible owners by way of 272
  reinstatement grant or repurchase. Such assistance will be available for eligible owners of Airey and Unity dwellings until 30 November 1994. Average costs for the repair of such dwellings are not held centrally but national expense limits for eligible owners have recently been reviewed and are currently set at:

  £

  Unity one storey

  17,000

  Unity two storey

  23,000

  Airey

  27,000

  For those dwellings in the public sector we have agreed with the local authorities that it should be for them to determine the priority and form of treatment they think most appropriate.

  For the private sector we have to date made available more than £30 million to assist local authorities with their obligations under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985.

  For the financial years 1985–86 and 1986–87 all bids for such resources were met in full. For 1987–88 one half of such bids were met. This represented £50,000 for Alyn and Deeside district council. A reserve was, however, held against which further bids could be made by those local authorities which could demonstrate contractual commitments. For the current financial year authorities facing exceptional difficulties have again been able to take advantage of a reserve held, over and above main allocations. Alyn and Deeside district council has not made any bids against these resources. In common with all other Welsh local authorities, Alyn and Deeside district council will shortly be submitting its 1989–90 housing strategy and investment programme to the Department, which will be considered in the light of resources available. I cannot at this stage anticipate what allocation will be made for next year.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 19 July 1988]: This Department attaches high priority to the promotion of enterprise and to helping small businesses; a number of specific local initiatives have been directed at this. Both the Department and its sponsored bodies monitor and evaluate their programmes in order to assess their effectiveness. Performance indicators contribute to this process and some of these appear in the public expenditure White Paper and the annual reports of sponsored bodies:

  Number of clients other than those attending start up courses provided with assistance

  Number

  Start-Up Clients

  1986–87

  1,600

  1987–88

  1,900

  Drive Projects

  1986–87

  128

  1987–88

  248

  273

  Number

  Mid Wales development grants

  1986–87

  3 429

  1987–88

  3 534

  1 Total assistance offered £215,000.

  2 Total assistance offered £278,000.

  3 Mostly small businesses.

  4 Total grants offered £641,337.

  5 Total grants offered £1,102,180.

  Training Commission

  The Training Commission in Wales continues to focus its adult training programme to take account of small firms training needs. In 1987–88 financial year the commission spent £1,026,399 in Wales in assisting 6,816 people from September this year. Employment training, which is shortly to absorb the present training programmes for unemployed adults, will provide a comprehensive and flexible training programme aimed at providing the skills unemployed people need and employers want.

  Advice and Information

  We have made it a priority to improve the help available to small businesses and the self-employed through the small firms service, local enterprise agencies, jobcentres, and the many other public and private-sector sources of advice. Last October we launched the Gateway Network as a means of bringing together all these bodies to work co-operatively; last month we announced that the major banks in Wales had joined the Network. Work is in hand to establish a pilot "one-stop shop" in the Merthyr Tydfil area to facilitate the dealings that new businesses have to undertake because of regulatory requirements.

  Small Firms Service

  The Welsh Development Agency (WDA) administers the small firms service in Wales, which has continued to respond to a high level of inquiries. The figures for the latest two financial years are:

  1986–87

  1987–88

  (i) Enquiries

  38,808

  42,869

  (ii) Business counselling—first interviews

  7,698

  8,365

  (iii) Business counselling—total interviews

  8,689

  9,924

  Local Enterprise Agencies

  The Department takes an active role in encouraging the development of local enterprise agencies and provides funding via the WDA for core activities and special projects. As part of my recently announced programme to revitalise the South Wales valleys, the Department will seek to strengthen the network of enterprise agencies and to provide for all parts of the area to be served by one. Moreover, the intention is to ensure that these agencies are of the highest quality and constitute the best enterprise agency system in the United Kingdom.

  Local Link: Local Investment Initiative

  We have just launched this new experimental scheme in the Bridgend area. It aims to increase the links between small firms looking for investment and investors who are willing to put money into business ventures in their own community.

  Regional Enterprise Grant

  This scheme, launched in April 1988, aims to encourage very small firms employing fewer than 25 people to invest and innovate. It has been generally well received. Despite a slow start the number of applications has picked up and
  274
  is now showing an encouraging upward trend. The total number of applications received to date is 63 and they have a total value of approximately £710,000.

  The Business Improvement Services Scheme

  This was launched in 1984 and is directed at smaller companies—those employing 200 or less. It aims to encourage the development of new and existing businesses in those areas of Wales affected by the rundown in the steel industry. The scheme is a European regional development fund initiative with a total of about £9·2 million being allocated to Wales (of which £2·4 million is from the United Kingdom Government) for the period between December 1984 and December 1988. The scheme provides grants of between 55 per cent, and 70 per cent, to encourage eligible firms (which may be involved in most manufacturing and some service sector activities) to obtain specialist consultancy advice, develop new products and processes or research new markets. Over 850 offers of grant totalling nearly £3 million were made in the 12 months to 30 June 1988. This compares with just under 600 offers totalling £1·5 million in the 12 months to June 1987.

  Enterprise Initiative Consultancy Scheme

  Small businesses are the main target of the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme (administered by the Welsh Development Agency) which was launched in January of this year. There has been a very healthy response to the scheme in Wales. By 8 July, 472 applications had been received, of which 243 had been referred to the scheme contractors for allocation to consultants. There are of course no directly comparable figures for last year. The progress of the consultancy scheme is carefully monitored according to the guidelines established by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Regional Selective Assistance, Regional Development Grant

  Small businesses have also taken advantage of the help available under more general industrial support schemes, principally regional selective assistance and regional development grants (applications for which ceased to be accepted after 31 March 1988). Between 1 July 1987 and 30 June 1988, 86 offers of assistance worth £6,248,000 were made to businesses and organisations employing fewer than 200 under the regional selective assistance scheme, compared to 78 offers worth £5,719,000 during the previous 12 months. For regional development grants, the equivalent figures were 1,088 offers worth £27,831,000 for 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988 and 900 offers worth £26,167,000 for the previous 12 months.

  The Valleys: A Programme for the People

  The new programme for the South Wales valleys launched on 14 June 1988 includes a 15-point programme designed to encourage new and small businesses in the area. This covers additional investment support including two new loan schemes introduced by the WDA for small and very small businesses, the provision of more small factories and workshops, strengthened provision for enterprise training, improved advisory services and action to improve the standard of retailing.

  The Craft Initiative

  This initiative is designed to provide a comprehensive, professional and effective means of promoting the Welsh craft industry and its products and ensuring that

  275
  craft-oriented businesses, both large and small, play their full part in the economic regeneration of Wales. The new co-ordinated package of assistance now available to Welsh craft businesses is head and shoulders above that available elsewhere.

  Wales Tourist Board

  In 1987–88 the Wales Tourist Board offered some £2·5 million of assistance towards 114 projects, estimated to generate £17·1 million private sector investment and create 417 new jobs. The greater part of such assistance was offered to small businesses, with the board offering streamlined processing for small projects. This facility is of particular value to small and new businesses, as are the advisory and marketing support offered by the board within the Principality.

  The board has recently launched its framework development strategy highlighting opportunities for development for businesses of all sizes within the Principality, and further extending special schemes of assistance of particular value to small businesses.

  Mid Wales Development (MWD)

  MWD provides assistance to small businesses within its area; achievement for the years 1986–87 and 1987–88 are as follows:

  Start-up courses—Number attending

  Year

  Number

  1986–87

  339

  1987–88

  631

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  The enterprise allowance scheme in Wales continues to be a success. The number of entrants in the last two financial years were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986–87

  5,639

  1987–88

  6,500

  It is estimated that some 7,000 people will enter the scheme in the 1988–89 financial year. The results of a survey in March 1988 showed that of those that received an allowance for a full year, 74 per cent, were still trading 18 months after start-up, and for every 100 of these businesses, 71 additional jobs have been created.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Borrowing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1970 the public sector borrowing requirement, the increase in the private sector borrowing requirement and the amount of new money created by the lending institutions and the public sector, respectively.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) are published in Financial Statistics, table 2.6. Chart 2.3 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report shows private borrowing as a percentage of GDP since 1974–75, where private borrowing is defined along similar lines to the PSBR. Recent figures for bank and building society lending, and public sector counterparts to
  276
  broad money, are available in table 11.7 of Financial Statistics. Figures for earlier years are available from the Bank of England on request.

  Rents
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forcast of(a) the increase in rent income in 1989–90 as a result of the relaxation of rent controls, (b) the amount which will be subject to tax and the expected yield and (c) the extra amount which the Exchequer will pay out to tenants by way of rent relief.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  What the difference will be between rents of lettings to which rent regulation no longer applies and rents for lettings on regulated tenancies is too uncertain at this stage for worthwhile forecasts to be made of the additional tax yield and additional expenditure on housing benefit.

  Life Insurance and Pensions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report figures for each year since 1979 the net increase in the amounts available for investment of life assurance and pension schemes to the nearest £ million; and if he will provide a forecast for 1987 and for 1988.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures for total net investment by the long-term funds of insurance companies and self-administered pension funds (excluding net investment by pension funds in insurance-managed funds) are as follows for the years 1979 to 1987:

  £ million

  1979

  10,100

  1980

  11,744

  1981

  13,533

  1982

  15,201

  1983

  15,957

  1984

  17,668

  1985

  18,089

  1986

  20,027

  1987

  21,086

  Note: There are some breaks in the series due to definitional changes. The main ones are between 1983 and 1984 and between 1984 and 1985. A forecast for 1988 is not available.

  Credit Control
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make it his policy to impose selective controls on credit by requiring banks and other lending institutions to deposit non-interest bearing cash into the Bank of England as a proportion of their advances for specified purposes or for other than specified purposes.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Steel Corporation
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the British Steel Corporation will be published.
  277
  Mr. Maude
  The report is published today.

  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission was asked to investigate and report whether the British Steel Corporation could improve its efficiency and reduce its costs, except in so far as that question related to, or might involve consideration of, strategy decisions agreed with Her Majesty's Government in relation to the corporation.

  The commission concentrated its investigation on the corporation's two largest operating groups, Strip Products Group and General Steels Group, which together contain the five integrated steelworks where the bulk of the corporation's steel production takes place.

  The commission noted that the corporation had moved from a net loss of over £1 billion in 1980–81 to a profit of £38 million in 1985–86. In commending this very considerable achievement, the commission said that it had been secured partly by reductions in capacity and manpower but more significantly by more than doubling manpower productivity over that period. The corporation had re-established its position in the world steel industry, with a range of products which for the most part compared well with that of its competitors. The commission found that the corporation was thus in a new situation. Furthermore, the European Commission ended state aid for steel on 31 December 1985, with the result that all future financial requirements carried interest at market rates. While observing that this had to be seen in the context of the strategy decisions which inevitably affected the corporation's capacity utilisation and hence its efficiency, the commission noted that the strategy still left the corporation with a wide discretion to improve its efficiency. Stock control, maintenance and monitoring of quality performance were identified in particular by the commission as subjects meriting closer attention.

  The commission made 48 recommendations for improving the corporation's performance and attached priority to those concerning the determination of the investment programme; the review of stocks; the study of maintenance procedures; quality standards and delivery performances. Notwithstanding its other comments and proposals, the commission observed that the corporation was right to be proud of the efforts of its work force and management in moving from the period of massive losses to the profitabilty achieved in 1985–86, and sensed a determination at all levels in the corporation to continue to improve performance.

  In view of the delay in publication I am asking the corporation to respond to the commission's findings as quickly as possible.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have been made for the export of military equipment for each year from 1979; and how many of these have been(a) granted and (b) refused.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The following are the numbers of licence applications received for exports of military equipment controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order:278

  Export licence applications received

  Year

  Number

  1979

  8,668

  1980

  6,882

  1981

  6,968

  1982

  6,851

  1983

  6,931

  1984

  6,871

  1985

  9,350

  1986

  9,406

  1987

  11,222

  Records of the numbers of export licences granted and refused could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Software Industries
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what studies his Department has undertaken into the ability of the United Kingdom software industry to compete with the French, West German and Italian software industries after 1992; and if he will arrange for copies of such studies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department commissioned a report entitled "Computing Services Industry 1986–1996 a decade of opportunity" from Coopers and Lybrand Associates which was published in April 1987. The study predicts future trends in the industry and includes a comparison of the United Kingdom industry with those of its major competitors—France, West Germany, the United States of America and Japan.

  Copies of the report are available from the Library.

  Copyright
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has received from the Government of Indonesia relating to their intentions to grant equal status to copyright works of United Kingdom citizens to those granted to citizens of the United States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Her Majesty's Government are currently negotiating an agreement with the Government of Indonesia for the mutual protection of copyright works. This will enlarge on the protection which is already available for sound recordings. I understand that a United States-Indonesia agreement is also being negotiated.

  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has received from the Government of Korea relating to their intentions to grant equal status to copyright works of United Kingdom citizens to those granted to citizens of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has made to the Republic of Korea about British books being pirated there on a large scale; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations have been made to him by Macmillan publishers relating to the pirating in the Republic of Korea of the multi-volume work of reference published under the title "The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Since the accession of the Republic of Korea to the universal copyright convention in October 1987, British books published have been protected in that
  279
  country. It is, therefore, open to publishers to take action in Korea in respect of the piracy of such works, for example, the Palgrave dictionary. The Community negotiated with Korea to obtain protection for older works and to obtain certain benefits in respect of patents; all of these rights had been granted to the United States and the Community was therefore seeking parity of treatment. The negotiations broke down and as a result the Community suspended Korea's benefits under the generalised system of preferences, where the matter now stands.

  English Estates
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he envisages any changes in the activities of English Estates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  As the White Paper, "DTI—the department for Enterprise", Cm. 278, made clear, the activities of English Estates are an important instrument of our policies which seek to support economic development and encourage enterprise in the regions and inner cities. The recently launched programme aimed at increasing the supply of managed workspace in the inner cities has added an important new dimension to its role.

  In the assisted areas the essential role of English Estates is to seek to ensure that suitable premises and sites are available to meet the needs of new and growing businesses, which would not otherwise be met. It does this in a variety of ways including the development of factories, workshops and offices either in advance of demand or to meet the needs of specific customers. It also actively facilitates provision by private sector developers, investors and owner occupiers.

  Improving economic conditions have enabled English Estates in recent years to achieve successive annual improvements in the amount of floorspace let and sold. There is, nevertheless, an unsatisfied demand for premises which, combined with rising rental levels and the prospects of continuing economic growth, is leading to renewed interest by the private sector in providing industrial and commercial floorspace in some parts of the assisted areas. If the property needs of industry and commerce are to be met it is essential that this interest should be further encouraged. This requires a suitable response on the part of English Estates. We have, therefore, been considering with the board of the corporation how the planning and execution of its assisted areas programmes should be developed.

  On the basis of advice from the board we have concluded that in order to reinforce existing market trends English Estates should adopt fresh approaches designed to secure increased private sector activity wherever possible.

  This will affect English Estates' policies towards rental levels and sale prices. Hitherto, the general requirement has been that these should be set at the maximum level the market would bear. For the future, English Estates will have the specific objectives of endeavouring to increase rents and sale prices to levels which will make equivalent developments attractive to the private sector.

  The emphasis of English Estates' development strategy will also change substantially with the aim of securing increased private sector activity. Thus, English Estates role as a facilitator will assume much greater significance through the marketing of development opportunities, the
  280
  preparation and disposal of serviced sites, joint ventures and the sale of completed schemes to investors. English Estates will use its own development funding only in the areas and for the products where private sector provision remains inadequate and where it will not impede the return to a properly functioning property market.

  Thus in considering the shape of its future programme in the assisted area, English Estates will have regard to three categories of area and types of property. In the first, the presumption will be that the private sector will be meeting demand without the involvement of English Estates. In the second, it is likely that English Estates will need to participate in some form of joint venture in some types of development if private sector involvement is to be triggered. We shall consider with English Estates the cost-effectiveness of particular arrangements which may be necessary to encourage appropriate private sector provision. In the third, where there is no immediate prospect of private sector provision, English Estates will continue to act as a funder and developer, but on the basis of the rentals and sales policy outlined above.

  In future I shall be determining the size of English Estates' annual development programme on the basis of advice from the board about market demand, the likely level of private sector provision and the availability of public sector resources. I shall also take into account the need to balance the demand for resources between the assisted areas programme and the new inner-city managed workspace programme as the latter develops. Decisions about which developments are to be undertaken will remain the responsibility of the board acting within the framework I have just described. I have asked the board to take steps to publish regularly a programme describing the projects planned to be pursued in each region in particular financial years. I shall expect the geographical boundaries of that programme to narrow significantly over time as they take full account of changing rental levels and development costs.

  Disabled Persons (Accessibility)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has as to which areas and buildings in recently revitalised inner-city areas remain inaccessible for people in wheelchairs, following redevelopments;

  (2) whether he will set up a consultative body to monitor the extent to which the access needs of disabled people are being met in the revitalisation of the inner cities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what consultations he has had with national and local disability organisations on the subject of disabled people's access needs in the revitalisation of the inner cities;

  (4) what consultations he has had with the Access Committee for England, the Centre for the Environment for the Handicapped, and Business in the Community on the subject of disabled people's access needs in the revitalisation of the inner cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have had no consultations on these lines, but seek to ensure that the representations we have received from RADAR, and any others we may receive, are appropriately reflected in the development or redevelopment of the inner cities.
  281
  I am not convinced that further formal consultation machinery would contribute materially to this aim, or that it would be practicable to gather systematic information about the accessibility of buildings in inner-city areas. I would, however, expect city action teams and inner-city task forces to give positive consideration to the needs of the disabled people in their work, and of course to conform to the provisions on access for disabled people contained in building regulations. Equally, I hope that organisations of and for disabled people, and in particular local access groups, will ensure that their views and suggestions are made known to the teams and task forces.

  "Disabled People and The Inner Cities"
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has had from the local task forces and city action teams to the paper written by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, RADAR, "Disabled People and The Inner Cities".

  Mr. Newton
  The city action teams and inner city task forces continue to take account of the needs of the disabled as set out in the recent paper by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, "Disabled People and the Inner Cities". In particular, the task forces have supported a range of inner-city projects which specifically benefit the disabled. Projects include:Middlesbrough: support through task force and community programme for project converting cars for the disabled.
  Handsworth: support for community glass business to enable it to take on disabled workers.
  Spitalfields: installation of a lift for the disabled in Toynbee hall, Gunthorpe street workshops to enable disabled people to have access to facilities, including job club.
  Nottingham: support for 80 place computer training project for the disabled.
  Coventry: requirement that conversion projects supported by task force should make provision for disabled access.
  Leeds: disabled care service project, in conjunction with New Testament Church.
  Rochdale: support for disabled places in woodcraft and needlework training.
  North Peckham, Southwark: support for 30 place community industry sewing workshop which makes clothes specially tailored for the disabled; support for Southwark environment trust conversion of old stables into workshops, including one made available to the Southwark association for the disabled.
  Doncaster: support to Concorde centre for development of training places for the disabled; support for residential course for disadvantaged Youth Training Scheme trainees, including disabled.

  In addition, the interdepartmental urban programme supports some 200 projects worth about £6·5 million per annum, which directly benefit the disabled.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will issue a White Paper on how the access needs of disabled people will be met in the revitalisation of the inner cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will outline the interdepartmental co-ordination that exists to ensure that access needs for disabled people in the inner cities are not overlooked.

  Mr. Newton
  The main instruments for interdepartmental co-ordination are the city action teams, which 282
  include the regional directors of my Department, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment. They are based in Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, the inner-city partnership areas of London, Manchester-Salford, Newcastle-Gateshead and Nottingham. Outside city action team areas there are similar but less formal links between Departments. The city action teams are responsible for co-ordinating and focusing major Government programmes in inner city areas, including the urban programme, city grant, the enterprise initiative and employment programmes, working with local authorities, the private sector and other local organisations. These programmes already take account of the needs of the disabled inner-city areas, and the valuable contribution which they can make to inner-city regeneration, and further advice has recently been issued to the city action teams on these lines, drawing on useful background material provided by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation.

  European Community (Gaseous Fuel Appliances)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the draft directive on the harmonisation of the laws of member states relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels; and what representations he has made to the European Commission on this subject.

  Mr. Forth
  We have received a number of written representations on this subject from member companies of the Society of British Gas Industries and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South-West, (Mr. Butcher) the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, recently met a delegation drawn from its membership. In addition, views have been canvassed more widely from the gas supply and manufacturing industry as part of the normal consultation process.

  Detailed representations to the Commission which reflect to a large extent the technical concerns expressed by industry have been made through the participation of officials in the Commission working party of experts set up to examine this draft directive.

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review the provision of the Financial Services Act 1986 and other related legislation and regulation on small investors and independent intermediaries, with regard to compliance cost assessment.

  Mr. Maude
  The Secretary of State and the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board have agreed to take stock on a regular basis to assess the development of the new regulatory regime and its impact on investment businesses.

  Import-Export Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the value of imports from and exports to Malaysia in each of the years 1979 to 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the value of imports from and exports to the Republic of Liberia in each of the years 1979 to 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  283
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom trade with Malaysia and the Republic of Liberia 1979—May 1988

  Value in £ millions

  Imports

  Exports

  Malaysia

  1979

  221·7

  187·6

  1980

  186·9

  223·9

  1981

  188·3

  196·2

  1982

  185·2

  210·6

  1983

  222·5

  248·3

  1984

  319·5

  283·1

  1985

  383·9

  281·7

  1986

  349·9

  226·9

  1987

  397·1

  258·0

  11988

  197·6

  122·4

  Liberia

  1979

  14·3

  84·3

  1980

  8·7

  46·4

  1981

  6·0

  24·3

  1982

  8·2

  14·1

  1983

  7·2

  13·9

  1984

  7·2

  31·0

  1985

  6·0

  16·0

  1986

  7·6

  22·1

  1987

  7·3

  13·5

  11988

  6·4

  5·0

  1 January to May.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics

  Note: Figures for 1987 and January—May 1988 are provisional

  Figures for 1988 should be treated with more than the usual caution because of major changes to customs procedures introduced in January 1988, details of which were given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 7 December 1987 at column 34–35.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of all meetings between the chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, and the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia since April 1983 concerning Malaysia's policy towards imports from the United Kingdom and Malaysia's relations with Hong Kong.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Irrespective of whether such meetings have taken place it is not normally the practice to disclose details of confidential discussions.

  National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the experimental nuclear reactor at the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride will remain on Crown property following the privatisation of the laboratory.

  Mr. Forth
  The position of the land on which the experimental nuclear reactor is built will be determined by an agreement that is signed between the Department and a purchaser of the East Kilbride site.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will have the responsibility for decommissioning the experimental nuclear reactor on site at the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement.
  284
  Mr. Forth
  The responsibility for any decommissioning of the reactor would lie with the operator, taking account of any requirement of the relevant regulatory bodies, namely the Scottish Development Department and the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Ivory Imports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on imports into the United Kingdom of worked ivory, by weight and value, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the table:

  United Kingdom Imports or Worked Ivory 1979–1987

  m/tonnes

  £000

  1979

  22·8

  382

  1980

  17·2

  487

  1981

  3·0

  238

  1982

  4·6

  263

  1983

  4·7

  311

  1984

  2·9

  455

  1985

  1·1

  267

  1986

  1·8

  252

  1987

  0·8

  241

  source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Note: 1987 figures provisional.

  House Prices
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has under consideration to slow house price rises; what consultations he intends to undertake; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Strang) on 4 November at column 736.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. Maude
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: The information is only available at a disproportionate cost. However, my Department always aims to answer right hon. and hon. Members' correspondence as soon as possible, although some delays may occur during a recess.

  James Ferguson (Holdings) plc
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many interviews the inspectors appointed to inquire into the affairs of James Ferguson (Holdings) plc have given to the press since their appointment.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: None.

ENERGY

  Oil Rigs (Safety)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, further to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 368, he will now supply the figures on safety inspections of gas and oil rig installations which are available as near as possible to the form originally requested.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The figures requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the inspections and accident investigations carried out since 1 January 1987 into the safety of North Sea oil and gas installations; what were they, respectively, minor and major recommendations for action in each case; and which have so far been carried out and which have not.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The figures requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Piper Alpha Platform
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why, further to his reply of 14 July,Official Report, column 366, he will not make the inquiry into the explosion of the Piper Alpha platform in 1984 available to Parliament now.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  The 1984 report will form only part of my Department's evidence to the inquiry. It will be for Lord Cullen, as chairman of the inquiry, to decide how much, if any, of the evidence submitted should be released. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt his decision.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the costs of legal representation of survivors and the relatives of those who died in the Piper Alpha tragedy at the forthcoming public inquiry to be chaired by Lord Cullen.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member on 25 July 1988 at column 7.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will extend the terms of reference of the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha tragedy to consider the establishment of a no-fault liability compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It will be for Lord Cullen to decide, if requested, whether the establishment of a no-fault liability compensation scheme should be considered at the public inquiry.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthing ton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as his written reply of 7 July, Official Report, columns 664–66, on receipts classified as charges in respect of his programme expenditure over the years 1982–83 to 1990–91, on a basis consistent with the reply of 27 May, Official Report, Volume 134, columns 375–76, indicating the receipts in respect of running costs expenditure together with a supplementary analysis
  286
  indicating, separately, the amounts of receipts in respect of programme expenditure and of running costs expenditure estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Receipts in respect of my Department's running cost expenditure over the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 are as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83 outturn

  -3·2

  1983–84 outturn

  -3·2

  1984–85 outturn

  -4·0

  1985–86 outturn

  -4·0

  1986–87 outturn

  -4·0

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  -4·3

  1988–89 plans

  -4·3

  1989–90 plans

  -4·4

  1990–91 plans

  -4·6

  The amounts of receipts in respect of programme expenditure and running costs expenditure estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes are as follows:

  £ million

  Programme

  Running costs

  Total

  1982–83 outturn

  -59·8

  -2·0

  -61·8

  1983–84 outturn

  -70·4

  -1·7

  -72·1

  1984–85 outturn

  -56·1

  -2·1

  -58·2

  1985–86 outturn

  -64·8

  -2·1

  -66·9

  1986–87 outturn

  -3·7

  -2·3

  -6·0

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  -5·1

  -1·7

  -6·8

  1988–89 plans

  -4·7

  -1·6

  -6·3

  1989–90 plans

  -4·3

  -1·7

  -6·0

  1990–91 plans

  -4·3

  -1·7

  -6·0

  Acid Rain
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent communication he has had with the Forestry Commission concerning environmental surveys conducted in Hertsmere in Hertfordshire, evaluating the effects of acid rain pollution on the(a) arboreal and (b) aquatic environment in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Following receipt of a tree health survey which was undertaken in April by Greenpeace and which identified a number of individual damaged trees in the constituency of Hertsmere, my right hon. Friend sought the Forestry Commission's professional advice. Two scientists from the commission's research division visited the constituency on 1 June and examined a number of the sites recorded by Greenpeace. They confirmed the existence of damaged trees. However many were at sites with local problems, including soil disturbance and waterlogging. The commission pointed out that damage can be influenced by a wide variety of factors of which air pollution is only one. Air pollution can also derive from a number of different sources: neither the commission nor Greenpeace were able to determine the precise cause of the damage in this area.

  Magnox Reactors (Decommissioning)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the details of the economic appraisal developed by his Department to calculate the likely cost of decommissioning of each of the Magnox reactors.
  287
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy during the first phase of decommissioning the Central Electricity Generating Board's Berkeley-Magnox nuclear reactors, to ensure that when bundles of fuel rods are withdrawn from the core containing low burn-up spent fuel, these are appropriately labelled for a special reprocessing regime at Sellafield to retain the high purity of the plutonium content in the spent fuel discharged in a separate plutonium store account.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board and British Nuclear Fuels plc plan to manage the dispatch and reprocessing of the final cores of the Berkeley reactors no differently from the fuel from other CEGB magnox power stations. The fuel and the extracted uranium and plutonium will at all times be subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how the decommissioning costs of(a) Berkeley and (b) other commercial Magnox reactors will be apportioned after privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decommissioning provisions for Magnox stations are made throughout their operating lives and are reflected in the prices charged to customers at the time.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the mixed oxide nuclear fuel pin discovered at the Drigg nuclear waste dump site on 11 July was accounted for under the nuclear fuel pin material accountancy arrangement set out by the then Minister of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) in reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes),Official Report, 4 March 1987, column 596.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I await the report mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 15 July 1988 at column 430.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 14 June, column 101, on nuclear waste safeguards, he will state when the discussions to which he makes reference began; how many meetings have taken place; how many departmental officials have been involved; and when he expects agreement on arrangements for safeguarding nuclear wastes bearing civil fissile materials to be reached.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Discussions have been continuing for some months. It is not yet possible to estimate the completion date.

  Sellafield
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what changes and extensions to current emergency evacuation plans for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Sellafield nuclear complex will be necessitated by the plan announced by British Nuclear Fuels plc, on 13 July, to make Sellafield a package tour centre;
  288
  (2) whether the plans announced by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. on 13 July to encourage a further influx of tourists to Sellafield have any implications for advice given by his Department on coping with evacuations under civil emergencies, particularly regarding accidents at nuclear installations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is for the operator of a nuclear site to satisfy the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate of the adequacy of its emergency arrangements, as part of the licensing procedures. Such plans take account of the population densities and distribution within the detailed planning zone.

  Atomic Energy Safeguards
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 14 June, column 101, on atomic energy safeguards, he will set out the basis for his conclusion that there is not likely to be any significant difference between the general conclusions of the 1986 International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards implementation report (SIR) and the 1987 United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority safeguards implementation report.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The draft 1987 report has been discussed by the IAEA board of governors of which the United Kingdom is a member. A summary of the report's findings will be published in the agency's annual report in September.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on atomic energy safeguards,Official Report, 14 June, column 100, he will set out details of the specific United Kingdom funded substantial safeguards support programme to which he makes reference; with what organisations contracts are lodged to carry out this programme; and if the results of this research support programme are published in publicly available literature.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The safeguards R and D support programme funded by the Department of Energy is carried out by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. A summary of this programme, amongst others, was placed in the Library on 23 July 1987.

  Uranium Imports
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what policy considerations underlie(a) his willingness to reply in full to questions on coal imports, by amount and country of source and (b) his unwillingness to give details of amounts and country of source for uranium imports.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In replying to questions about imports, it is my policy to be as open as possible subject to considerations of commercial sensitivity.

  Magnox Reactors, Dungeness
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the financial and future safety implications of the discovery of corrosion faults during the recent statutory annual safety overhaul of the Central Electricity Generating Board Magnox reactors at Dungeness.
  289
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The statutory inspection of reactor 2 at Dungeness A station is still in progress and has revealed some corrosion damage in the reactor and boilers. The full extent of these problems and their safety significance are being assessed. It is too early to estimate the financial implications from the loss of generation but every effort is being made to return the reactor to service as soon as possible, subject to the agreement of the station's nuclear safety committee and the consent of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Magnox Reactors
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will update to 31 March(a) the information on thermal energy generated and spent fuel discharged and (b) the information on the allocation of plutonium produced in each of the Central Electricity Generating Board Magnox reactors as given in his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 24 July 1987, Official Report, columns 515–16.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 20 July 1988 at column 666.

  UKAEA (Energy Technology Support Unit)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to institute management arrangements to separate the energy technology support unit from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am satisfied with the current management arrangements for the energy technology support unit, which ensure its impartiality, and I have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Nuclear Materials (Exports)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 14 June,Official Report, column 99. on nuclear materials exports, he will set out the reasons why information on the dates and quantities of exports to which he makes reference are confidential.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Information on the dates and quantities of exports of nuclear materials is commercially confidential to the parties involved. Additionally, there may be security considerations.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Report)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many organisations and individuals have submitted comments on the draft document "The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations"; and when he expects a response to be made to these comments.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Twenty four organisations and individuals have sent comments to the Health and Safety Commission. The commission has also received advice from the advisory committee on the safety of nuclear installations. The chairman of the commission wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and to me on 26 July setting out the commission's response, and a copy of this letter has been placed in the Library of the House. The commission agrees with 290
  ACSNI's view that the levels of risk proposed for new power stations should be tolerable for the present and proposed PWR programme, provided that strict and comprehensive systems of regulation continue in force. I understand that the commission is arranging for publication of all comments in due course.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Safety
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list those establishments which are authorised to issue safety certificates to employees in the offshore oil and gas industry;

  (2) what instructions or guidance his Department gives with regard to offshore safety certificates;

  (3) how many employees on Piper Alpha on 7 July held full and valid offshore safety certificates; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his Department's policy with regard to the issue of offshore safety certificates for employees in the offshore oil and gas industries.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Safety certificates for personnel working offshore are not required, although some specialists require certificates of competence for the work on which they are employed. Regulations require the operator to appoint competent persons to be responsible for the control and safety of the installation and its equipment.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the guidance notes and instructions issued by his Department in respect of all aspects of the offshore oil and gas industry, with dates and details of any supplementary or additional guidance notes or instructions.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department issues guidance on a number of subjects including the following:

  Design and Construction

  Life-Saving Appliances

  Fire-Fighting Equipment

  Continental Shelf Operation Notices

  Safety Memoranda

  Training and Survival

  Crane Operators

  Ballast Control Operators

  Radio Telephone Operators

  Helicopter Landing Officers

  Submarine Pipelines Guidance Notes

  Guidelines for the specification and operation of dynamically positioned diving support vessels and drilling vessels

  Emergency Shut-Down Systems

  Guidelines for air range diving support vessels

  In addition, video training guides have also been issued and numerous technology reports have been published by HMSO on behalf of my Department.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's policy with regard to fire training for employees in the offshore oil and gas industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Offshore Installations (Fire-Fighting Equipment) Regulations 1978 (SI 1978/611) require offshore operators to provide approved fire-fighting equipment. Training in the use of this equipment is a matter for the operator in accordance with section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which places a duty on employers to provide such training as necessary to ensure as far as practicable, the health and safety of their employees.
  291
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy with regard to the issue of immersion suits for employees in the offshore oil and gas industry(a) as regards the employees of platform operators and (b) as regards the employees of subcontractors of platform operators.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Operators are required to supply employees with protective clothing on every offshore installation.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what guidance or instruction is issued by his Department to those establishments providing offshore safety training and issuing offshore safety certificates.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The guidance notes listed in my reply to the hon. Member today are available to estalishments providing offshore safety training.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the relationship between his Department and those establishments providing offshore safety training and issuing offshore safety certificates;

  (2) whether those establishments providing offshore safety training and issuing offshore safety certificates are subject to approval, licence or supervision by him or any other Government or public agency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There is no statutory relationship between my Department and those establishments providing offshore safety training. By agreement, one of my officials has a seat on the board of the offshore petroleum industry training board. I have had regular meetings with the chairman of the offshore petroleum industry training board to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many staff in his Department are employed in supervising the work of the certifying authorities appointed by him in terms of the Offshore Installation (Construction and Survey) Regulations 1974; and what are their qualifications.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The certifying authorities are internationally recognised independent bodies. My Department does not supervise their work, although the authorities' method of working is monitored by my Department. Three inspectors, who are either chartered engineers or graduates with at least five years' experience of the oil industry, are assigned to this task. In addition all my inspectors, as part of their enforcement duties, observe the work of the certifying authorities and liaise with them as necessary.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation to extend the provisions of the Occupiers Liability Act 1960 to offshore oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No.

  National Nuclear Corporation
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make an announcement on the future of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority shareholding in the National Nuclear Corporation.
  292
  Mr. Parkinson
  An understanding has been concluded today for the General Electric Company plc to purchase the UKAEA's 35 per cent, minority shareholding in the National Nuclear Corporation. The Government, on whose behalf the UKAEA has owned these shares, has agreed to a purchase price of £14 million. It is the intention to sign a contract for sale in the near future.

  I believe this development, which will give GEC a majority shareholding, will remove uncertainty about the Corporation's future.

  Amersham International
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to exercise his option, under the articles of association, to require Amersham International plc to redeem on 31 March his special rights preference share in the company.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 March 1988]: The special rights preference share has offered Amersham International plc protection against take-over during adjustment to the private sector following privatisation in February 1982. Under the articles of associaton I have been able to require redemption of the special share at any time on or after 31 March 1988.

  I think it no longer necessary for the protection to continue and have therefore decided to exercise the option open to me and to redeem the special share forthwith.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Short Brothers plc
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had concerning the possible sell-off of Short Brothers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 21 July at columns 1298–306.I will carefully consider any representations which may be made to me.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on any planned renegotiations of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  We have no plans for any negotiations. However, the two Governments will be reviewing the working of the Intergovernmental Conference, under the terms of article 11 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, later this year.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 Tom King
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: The average length of time taken by my Department to respond to Members' correspondence during the summer recess is 10 working days.

  Migration
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the most recent figures on the out-migration of young people from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The most recent figures are those derived from the 1987 mid-year estimates of population. These show that in the period 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987 around 10,500 persons between the ages of 15 and 24 migrated from Northern Ireland.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on the takeover of Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a letter from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) seeking information about the Government's intention to privatise Harland and Wolff.

  Radiotherapy Staff
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of physicists and technicians in the radiotherapy department in Belvoir park hospital, Purdysburn on 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Physicists

  Technicians

  June 1987

  6

  15

  June 1988

  6

  12

  Planning
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he proposes to amend article 31/7 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to provide adequate protection to objects and structures within the curtilage of listed buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: No. For the reasons set out in my previous answer I am satisfied that the provisions of article 31(7) of the Planning (NI) Order 1972 provide the protection required.

  Animal Carcases (Residues)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to control the presence of residues in animal carcases at the point of retail sale or at point of manufacture into meat products and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: United Kingdom-wide legislation introduced on 7 June 1988 provides a statutory framework for the monitoring and control of residues in animals and meat. The Animals and Fresh Meat (Examination for Residues) Regulations 1988 provide for mandatory sampling of animals and fresh
  294
  meat, the detention of suspect animals and the prevention of sale for human and, in some cases, animal consumption of contaminated farm animals or carcases. The Animals and Fresh Meat (Hormonal Substances) Regulations 1988 contain specific provisions in relation to the control of hormones. Legislation to provide controls on other substances will be introduced in accordance with EC requirements. These regulations provide a means of control at the farm and at the slaughterhouse and so prevent carcases with residues from entering the animal or human food chain. Controls on meat and meat products at the point of retail sale in Northern Ireland are imposed under the Food and Drugs Act (NI) 1958 which, inter alia, requires that food should be fit for human consumption and not rendered injurious to health and should be of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the consumer. Consultations have taken place about the introduction of maximum residue levels for certain pesticides in food, including meat and preparations of meat and regulations are in the process of being made.

  Planning
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how objects and structures referred to in article 31/7 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, are protected when they are not included in the charge registered in the stututory charges register as outlined in red on the statutory charges map; and how protection is enforced when the listing encumbrance is not recognisable as being registered.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: The fact that objects and structures referred to in article 31(7) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 are not included in the charge registered in the statutory charges register as outlined in red on the statutory charges map does not lessen their protection under the order.

  The entry in the statutory charges register which indicates that a building has been entered on a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest compiled under article 31 of the order draws the attention of the public to the provisions of article 31 including paragraph 7.

  In order to make the position as clear as possible, two changes were made in listing documentation some 18 months ago. The first was a specific note referring to the purport of article 31 (7) of the order which is available for public inspection. Secondly, a similar note was added to the notice of listing sent to each owner.

  The operation of the listed building enforcement procedures contained in the 1972 order falls to the Department as the listing authority to form a judgment whether specific objects or stuctures fall within the ambit of article 31(7).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE-infecled Cattle
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many compensation payments he has made to farmers with BSE-infected cattle; how many claims he has received; and how much has been paid in total so far;
  295
  (2) if he will introduce a scheme of full compensation to farmers with BSE-infected cattle; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what evidence he has as to whether existing compensation levels for farmers with BSE-infected cattle could be failing to encourage farmers to await diagnosis of BSE and encouraging premature submission of cattle for slaughter;

  (4) what steps he is taking to prevent the products of BSE-infected cattle entering the food chain;

  (5) if he will give details of the method by which his Department is calculating the compensation due to farmers with BSE-infected cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was made a notifiable disease on 21 June. Compensation is not yet payable for affected cattle. However, as the Government announced on 7 July, compulsory slaughter with compensation will be introduced very shortly. The carcases of affected animals will be destroyed. Compensation for an affected animal will be at 50 per cent, of market value of the animal, valued as if healthy, up to a ceiling.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the numbers of BSE-infected cattle notified thus far by(a) county and (b) region in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since BSE was first identified the number of confirmed cases in Great Britain as at 22 July is as follows. BSE has not occurred in Northern Ireland.

  Number

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Cambridge

  6

  Essex

  1

  Lincolnshire

  8

  Norfolk

  11

  Northamptonshire

  4

  Suffolk

  6

  40

  Midland and Western

  Cheshire

  11

  Derbyshire

  3

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  14

  Lancashire

  6

  Leicestershire

  5

  Nottingham

  5

  Salop

  20

  Staffordshire

  10

  Warwickshire

  7

  West Midlands

  1

  82

  Northern

  Cumbria

  11

  Durham

  1

  North Yorkshire

  16

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  30

  South Eastern

  Isle of Wight

  l

  Kent

  36

  Oxford

  8

  Surrey

  7

  296

  Number

  East Sussex

  7

  West Sussex

  10

  Berkshire

  13

  Buckinghamshire

  12

  Hampshire

  20

  114

  South Western

  Avon

  12

  Cornwall

  106

  Devon

  134

  Dorset

  41

  Gloucestershire

  26

  Somerset

  45

  Wiltshire

  20

  384

  Wales

  Clwyd

  5

  Dyfed

  31

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  South Glamorgan

  2

  West Glamorgan

  1

  Gwent

  5

  Gwynedd

  4

  Powys

  4

  54

  Scotland

  Borders region

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5

  Highlands

  1

  Lothian

  1

  Shetland Isles

  1

  Tayside

  2

  11

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has figures to show the number of slaughtered BSE-infected cattle, the products of which entered the food chain.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No, but since the disease was made notifiable on 21 June all the heads of affected animals entering a slaughterhouse have been compulsorily retained by the Ministry in order to examine brain tissue for a definitive diagnosis.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he is giving farmers on early recognition of the symptoms of the disease bovine spongiform encephelopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Advice to farmers, based on the current state of knowledge about the disease, is being provided through the local animal health offices and veterinary investigation centres of the Ministry's state veterinary service. There have also been a number of Ministry scientific presentations, publications and general articles on the subject including in particular one in the Farmers Weekly of 15 July.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce water pollution from farm sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department offers free initial advice to farmers on pollution avoidance, and now provides free of charge the code of good agricultural practice. Capital grants are available at high rates to farmers investing in new waste storage or treatment facilities. Research is being carried out into improved construction and management of these facilities. We have fully backed water authorities in stepping up prosecutions.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out his plans for emergency feeding arrangements in time of war and/or national emergency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983 No. 1634) it is local authorities' responsibility to plan for emergency feeding in their areas in the event of a hostile attack. MAFF holds stocks of basic food and of emergency feeding equipment for release to local authorities as necessary. The Ministry has issued advice on planning emergency feeding to local authorities in "Emergency Planning Guidance Handbook 3—Emergency Feeding," copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Fishing Vessels (Licensing)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to significantly alter the system of licensing of fishing vessels engaged in catching pressure stock species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I hope shortly to announce a major consultation with the fishing industry which will review the existing licensing arrangements.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding agricultural research and development funded by his Ministry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a number of representations from interested individuals and organisations about agricultural research and development funded by my Ministry, and consultations about transfer of near market work to industry funding are now taking place with the sectors concerned following the recent internal review of expenditure by the Agriculture Departments on R and D. No conclusions have yet been reached.

  Anglers Co-operative Association
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Anglers Co-operative Association to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  298
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 12 December 1988 to 16 December 1988.

  Bass Fishery
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet reached any decision on measures for the long-term management and conservation of the Bass fishery following his proposals announced on 29 February,Official Report, columns 476–77; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On 29 February 1988, at column 476, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, announced that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales planned to introduce measures for the long-term management and conservation of the bass fishery. The proposed measures, on which comments from interested parties were invited by 31 May, provided for an increase from 1 January 1989 in the national minimum landing size for bass from 32 to 36 cm; a prohibition from 1 January 1990 on the use of gill and other specified nets with a mesh size between 60 and 99 mm; and the establishment of some 24 nursery areas in inshore waters where restrictions on certain forms of fishing would protect juvenile bass stocks.

  After careful consideration of the many responses to these proposals, we have decided to proceed with these measures subject to certain changes to take account of points that have arisen out of the consultations with interested parties. We shall soon be introducing regulations to increase the national minimum landing size for bass throughout Great Britain from 32 to 36 cm and to prohibit the carriage of bass under 36 cm by British vessels but delaying the operation of these measures until 1 January 1990 to coincide with the introduction of mesh size controls and to allow fishermen a further year in which to adjust their fishing practices. The prohibition from the same date on the use of gill and other specified nets will now be limited to those nets with a mesh size between 65 and 89 mm to limit the impact of this measure on the fishery for other species such as grey mullet, sole, red mullet, herring and other pelagic species. The restrictions will apply to nets used by British fishing vessels within British fishery limits, south of lines of latitude drawn through Donna Nook in Lincolnshire and Haverigg Point in Cumbria. Within this area there will also be a ban on the carriage of such nets unless properly lashed and stowed in such a way that they cannot readily be used. An exception will, however, be made for the carriage use of attended drift nets, beach seines and ring nets along the south coast within the three-mile limit between Rame Head in Cornwall and Beachy Head in Sussex. The mesh size controls will not apply to the waters off Scotland, north-east England, Cumbria and Northern Ireland where the numbers of bass taken are negligible.

  The principle of establishing nursery areas has met with much support but it is clear from the response that we have received that further consideration has to be given to the extent of these areas and the restrictions on fishing to operate within them. We have therefore asked officials to

  299
  undertake further and detailed consultations with local interests before decisions on establishing individual nursery areas are taken.

  The measures outlined above, and those we envisage for nursery areas, are designed to safeguard the bass fishery by protecting juvenile bass. While we are aware of the concerns over the exploitation of adult bass in the offshore fishery, we have no evidence at present to support the introduction of conservation or management controls. This, however, is a matter that we are continuing to keep under review. Finally, as announced last February, we shall be seeking a corresponding increase in the EC minimum landing size for bass.

  Fishing Capacity
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is able to announce the results of the study of measures of effective fishing capacity, foreshadowed in his announcement of 30 April 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Fisheries Departments have completed their study and copies of it are being circulated to representative organisations today. We are also circulating proposals for further changes to the restrictive licensing scheme which would tighten up arrangements for the transfer of licences between vessels with a view to containing the total capacity of the fleet. This is necessary in order to curb the pressure on the fishing opportunities available to our fleet and to meet the reductions in fleet size set out in the multi-annual guidance programme agreed with the European Commission in December 1987.

  The consultation paper puts forward for comment by the industry four basic options for changes to the licensing scheme:

  (i) the introduction of additional length bands at the top end of the vessel size range;

  (ii) the introduction of smaller length bands throughout the size ranges;

  (iii) a restriction on capacity using a new "capacity" formula which takes into account the size of vessel and its engine; and

  (iv) a simple restriction on any increase in gross registered tonnage and engine size.

  Comments on these proposals are being invited by not later than 21 September 1988. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library.

  In order to avoid the balance between our fleet's capacity and its fishing opportunities deteriorating while the consultations are being completed, we are also as from today introducing, in addition to existing rules on licence

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  11986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1990–91

  1991–92

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  plans

  plans

  plans

  Receipts in respect of running costs included in other public expenditure programmes

  1·45

  2·40

  2·62

  2·67

  7·24

  7·47

  8·26

  7·56

  7·75

  Other running cost receipts

  10·65

  13·22

  12·15

  17·32

  23·95

  34·18

  33·47

  35·78

  36·67

  TOTAL

  12·10

  15·62

  14·77

  19·99

  31·19

  41·65

  41·73

  43·34

  44·42

  1 With effect 1986 total includes receipts from ODA for services of DS officers and locally engaged staff administrating full-time aid work overseas.

  300
  transfers, a temporary ban on transfers of licences except where the applicants satisfy us that the transfer will not lead to an increase in tonnage or engine power. This ban includes a ban on increasing the tonnage or engine power of a currently licensed vessel. Special consideration will be given to cases where the immediate application of this ban would cause hardship as a result of enforceable financial commitments already entered into.

  Detailed arrangements for administering the extra restrictions on licence transfers have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Farm Diversification Grant Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress there has been in processing applications for the farm diversification grant scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  Since the farm diversification grant scheme was introduced on 1 January this year, a total of 649 applications have been received in England. Of these, 530 have been acknowledged, which means a farmer can, if he wishes, make a start on the proposed work before approval of his application is given; 303 applications have so far been approved and 66 rejected or withdrawn.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as the reply of 7 July, Official Report, columns 683–84, on receipts classified as charges in respect of his programme expenditure over the years 1982–83 to 1990–91, but consistent with the reply of 27 May, Official Report, Volume 134, columns 375–76, indicating the receipts in respect of running costs expenditure together with a supplementary analysis indicating, separately, the amounts of receipts in respect of programme expenditure and of running costs expenditure estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The breakdown of receipts in respect of running costs expenditure for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is set out in the table. Receipts in respect of programme expenditure were given in the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's written answer of 7 July 1988, at columns 683–84.

  Katyn Massacre
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his progress of his Department's studies of Soviet involvement in the Katyn massacre.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Successive British Governments have made clear their shock and repugnance at the Katyn massacre. There is substantial circumstantial evidence pointing to Soviet responsibility for the killings. We look to the Polish-Soviet commission which is studying Katyn to settle the question once and for all.

  South Africa
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details on the representations he or his Department have received relating to Her Majesty's Government's action and policy towards The Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend met a delegation of South African Church leaders on 23 May. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department met representatives of the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference on 13 April and I met British charitable organisations active in South Africa on 21 April. Officials received a delegation from the British Council of Churches on 18 May. In addition we have received letters from MPs, charities, political organisations, Churches, trades unions and members of the public.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in the light of the South African Government's proposed legislation restricting the activities and funding of peaceful opposition groups in South Africa; and if he will make it his policy to support the EEC special programme for the victims of apartheid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We support wholeheartedly the European Community's special programme for the victims of apartheid and are committed to its future success. As a consequence of our repeated representations, both sbilaterally and jointly with our European partners, the South African Government are in no doubt as to our opposition to the draft "Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics" Bill.

  Saudi Arabia (Social Insurance Contributions)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments he can report towards the refunding of contributions to British citizens by the General Organisation for Social Insurance in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia following the March 1987 Saudi royal decree removing expatriates from the social insurance system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The refund of the General Organisation for Social Insurance (GOSI) contributions is a matter for the Saudi Arabian authorities. HM ambassador in Saudi Arabia is doing everything he properly can to hasten the refund of these contributions. He (and other ambassadors there) call periodically on the Saudi Minister responsible for the GOSI matters to underline our wish to see that these claims are settled as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Safety
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 14 June, columns 122–123 whether the European Commission report to which he makes reference has now been published; what was the basis on which he came to the understanding that no breach of the ECC safeguards regime had taken place; and what steps he took to reach the conclusion that the investigation was thorough.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Commission report has not yet been published. On the question of lack of breach of EEC safeguards I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 10 February 1988 at column 234.

  The commission investigation has involved numerous visits by a team of experts to nuclear installations, site inspections, round table discussions and examination of records. We see no reason to doubt its thoroughness.

  Prisoners (China)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken in the light of the recent all-party parliamentary report on ill-treatment of prisoners in Chinese prisons, a copy of which has been sent to him; whether he has made special representations on behalf of prisoners to be transferred to China in 1997 from Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have not received a copy of the document described. But as for Hong Kong, the Sino-British joint declaration and the draft Basic Law both make clear that the legal and judicial systems in the future Hong Kong special administrative region will be separate from those of the People's Republic of China; and that the laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged, save for any that contravene the Basic Law.

  Any prisoners held in Hong Kong gaols in 1997 will become the responsibility of the Hong Kong special administrative region, not of China.

  Diplomats (Removal)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to seeking the removal from the United Kingdom of diplomats detained by the United Kingdom authorities and who have been appointed to permanent missions in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Where it is alleged that a member of the staff of a diplomatic mission has committed a criminal offence, we follow the policy laid down in paragraphs 57 to 73 of the White Paper "Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges" (April 1985; Cmnd. 9497).

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance is issued to members of the diplomatic corps with regard to the precise point at which their diplomatic immunity takes effect in relation to a particular posting.
  303
  Mrs. Chalker
  None. The point at which immunity takes effect is covered by the provisions of article 39 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which will be known to the sending state.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all meetings which Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, or his staff, have had with officials of his Department, since March 1983 together with the persons attending and the substance thereof; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend's most recent meetings with Dr. Mahathir were in July 1987 (during Dr. Mahathir's visit to the United Kingdom) and in April 1988 (during my right hon. and learned Friend's visit to Malaysia). I met Dr. Mahathir during the September 1987 CPA conference in Malaysia.

  We have regular contact with the Malaysian Government on a wide range of issues, both in London and through our high commission in Kuala Lumpur. It is not our practice to give details of confidential exchanges with foreign Governments.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all representations since January 1981 of Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Malaysia concerning the Malaysian Government's "Buy British Last" policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We took all suitable opportunities to impress on the Malaysians our concern about the "Buy British Last" policy. We were delighted when Dr. Mahathir ended the policy in April 1983, and have been gratified by the subsequent development of bilateral trade and all-round improvement in our relations.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance is issued to members of the diplomatic corps with regard to the application of article 39 of the 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. The provisions of article 39 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations will be known to sending states.

  China (Extradition)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stage his consultations have reached with the Government of the People's Republic of China about an extradition treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Officials have discussed the possibility of an agreement on judicial assistance to cover civil and commercial matters, with Chinese officials. We have not for the time being considered an agreement on extradition, or discussed this with the Chinese Government.

  China (Death Penalty)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has sought any 304
  assurances from the Government of the People's Republic of China that the death penalty will not be carried out after 1 July 1997 on any fugitive returned to Hong Kong prior to 30 June 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Sino-British joint declaration and the draft Basic Law both make clear that the legal and judicial systems in the future Hong Kong special administrative region will be separate from those of the People's Republic of China; and that the laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged, save for any that contravene the Basic Law. Under Hong Kong's laws the commutation of a death sentence is irrevocable. This applies to all death sentences passed in Hong Kong prior to 1997, but commuted by the Governor of Hong Kong. After 1997, these matters will fall within the high degree of autonomy to be enjoyed by the Hong Kong special administrative region government under the joint declaration and the Basic Law.

  Endangered Species (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional measures aimed at educating the public are currently being considered by the Hong Kong authorities in respect of responsibilities under the convention on international trade in endangered species.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Hong Kong Government, in conjunction with the World Wild Life Fund for Nature (Hong Kong), are intensifying their publicity and educational efforts by displaying more posters at entry points—for example, train stations and the airport—and other public places; by distributing more leaflets to schools, travel agents and the general public; by issuing more press releases and making more radio and television announcements; by organising more exhibitions and seminars; and by producing an audio-slide programme for presentation in all country park visitors' centres.

  Ivory Products (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to establish a ban by the Hong Kong authorities on the import of all ivory products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Ivory trade is permissible under CITES and the CITES secretariat has set up an ivory unit to co-ordinate the trade. It is not necessary to ban the import of ivory into Hong Kong. The Hong Kong authorities will only permit imports of ivory products from legal and CITES approved sources.

  Animals and Animal Products (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many prosecutions have been initiated by the Hong Kong authorities arising from the seizure of illegally imported animals and animal products in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Hong Kong authorities do not maintain separate statistics relating to prosecutions for illegal imports of animals and animal products. The following statistics include prosecutions in respect of
  305
  illegal imports, illegal exports and illegal possession of endangered species since 1979. Relevant statistics for 1988 are not yet available.

  Number

  1979

  109

  1980

  170

  1981

  154

  1982

  248

  1983

  58

  1984

  103

  1985

  294

  1986

  192

  1987

  366

  Ivory Sales (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the ultimate destination and use of(a) the 638 pieces of elephant ivory tusk, (b) the 239·2 kg of elephant ivory cut pieces and (c) the 81·2 kg of elephant ivory scraps sold at auction in Hong Kong on 26 February.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Illegal Animal Products (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to establish a policy in Hong Kong that in future all seized items of illegally imported animal tusks, skins and antler are burned.

  Mrs. Chaiker
  The Hong Kong authorities dispose of confiscated specimens in accordance with the convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) guidelines. Under these guidelines the Hong Kong authorites normaly dispose of animal tusks, skins and antlers by auction (in the case of the less endangered species listed in CITES appendix II) or for educational or scientific purposes (in the case of the most endangered species listed in CITES appendix I). We see no reason to alter these arrangements.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount raised at the auction in Hong Kong on 26 February of illegally imported animals tusks, skins and antlers seized by the authorities; to what purpose the revenue raised has been put; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chaiker
  The total amount raised at the auction was HK $2,022,103. The proceeds have been credited to the general revenue of the Hong Kong Government, who provide the funds to the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, which is the management authority responsible for the enforcement and administration of CITES.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any auctions are impending in Hong Kong of illegally imported animal tusks, skins and antlers which have beeen confiscated.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Hong Kong authorities have no plans for any such auctions at present.

  Tristan da Cunha
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department requires to be furnished with information or has received information on(a) the beneficial interest and ownership of companies trading in or with Tristan da Cunha and (b) the beneficial interest of shares held by directors of those companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My Department has been given the following information by companies trading in or with Tristan da Cunha:

  (a) Tristan Investments (Pty) Ltd., responsible for operating the fishing concession at Tristan da Cunha, is a South African registered wholly owned subsidiary of the Bermuda registered company South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation Ltd. The Bank of Butterfield and Son Ltd., Bermuda, holds 75 per cent, of the Corporation's issued shares to the order of financial institutions. Of these shares, a British/Swiss Financial institution, SG Warburg Bank AG, holds 7000 of the Corporation's shares (equivalent to 70 per cent, of the issued capital).

  (b) Table Bay Marine (Pty) Ltd., which acts as a buying agent for general merchandise for the Islands, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Palinauris Investments Ltd., a Bermuda registered trading company. The majority shareholding in Palinauris Investments is held by Field Nominees Ltd. of Bermuda.

SCOTLAND

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I hope next to meet representatives of COSLA around mid-November, to discuss the distribution of revenue support grant for 1989–90.

  Denominational Single Sex Schools, Strathclyde
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the future of denominational single sex schools in Strathclyde region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We received over 400 letters about the proposed closure of Our Lady and St. Francis school and over 3,000 about the proposed closure of Notre Dame high school, Glasgow. Both are denominational girls' schools. In the case of Notre Dame the Secretary of State refused consent to the proposal; but the proposal to close Our Lady and St. Francis was not one which required his consent.

  Gaelic Language (Television Programmes)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with BBC Scotland and the independent television companies on the role of television in the field of Gaelic language learning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets representatives of the broadcasting authorities from
  307
  time to time to discuss Scottish broadcasting matters in general, including Gaelic television broadcasting. The most recent occasion was in January this year, when he met the senior management of Scottish Television and the topics covered included Gaelic television. We have consistently encouraged the broadcasting authorities to provide a reasonable range of Gaelic programmes.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy on the level of Gaelic programming, including educational programming, on television in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has encouraged the BBC and the IBA to provide a reasonable level of television broadcasting in the Gaelic language and we will continue to do so. The content of Gaelic programmes is, however, a matter for the broadcasting authorities in discussion with those representing the Gaelic community. We understand that Grampian Television is preparing a series of programmes for standard grade Gaelic courses which are to be introduced in the next session.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the encouragement of Gaelic language programming on television.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As indicated in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 10 May, at column 94, we appreciate the contribution which television can make to encouraging the preservation of the Gaelic language. Our support for a reasonable level of Gaelic programmes has been made known to the television companies and we have encouraged the organisations representing the Gaelic community to discuss their needs with the broadcasters. The amount of programming time devoted to such programmes is, however, for the companies to decide, taking account of demand and available resources.

  Housing (Scotland) Bill
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill so as to protect the rights of public sector housing tenants to remain in the public sector if they so choose; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Amendments to the Housing Bill will be brought forward to ensure that adequate consultation with tenants is undertaken where transfer to a private sector landlord is proposed by the local authority and to require my right hon. and learned Friend to withhold his consent to such a disposal if it appears to him that a majority of tenants involved do not wish the disposal to proceed.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the cost of funding the recent nurses' pay award.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The overall increase in the nurses' pay bill as a result of this year's pay award was estimated by the review body to be 15·3 per cent. It is this estimate that has been used in determining the amount of additional funding to be provided to meet the costs of the award. Details of the total allocations provided to 308
  individual health boards were given in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 5 July.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to know the final cost of the recent nurses' pay award.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When the new clinical grading structure is in place. It is expected to be completed by the end of October.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with poll tax registration officers about progress with the registration process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  There have been no formal discussions. Informal contacts with registration officers indicate that the registration process is going smoothly.

  Scottish Council
  Mr. Saunond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry); and what subjects are expected to be discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted an invitation to address the council's international forum at Aviemore in October, which will focus on Scotland's future in Europe and the implications of the single European market.

  Ravenscraig Steelworks
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the effect of closure of the Ravenscraig steelworks on employment in other areas of the Scottish economy.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what calculation has been made of the loss of non-steel industry jobs in the short term and in the long term, consequent upon Ravenscraig being closed.

  Mr. Lang
  The British Steel Corporation has given an assurance, based on commercial judgment, that there will be a requirement for steel making at Ravenscraig for at least seven years from last December. I see, therefore, no need at present for such an assessment.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will pay an official visit to the Ravenscraig hot strip mill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit Ravenscraig. The chairman of the British Steel Corporation has recently confirmed to my right hon. and learned Friend that there is no reason for the corporation at present to make plans to close the Ravenscraig hot strip mill.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the future of Ravenscraig hot strip mill.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any request from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for such a meeting. If a meeting is sought, consideration will be given to the request at the time.
  309
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific steps he proposes to take to ensure that his undertakings in respect of the future of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig are fulfilled; and if he will list the references in the Official Report where such undertakings were made.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The undertakings referred to are assurances given by the British Steel Corporation based on its own commercial judgment and are reflected in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 3 December 1987, at column 1107.

  This statement, that there would be a continued need for steel-making at all of the integrated plants, including Ravenscraig, for a period of at least seven years, subject to market conditions, and that there would be continued operation of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig until at least 1989, has been referred to many times during the passage of the British Steel Bill and in other proceedings. The references could be listed only at disproportionate cost.

  Power Station Coalburn
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on coalburn in power stations, in the light of meetings he has had with representatives of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and British Coal.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on 13 June, at column 37.

  I have been advised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that, as part of its coal supply arrangements for the financial year 1988–89, it has now agreed with British Coal to take deliveries at a rate which will result in a total for the year of up to 3·5 million tonnes.

  This agreement has been reached on the basis of commercial negotiations between the parties and there is no question of the Government having intervened in the discussions.

  "The Scottish Office and its Activities"
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to his Department of preparing the booklet, "The Scottish Office and its Activities."

  Mr. Rifkind
  The cost to my Department of preparing the booklet was £321.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made an assessment of the likely demand for shares in a privatised electricity industry from(a) private individuals resident in Scotland and (b) institutional and corporate investors.

  Mr. Lang
  We are giving careful consideration to this aspect of the privatisation, and are confident that individual and institutional investors in Scotland will take up a significant proportion of the shares.

  Rate Support Grant Clawback
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that no Scottish local authority is penalised by rate support grant clawback in the year 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.
  310
  Mr. Lang
  There will be no grant penalties in respect of authorities' budgeted expenditure in 1989–90.

  Single Market (Electronics Industry)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the employment implications for the electronics industry in Scotland of the European single market.

  Mr. Lang
  The removal of the remaining barriers to trade between member states is expected to offer considerable new business opportunities to electronics companies. In particular the harmonisation of technical standards will provide new export opportunities in markets where previously they have represented constraints.

  Committee on the Constitution (Report)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the report of the committee on the constitution, "Claim of Right for Scotland."

  Mr. Rifkind
  None.

  Average Earnings
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what position Scotland held in the United Kingdom in terms of average earnings in 1979; and what position it now occupies.

  Mr. Lang
  Information from the new earnings surveys shows Scotland ranking fifth among the United Kingdom standard regions in 1979, and third in 1987.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest average male earnings figures available; and what were the comparable figures in 1986 and 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The following information comes from the Department of Employment's new earnings survey.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time male employees whose earnings were not affected by absence—Scotland

  April

  On adult rates1

  Aged 21 or over2

  £ per week

  £ per week

  1979

  n/a

  101·2

  1986

  201·3

  204·2

  1987

  214·6

  218·2

  1 This is the basis currently used in the new earnings survey reports.

  2 This is the basis used previously.

  Employment Opportunities (Glasgow)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent steps he has taken to increase employment opportunities in the Glasgow area.

  Mr. Lang
  Government policies aimed at controlling inflation and stimulating economic growth offer the best prospect for creating permanent new employment opportunities in the Glasgow area. However, a number of Government measures have been aimed specifically at
  311
  improving the city's infrastructure and stimulating new enterprise and development. These measures include assistance made available through the Scottish Development Agency and its support for local projects such as the Glasgow garden festival, Glasgow opportunities and the east end executive.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future of home improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In May, my right hon. and learned Friend issued the consultation paper, "Private Housing Renewal: The Government's Proposals for Scotland." The paper explains and expands on the reform proposals which were outlined in the Scottish housing White Paper, published last November. The Government are confident that the proposals for streamlining the private home improvement system and targeting grant on those who need it most will make a major contribution to improving the condition of the private sector housing stock throughout Scotland.

  Gaelic Language
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is contemplating any further measures to secure the future of the Gaelic language.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the current financial year some £198,000 will be provided as grant aid under the provisions of the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 to bodies which support Gaelic; £500,000 will be spent to bring forward projects under the specific grant scheme for Gaelic education. The Scottish Arts Council has allocated approximately £120,000 and the Highlands and Islands Development Board some £195,000 in support of Gaelic projects.

  Education (Scotland) Act 1981
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parents have exercised their right under the Education (Scotand) Act 1981 to choose which school their child attends.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Between 15 February 1982 and 31 July 1987 116,409 placing requests were made under the terms of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981, of which 109,213 (93·8) per cent, were granted.

  Industrial Progress
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland to discuss industrial progress.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Walsh) on 27 June, at column 79.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those concerns in Scotland which have been privatised since 1979; and if he will estimate the consequent increase in share ownership in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  No public sector body which had a separate Scottish existence in 1979 has been transferred to private ownership since then.

  The privatisations of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the Scottish Bus Group are in preparation.

  No separate estimates have been made of the increase in share ownership in Scotland due to the privatisation of Great Britain bodies.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Strathclyde regional council and the district councils in Lanarkshire, to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Devolution
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards devolution for Scotland, in the light of the report entitled "A Claim of Right for Scotland" published by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In this House, and elsewhere, I have made my views on devolution very clear. These views are not changed by this report, and I have no plans to make a statement.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly seeking a meeting to discuss its recent report entitled "A Claim of Right for Scotland".

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received no request for a meeting from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly since its report, "A Claim of Right for Scotland", was published.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently unemployed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  On 9 June 1988 there were 288,792 unemployed claimants in Scotland.

  This is the lowest level of unemployment since 1981 and is further evidence of the success of the Government's economic policies.

  Confederation of British Industry
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland); and what matters were discussed.
  313
  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 27 April, at column 188.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to encourage the relocation of the Civil Service posts from London-based departments to Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I are keen to encourage further relocation of Government offices from London and the south-east to Scotland. Some 2,000 posts have been moved to Scotland since 1979, including over 400 in the move of the Overseas Development Administration to East Kilbride. I have arranged for the recent report on the Overseas Development Administration dispersal, which provides clear evidence of the benefits of such moves to the national and local economies, to be brought to the attention of Departments which are currently reviewing their location of work under arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 31 March, at columns 610–11.

  Tourists (Air Traffic Control Delays)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect air traffic control delays are having on the numbers of tourists arriving at Scottish airports from abroad; and whether he has prepared any estimate of the likely impact of reduced tourist arrivals on consumer spending in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Recent air traffic control difficulties are unlikely to have had any significant impact on the number of foreign visitors to Scotland this year. Expenditure by these visitors is also unlikely to have been affected.

  Forestry Policy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Forestry Commission takes to co-ordinate forestry policy as between its own plantations and military land; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is the Forestry Commission's practice to co-operate with the military authorities wherever possible to meet their training requirements. Extensive use is made of commission land for this purpose, the most recent notable example being exercise Purple Warrior in south-west Scotland.

  Argyll and Clyde health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mrs. E. M. Cockburn, OBE

  1 April 1981

  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve MP

  Dr. R. Erskine

  1 April 1977

  British Medical Association

  Mrs. M. A. Foggie

  1 April 1985

  Inverclyde Local Health Council

  Mr. J. H. Gillougley

  1 April 1981

  Paisley Chamber of Commerce

  Dr. Anne M. Kelly

  1 April 1985

  Association of Clinical Biochemists

  Mrs. J. C. Le Roux

  1 April 1981

  Cancer Research Committee: Chief Whip

  Dr. J. Moffat

  1 April 1981

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Rev. J. Young

  1 April 1985

  Renfrew Local Health Council

  Public Spending
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of public spending per capita per annum for Scotland at the latest available date.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest available figures are in the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave on 23 October 1987, at columns 901–2.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish Development Agency; and what subjects are expected to be discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman, board and chief executive of the agency as necessary to discuss issues of mutual interest. There are, however, no plans at present for such a meeting in the immediate future.

  Economic Growth (Report)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in the light of the recent Fraser of Allander Institute quarterly economic commentary, a copy of which has been sent to him, concerning the relative growth of the Scottish economy vis-à-vis the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The "Fraser of Allander Institute Quarterly Commentary" concludes that"both short-term and long-term prospects for the Scottish economy continue to be favourable".
  I wholeheartedly agree with the commentary that growth in the Scottish economy this year and in the years ahead is likely to match that of the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by health board, the people appointed to area health boards in Scotland, together with the date and source of nomination of their appointment for every year since 1983.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not readily available in the precise format requested. Listed are (1) details of the present members of health boards together with their original date of appointment and source of nomination and (2) details of those members appointed since 1983 who are no longer serving members together with their original date of appointment, date of termination and source of nomination.
  315

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. J. D, Barnett

  1 April 1987

  Scottish Episcopal Church, Diocese of Argyll and the Isles

  Mr. A. H. Brabender

  1 April 1983

  Scottish Conservative Party and Chief Whip

  Mr. J. Campbell

  1 April 1983

  Paisley and District Branch of Confederation of Health Service Workers

  Mr. L. Capaldi

  12 January 1978

  Mr. Harry Ewing MP

  Mr. J. Cattanach

  25 January 1978

  Haemophilia Society

  Mr. George M. Deuchars

  1 April 1987

  Bank of Scotland

  Dr. S. G. McAlpine

  1 April 1983

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons

  Mrs. Leila C. McKichan

  1 April 1987

  British Red Cross Society

  Mr. G. McMillan

  1 April 1987

  Regional Council

  Mr. R. R. Reid

  1 April 1983

  Argyll and Bute District Council and Argyll and Bute Local Health Council

  Mrs. E. W. Riddell

  1 April 1987

  Inverclyde District Council

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. I. D. F. Halligan

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. J. M. McCorkindale

  12 November 1979

  31 March 1987

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Miss P. McGowan

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Society of Radiographers

  Miss M. Macleod

  1 April 1983

  13 March 1986

  Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators

  Mr. C. J. Needle

  1 April 1985

  2 April 1986

  Inverclyde District Council

  Mr. E. T. F. Spence

  1 April 1983

  May 1988

  Ministerial

  Mr. T. A. Stewart

  1 April 1975

  31 March 1985

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Ayrshire and Arran health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. J. Cahill

  1 April 1977

  Cunningham District Council

  Mrs. A. M. Campbell

  1 April 1985

  Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  Mr. T. Dickie

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Mr. J. W. G. Donaldson

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Mrs. M. W. Gallie

  1 April 1985

  Mr. John Corrie MP

  Dr. J. J. Morrow

  1 April 1981

  British Medical Association

  Mr. I. B. Valentine

  1 April 1981

  Ayr Constituency Conservative Association

  Mrs. A. B. Wilson

  1 April 1981

  Ministerial

  Dr. W. M. Wilson

  1 April 1981

  British Medical Association

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. K. Blair

  6 May 1987

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council: Health Board

  Mr. J. D. Brown

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. R. Campbell JP

  1 April 1987

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Mrs. A. Dunbar

  1 April 1979

  Cunningham District Council

  Mr. P. Hunter

  1 April 1975

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. N. M. Lambie

  1 April 1979

  Cunningham District Council

  Mr. J. T. Sinclair

  1 April 1987

  Society Radiographers

  Mr. B. A. Murphy

  1 April 1983

  Law Society of Scotland

  Mr. D. Watts-Russell

  1 April 1987

  Chief Whip's Office

  Dr. J. P. Wiltshire

  1 April 1983

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. J. McNally

  7 July 1988

  Health Board

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date Terminated

  Nominated by

  Mrs. M. M. Bicker

  1 April 1975

  31 March 1987

  Royal College of Midwives

  Dr. H. Cameron

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1985

  British Medical Association, Glasgow University

  Mr. F. J. McCafferty

  1 April 1981

  31 March 1987

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Mr. W. S. McConnell

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Pharmaceutical Society

  Mrs. M. MacDonald

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Ministerial

  Mr. D. M. McMillan

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Mr. G. M. Pettitt

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1985

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Miss J. Ross

  1 April 1987

  31 December 1987

  Royal College of Midwives

  Mr. D. Shankland

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council

  316 317

  Borders health board

  Present Members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Dr. W. B. Aitken

  1 April 1981

  British Medical Assocation: Health Board

  Mr. P. S. Elliot

  1 April 1975

  Scottish Trade Union Congress: Health Board

  Mr. R. W. Jack

  1 April 1981

  Roxburgh District Council: Health Board

  Mr. A. C. Purves, MBE

  13 April 1973

  Confederation of British Industry: British Medical Association: Health Board

  Lady F. E. Sanderson

  1 April 1985

  Borders Local Health Council

  Mr. R. A. Stewart

  13 April 1973

  British Medical Association: Scottish Trade Union Congress: Health Board

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. A. P. Dorward

  1 April 1979

  British Medical Association: Health Board

  Mrs. M. Forster

  1 April 1987

  Chief Whip's Office

  Dr. I. G. Houston

  1 April 1987

  British Medical Association: Royal College of Surgeons

  Mrs. M. Millican

  1 April 1983

  Berwickshire District Council: Borders Local Health Council

  Mrs. F. M. Nisbet

  1 April 1983

  Scottish Health Visitors Association: Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators

  Mr. W. Scott, CBE

  1 April 1983

  Scottish Conservative Party and Chief Whip's Office

  Mr. W. M. S. Thom

  1 April 1987

  British Dental Association

  Mr. A. S. Watt

  1 April 1979

  Borders Regional Council

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. A. G. Rennie

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Health Board: British Dental Association

  Dumfries and Galloway health board

  Present Members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. W. D. Beck

  1 April 1977

  Co-op Union Ltd.

  Mr. I. S. F. Brown

  1 April 1985

  Mr. Ian Lang MP

  Mrs. M. D. Dick-Smith

  15 April 1986

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  Miss A. C. Kelly

  1 April 1985

  Chief Administrative Nursing Officer of Health Board

  Mrs. A. R. Murdoch

  16 January 1986

  Stewarty District Council

  Mr. M. J. Pumphry

  15 April 1986

  Health Board

  Dr. T. S. R. Train

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Mr. G. Willacy

  1 April 1977

  Annandale and Eskdale District Council

  Mr. W. I. Wilson

  18 May 1973

  British Medical Association: Wigtown District Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mrs. M. H. Bonn

  1 April 1983

  Health Board

  Mrs. A. U. G. Harper

  1 April 1979

  Scottish Society for Mentally Handicapped

  Mr. J. S. Kerr

  1 April 1987

  Confederation of Health Service Employees

  Mr. H. S. McFadzean

  1 April 1983

  Health Board

  Mr. W. Seright

  1 April 1983

  Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow: British Medical Association

  Mr. W. Service

  18 December 1973

  British Medical Association, Western Joint Ophthalmic Committee, Wigtown District Council

  Mrs. J. D. Tulloch

  1 April 1983

  Health Board: Western Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Dr. A. P. D. Wilkinson

  1 April 1987

  British Medical Association

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. W. H. J. Campbell

  1 April 1981

  17 October 1985 (Died)

  Law Society of Scotland

  Dr. J. A. Clark

  1 April 1981

  22 October 1983 (Died)

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Mr. R. R. Goudie

  1 April 1975

  31 March 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress: Health Board

  Mrs. J. D. Jack

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Ministerial

  Mr. J. A. McIntyre

  May 1973

  31 March 1987

  British Medical Association: Health Board

  Miss I. A. Stewart

  1 April 1985

  September 1987

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Mr. M. Webb

  1 April 1981

  17 October 1985

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  Dr. J. B. Wilson

  7 September 1976

  31 March 1987

  British Medical Association: Health Board

  318 319

  Fife health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. J. I. M. Burns

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Mr. J. S. Edmiston

  1 April 1981

  Health Board

  Mr. H. C. Forwell

  1 April 1981

  Scottish Association of Master Bakers: Kirkcaldy Chamber of Commerce

  Dr. J. B. Gallacher

  1 April 1981

  St. Andrews Ambulance Association: West Fife Local Health Council: British Medical Association: Dunfermline Medical Committee

  Dr. A. A. H. Lawson

  1 April 1981

  West Fife Local Health Council: Royal College of Physicians: British Medical Association: Dunfermline Medical Committee: St. Andrews Ambulance Association

  Mr. G. H. D. Mackie, OBE

  1 April 1985

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. J. Marshall

  1 April 1985

  British Medical Association: Royal College of General Practitioners

  Miss M. M. Nelson

  1 April 1985

  Royal College of Midwives

  Mr. G. Reid

  30 June 1978

  Mr. Harry Ewing MP

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mrs. S. L. Aitken

  1 April 1987

  Mr. Barry Henderson, MP

  Mr. W. Clarke

  1 April 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. C. Haddow

  3 May 1973

  Scottish Trade Union Congress: British Medical Association: Mr. Harry Gourlay, MP

  Mr. J. H. Henderson

  1 April 1979

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: West Fife Local Health Council

  Dr. C. G. Ingram

  1 April 1987

  University of St. Andrews

  Dr. A. A. Marr

  1 April 1987

  Rotary Club of Cupar

  Mr. I, A. McCrone

  1 April 1983

  Health Board: Kirkcaldy County Conservative Association

  Mr. J. McMurdo

  1 April 1987

  Fife Regional Council

  Mr. C. Whitlock

  1 April 1983

  Dunfermline and West Fife Chamber of Commerce

  Mrs. E. A. Young

  1 April 1987

  Society of Radiographers: Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mrs. J. H. P. Buchanan

  12 November 1979

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. D. L. Fulton

  18 December 1973

  31 March 1987

  Health Board: Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Dr. M. L. Graeme

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  North East Fife District Council

  Mr. K. R. Hayward

  12 November 1979

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. J. H. B. Ivers

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Society of Chiropodists

  Mr. D. Stoddart

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Health Board: Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mr. R. P. Strugnell

  1 April 1987

  31 March 1988

  Mr. Barry Henderson, MP

  Forth Valley health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. J. Cross

  1 April 1977

  British Medical Association: Health Board

  Mr. A. B. Cruickshank

  1 April 1977

  Health Board: Clackmannan District Council

  Mr. T. Downs

  1 April 1985

  Clackmannan District Council

  Mrs. J. Isbister

  1 April 1985

  Chief Whip's Office

  Mrs. W. J. A. Macfarlane

  1 April 1985

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Professor P. McEwen

  1 April 1985

  University of Stirling

  Mr. A. D. McNeill

  1 April 1985

  British Medical Association

  Mrs. J. S. Young

  1 April 1983

  College of Speech Therapists

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. J. F. C. Armstrong

  1 April 1983

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. F. J. Bell

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. E. T. M. Bell-Scott

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mrs. M. R. Ferguson

  26 April 1983

  Scottish Health Visitors Association: Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators

  Mr. H. M. Garland

  1 April 1987

  Association of Directors of Social Work

  Mr. K. Harding

  1 April 1987

  Mr Michael Forsyth, MP

  Mrs. E. D. Kennedy

  1 April 1987

  Central Regional Council

  Mr. W. D. M. Leithhead

  1 April 1983

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. I. M. Mullen

  1 April 1987

  Pharmaceutical General Council for Scotland

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. L. Dunbar

  1 April 1981

  February 1988

  Health Board, British Medical Association

  Mrs. M. C. Lambie

  1 June 1980

  31 March 1987

  Central Regional Council

  Mr. J. G. Lees

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  British Medical Association

  320 321

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. I. A. Peattie

  1 April 1987

  26 March 1984

  Falkirk District Council

  Mrs. R. M. Scott

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Central Regional Council

  Mr. J. W. Shoolbread

  22 June 1981

  30 July 1984

  Health Board

  Dr. W. J. Thomson

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  University of Glasgow

  Grampian health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. P. S. Cook

  1 April 1985

  Grampian Regional Council

  Captain C. A. Farquharson

  1 April 1981

  Gordon Local Health Council

  Dr. J. G. Henderson

  1 April 1977

  Royal College of Psychiatrists: British Medical Association: Grampian Area Committee for Hospital Medical Services

  Mrs. C. Farquharson

  12 August 1982

  Ministerial

  Professor M. C. Meston

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Mr. G. S. Peterkin, JP

  1 April 1983

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mr. J. Ramage

  1 April 1985

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Miss E. A. Sheldon, MBE

  1 April 1981

  Aberdeen Association for Mental Health: Society for Mentally Handicapped Muscular Dystrophy Society: Robert Gordons Institute of Technology

  Mrs. V. A. Stevenson

  1 April 1985

  British Dental Association: Area Dental Committee

  Dr. A. J. Taylor

  1 April 1985

  British Medical Association

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Professor A. G. M. Campbell

  1 April 1983

  University of Aberdeen

  Mr. H. D. Cochran

  1 April 1983

  General Synod of Scottish Episcopal Church and Diocese of Aberdeen

  Mr. D. Davidson

  1 April 1979

  Society of Radiographers (Scottish Branch): Confederation for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Mr. N. Donald

  1 April 1983

  Gordon District Council: Gordon Local Health Council

  Mrs. R. Kemp

  1 April 1987

  Grampian Regional Council

  Mr. J. Murison

  1 April 1975

  Scottish Health Visitors Association: Royal College of Nursing

  Dr. E. A. Smith, CBE

  1 April 1983

  Scottish Conservative Party: Chief Whip's Office

  Mr. J. Sorrie

  1 April 1987

  Chief Whip's Office

  Professor E. A. Tait

  1 April 1983

  Mr. John MacKay, MP

  Mrs. J. G A. Wisely, JP

  1 April 1987

  Women into Public Life Campaign

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mrs. J. R. Lamond

  1 April 1975

  31 March 1987

  Grampian Regional Council

  Professor W. Walker

  1 April 1979

  18 December 1984 (Died)

  University of Aberdeen

  Professor R. D. Weir, OBE

  13 April 1973

  13 January 1987

  University of Aberdeen

  Greater Glasgow health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Lady Goold

  1 April 1981

  British Dental Association

  Mr. J. Jackson

  1 April 1983

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. A. Jarvis

  1 April 1985

  Strathkelvin District Council

  Prof. A. C. Kennedy

  1 April 1985

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons: University of Glasgow

  Rev. J. T. Lang

  1 April 1985

  Church of Scotland

  Mr. B. A. Maan

  I April 1981

  Glasgow District Council: South West Local Health Council

  Dr. J. MacKay, OBE

  7 May 1973

  British Medical Association: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons: British Dental Association: Royal College of Surgeons

  Mr. L. Turpie

  1 April 1985

  Chief Whip's Ofice

  Mr. C. Williams

  1 April 1981

  British Medical Association: British Association of Social Workers

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mrs. J. E. Cameron, JP

  1 April 1987

  Bearsden and Milngavie District Council

  Miss E. Donnachie

  1 April 1979

  British Medical Association: Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators: Royal College of Midwives

  Prof. A. T. Florence

  1 April 1987

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Mr. A. D. Garland

  1 April 1983

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mrs. A. Gilchirst

  1 April 1987

  Chief Whip's Office

  Mr. P. W. Hoist

  1 April 1983

  British Medical Association: Western Joint Opthalmic Committee

  Mr. A. J. Mack

  1 April 1987

  Ministerial

  Mrs. M. McGarry

  1 April 1983

  Clydebank District Council

  Prof. R. M. Mackie

  1 April 1987

  University of Glasgow

  Mr. J. A. Peel

  1 April 1987

  British Medical Association: Institute of Medical Laboratory Sciences

  322 323

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. F. S. Berkley

  1 April 1987

  17 February 1988

  Professor J. Ross-Harper

  Mr. D. R. Berridge

  11 June 1982

  31 May 1983

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. J. F. Dunnachie

  1 April 1983

  30 June 1987

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Mrs. I. D. Kerr

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Scottish Conservatives: Chief Whip

  Professor E. M. McGirr, CBE

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1985

  Glasgow University

  Mr. C. C. NcNicol

  1 April 1977

  17 October 1983

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Miss D. B. Rigg

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Mr. J. Ross-Harper

  1 April 1981

  31 March 1987

  Chief Whip

  Mr. H. Sheriff

  17 May 1978

  June 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mr. D. S. Sinnott

  1 April 1981

  31 March 1987

  Chief Whip

  Professor G. S. Timbury

  7 May 1973

  8 February 1984

  Health Board: British Medical Association

  Highland health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mrs. H. E. Betts-Brown

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Mr. R. J. B. Bryson, MBE

  1 April 1985

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  Dr. R. S. C. Ferguson

  1 April 1985

  British Medical Association: Local Medical Committee

  Miss M. T. Hadden

  1 April 1981

  Royal College of Midwives: Royal College of Nursing: Scottish Health Visitors Association of Nurse Administrators

  The right hon. Lord Macdonald of Sleat

  1 April 1981

  Skye and Lochalsh District Council

  Mr. A. I. MacDonald

  7 May 1986

  Health Board: Caithness District Council

  Mr. B. A. Merchant

  22 June 1981

  Health Board

  Dr. W. D. Murray

  1 April 1985

  Royal College of Physicians: Royal College of Surgeons: Hospital Medical Staff Association

  Mrs. S. M. C. South

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. G. Bruce

  1 April 1987

  Caithness Local Health Council

  Mr. M. Cumming

  1 April 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. C. B. Fraser

  1 April 1987

  Ross and Cromarty District Council: Council of Voluntary Service

  Dr. C. A. S. Galloway

  1 April 1987

  British Medical Association: Royal College of Surgeons

  Mr. W. G. Johnston

  1 April 1983

  Sutherland Local Health Council

  Mrs. V. MacIver

  1 April 1987

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Mr. A. K. Robertson

  1 April 1987

  Area Dental Committee of Highland Health Board

  Mrs. C. Thomson

  1 April 1987

  Ross and Cromarty Local Health Council

  Mrs. R. M. Tulloch

  26 April 1983

  Scottish Society for Mentally Handicapped: Nairn Local Health Council

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mrs. M. Hinds

  1 April 1979

  31 December 1985

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. M. A. MacDougall

  5 June 1973

  31 March 1987

  Mr. Hector Monro, MP

  Dr. A. D. McIntosh

  1 April 1981

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. A. A. MacKenzie

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mrs. L. MacKenzie

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Sutherland District Council

  Mr. K. M. MacLeod

  1 April 1973

  20 July 1983

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Mr. W. Monahan

  1 April 1975

  31 March 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. I. Munro, BEM

  1 April 1981

  31 March 1987

  Mr. Hamish Gray, MP

  Lanarkshire health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Dr. G. A. Bell

  1 April 1981

  Ministerial

  Mr. T M. Bennet

  16 January 1986

  Health Board

  Mrs. A. S. Hinshalwood

  18 December 1973

  Health Board: Mr. Hector Monro MP

  Mrs. J. H. Holmes

  1 April 1981

  Ministerial

  Mr. A. A. McIlwain, CBE

  1 April 1981

  Law Society of Scotland

  Mrs. D. C. McGirr

  1 April 1981

  Royal College of Physicians: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons

  Mr. G. McIntosh

  1 April 1985

  Confederation of British Industry

  Dr. A. Mathewson

  1 April 1977

  British Medical Association

  Mr. J. Thomson

  1 April 1985

  Voluntary Association for Mental Welfare

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Miss J. E. Jarvie

  1 April 1987

  Lanarkshire Branch Royal College of Nursing

  Mr. R. J. Logan

  18 December 1973

  Heath Board

  324 325

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Mr. D. McClymont

  1 April 1979

  Society of Radiographers

  Dr. P. K. Mukherjee

  1 April 1987

  British Medical Association

  Mr. W. J. O'Brien, JP

  1 April 1983

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Mr. H. Porter OBE

  1 April 1987

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. T. S. L. Reid

  26 April 1983

  Health Board

  Mr. J. P. Robinson

  1 April 1983

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Miss J. Rutherford

  1 April 1987

  East Kilbride Local Health Council

  Mr. W. Traynor

  1 April 1983

  Scottish Trade Union Congress: Western Joint Opthalmic Committee

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mrs. A. Agnew

  1 April 1979

  28 February 1984

  Royal College of Nursing

  Mr. W. Bertram, MBE

  1 April 1979

  8 April 1985

  Institute of Medical Sciences

  Mr. A. Braidwood

  16 January 1986

  January 1988

  Health Board

  Mr. F. Campbell

  1 April 1983

  9 January 1984

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mrs. N. Cochrane

  1 April 1985

  25 May 1988

  Hamilton District Council

  Dr. D. Datta

  1 April 1981

  31 March 1987

  Overseas Doctors Association

  Mrs. A. M. Maggs

  1 April 1983

  June 1984

  East Kilbride District Council

  Mr. J. B. Russell

  1 April 1985

  April 1987

  Co-op Union Ltd.

  Mr. S. Scott

  1 April 1981

  12 June 1986

  Chief Whip

  Lothian health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mrs. P. Bell

  1 April 1981

  Conservative and Unionist Party

  Mr. I. Capperauld

  1 April 1981

  Ministerial

  Mr. A. T. Clark, MBE, MVO

  1 April 1981

  Edinburgh District Council

  Mrs. W. E. Donaldson

  19 April 1973

  Lothian Regional Council: British Medical Association

  Sir J. D. Fraser

  1 April 1985

  British Medical Association

  Mr. W. B. Herald

  1 April 1985

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Dr. A. R. Milne

  1 April 1981

  Health Board: Royal College of General Practitioners

  Mr. J. F. Wilson

  1 April 1985

  Bank of Scotland

  Professor J. Williamson

  1 April 1983

  Edinburgh University

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mrs. G. Barton

  1 April 1979

  Lothian Regional Council: Edinburgh District Council

  Dr. J. W. Baynham

  1 May 1987

  Confederation of British Industry

  Miss J. A. Brown

  1 April 1987

  Society of Radiographers: Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Mrs. E. Burnett

  1 April 1987

  Royal College of Nursing

  Mr. J. Campbell

  1 April 1987

  Chief Whips Office

  Mr. A. B. Dunlop

  26 April 1983

  Scottish Conservative Party and Chief Whips Office

  Mrs. J. Ferguson

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. D. R. Findlay

  1 April 1987

  The Faculty of Advocates

  Dr. Jessie Gray

  1 April 1987

  West Lothian District Local Health Council

  Dr. R. I. Kennedy

  1 April 1987

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Mr. J. M. MacNeill, CBE

  1 April 1983

  Confederation of British Industry

  Dr. M. McGregor

  5 May 1988

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Mr. G. S. Millar

  2 November 1984

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date Terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. J. Dunning

  12 August 1982

  19 September 1984

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind MP

  Mrs. E. S. Foy

  19 April 1973

  31 May 1984

  East Lothian District Council

  Miss B. Jamieson

  2 November 1984

  31 October 1986

  Royal College of Midwives

  Dr. R. J. Kellett

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  British Medical Association

  Mr. E. A. Matthews

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Midlothian Local Health Council

  Mr. G. S. Millar

  1 April 1985

  26 February 1987

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Mr. D. Molloy

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Midlothian District Council

  Mr. E. J. Rawlings

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Professor A. R. Rogers

  1 April 1981

  31 January 1984

  Heriot Watt University

  Mr. A. H. Russell

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  West Lothian District Council

  Mr. A. G. Smart

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Scottish Conservative Party

  Mrs. W. Sutherland

  1 April 1987

  August 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. M. H. Waterson

  1 April 1981

  31 March 1987

  Ministerial

  326 327

  Orkney health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. B. M. Clark

  30 October 1981

  Health Board

  Mr. F. J. Groundwater

  1 April 1977

  Scottish Trade Union Congress: British Medical Association

  Mrs. J. Marwick

  1 April 1985

  Orkney Local Health Council: Health Board: Orkney Islands Council

  Mr. J. W. R. Moar, MBE

  1 April 1981

  Ministerial

  Mrs. M. Porteous

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Dr. J. S. Walker

  1 April 1981

  British Medical Association

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. A. H. Bevan

  18 December 1973

  Health Board

  Mr. A. Bullen

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mrs. M. J. B. Crichton

  1 April 1987

  Orkney Local Health Council

  Mr. J. Flett

  18 December 1973

  Health Board

  Mr. J. M. F. Groat

  1 April 1979

  Health Board

  Mrs. G. M. Leslie

  1 April 1987

  Orkney Local Health Council

  Mr. J. Leslie

  24 April 1987

  Pharmaceutical General Council

  Mrs. E. M. Street

  18 June 1980

  Royal College of Midwives

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Dale terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. J. C. Bevan

  13 November 1979

  28 January 1987 (Died)

  Health Board

  Mr. J. Towrie

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Orkney Islands Council

  Mr. R. Tullock

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Shetland health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. A. G. Coutts

  16 April 1986

  Health Board

  Dr. M. D. Hunter

  1 April 1981

  British Medical Association

  Mr. R. Leask

  1 April 1983

  Confederation of Health Service Employees

  Mr. D. M. Sinclair

  1 April 1985

  Royal College of Nursing: Scottish Health Visitors Association

  Captain G. Walterson

  1 April 1985

  Chief Whip's Office

  Mrs. M. Williamson

  18 February 1982

  Health Board

  Mr. W. A. Smith, BEM

  18 April 1973

  Shetland Islands Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. R. R. Bentley

  18 December 1973

  Health Board: Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Mr. C. A. Cumming

  1 April 1987

  Association of Scientific Technical and Managerial Staffs

  Mr. A. G. Flaws

  26 April 1983

  Scottish Conservative Party

  Mr. A. H. George

  26 April 1983

  British Petroleum (Sullom Voe)

  Mrs. M. E. Irving

  1 April 1987

  Former Health Board Member

  Mr. J. A. T. Leslie

  1 April 1983

  Area Pharmaceutical Committee

  Mr. A. J. R. Tait

  6 May 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Dale terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. R. L. C. Manson

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1985

  Health Board

  Mrs. J. K. Sandison

  18 December 1973

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. R. A. J. Smith

  1 April 1985

  30 January 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. S. A. Zaman

  1 April 1983

  31 July 1985

  Health Board

  Tayside health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. E. W. Cameron, OBE

  12 August 1982

  Ministerial

  Mr. J. Campbell-Smith

  1 April 1977

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  Mr. J. W. Duncan, MBE

  8 August 1974

  Co-op Union Ltd: Dundee District Council: Mr. P. Doig MP

  Mrs. S. D. R. Kydd

  1 April 1983

  Angus Local Health Council

  Dr. A. G. R. Law

  1 April 1981

  British Medical Association

  Mr. E. C. Lowson, MBE

  1 April 1977

  Association of Scottish Chamber of Commerce

  Prof. D. G. McDevitt

  1 April 1985

  University of Dundee

  328 329

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Miss S. D. Moncur

  1 April 1985

  Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  Mr. I. W. Stevenson

  1 April 1985

  Tayside Regional Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Miss A. Allen

  31 March 1987

  Royal College of Midwives

  Dr. P. G. Aungle

  27 July 1984

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Prof. J. S. Beck

  1 April 1983

  University of Dundee

  Rev. K. Campbell

  1 June 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. G. S. Cargill

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. J. S. Fair

  27 July 1984

  Ministerial

  Mr. A. H. Lynch

  31 March 1987

  Dundee District Council: Dundee Local Health Council

  Mr. J. C. MacFarlane, OBE

  1 April 1983

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mrs. D. M. Munro

  1 June 1987

  Angus Local Health Council

  Mr. W. Stewart

  27 July 1984

  Perth and Kinross Local Health Council

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mrs. R. J. T. Bolton

  1 April 1971

  31 March 1988

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Dr. H. C. Fowlie

  1 April 1981

  1 February 1984

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Mrs. L. V. Grewer

  29 May 1975

  31 March 1987

  British Medical Association

  Mrs. A. E. Grieve

  11 December 1979

  28 July 1983 (Died)

  Chief Whip

  Mr. M. B. Kerr

  21 December 1977

  31 March 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress: Angus District Council

  Mr. R. F. Menzies

  1 April 1971

  3 November 1983 (Died)

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mr. J. T. Robb

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Mrs. A. W. Woore

  1 April 1983

  31 March 1987

  Royal College of Nursing: Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators

  Western Isles health board

  Present members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Nominated by

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. D. A. Maclean

  1 April 1985

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons: British Medical Association

  Mr. K. Maclennan

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Mr. J. McIntyre

  12 February 1982

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Mr. M. McLeod

  1 April 1981

  Health Board

  Mr. A. D. Millar

  16 January 1986

  Health Board

  Mr. I. D. Sutherland

  1 April 1985

  Health Board

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Dr. N. W. Beresford

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. J. H. Downie

  1 April 1979

  Lewis and Harris Local Health Council

  Mr. A. Matheson

  19 April 1973

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Rev. M. A. McLeod

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mrs. C. R. Macaskill

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. A. A. McDonald

  1 April 1987

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Mrs. G. N. MacKillop

  1 April 1987

  Health Board

  Members retired since 1983

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date terminated

  Nominated by

  Mr. M. Campbell

  19 April 1973

  31 March 1987

  Health Board: Scottish Trade Union Congress

  Dr. M. R. Gillies

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  British Medical Association

  Mr. D. N. Kesting

  19 April 1973

  31 March 1987

  Law Society

  Mrs. C. Maceachen

  1 April 1979

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mr. D. W. MacLeod

  18 December 1973

  31 March 1987

  Health Board

  Mrs. M. F. MacNeil

  27 September 1983

  March 1984

  Self

  Mr. J. M. Morrison

  I April 1985

  24 September 1987

  Lewis and Harris Local Health Council

  Cattle Semen
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to protect the outlying areas, smaller herds, and minority breeds from increased costs as a result of the proposals to deregulate the system of licences for the supply of cattle semen.
  330
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current consultation by the Agricultural Departments is designed to bring out and examine such concerns but there are no plans to discontinue the special arrangements under which holders of farm storage licences in the remote areas of Scotland obtain their supplies of semen. No final decisions will be made without thorough consideration of all the responses.
  331
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps will be taken to protect animal health in the suggested scheme to deregulate the system of licences to supply cattle semen;

  (2) how he proposes to guarantee the quality of semen within a deregulated distribution when the system of licences to supply cattle semen is deregulated.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Our proposals for a more liberal approach to the number of suppliers of cattle semen and the zoning of supply areas do not imply any relaxation of the current licence conditions. Supply centres will remain under the day-to-day supervision of an approved veterinary surgeon in addition to inspections at regular intervals from the state veterinary service. There will be no reduction in the rigorous animal health standards which licence holders currently have to meet but the quality of their product, in respect of its genetic merit and viability, remains a matter for commercial judgment.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how he intends to police the system of artificial insemination in his proposals to deregulate the system of licences to supply cattle semen;

  (2) what proposals he has to guarantee the facility to trace and control the movement of semen for artificial insemination under his proposals to deregulate the system of licences to supply cattle semen;

  (3) what proposals he has to guarantee veterinary and statistical security in his proposals to deregulate the system of licences to supply cattle semen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Organisations currently holding licences for the supply of cattle semen do so under specific conditions designed to protect the health of the national herd under effective veterinary supervision. There is no proposal to change or dilute these arrangements.

  It will continue to be a condition of licence that records are kept which allow the movement of semen to be traced and to provide veterinary and statistical security. If it is decided to allow farm storage licence holders to sell surplus straws to a similar licenceholder the proposed record keeping system will ensure the semen can be traced.

  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all parties responding to suggested changes in the deregulation of licences to supply cattle semen, indicating how many were favourable and how many adversely disposed to the proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Seven interested organisations in Scotland have been invited to comment by the end of the month. Of the responses received so far AI Breeders Services Ltd. is in favour while the three Milk Marketing Boards have reservations concerning a possible risk to animal health and supplies to remote areas.

  Scottish Chess Association
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement regarding his Department's funding of the Scottish Chess Association;

  (2) what was his Department's total grant to the Scottish Chess Association in each of the last five years; and what he expects it to be in the current financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Chess Association has received grant as follows:332

  £

  1983–84

  18,500

  1984–85

  28,500

  1985–86

  38,750

  1986–87

  49,000

  1987–88

  4,730

  1988–89

  4,730

  1 Of which £6,550 was for travel costs.

  2 Of which £6,550 was for travel costs.

  3 Of which £5,775 was for travel costs.

  4 Of which £5,775 was for travel costs.

  In the special circumstances pertaining in the current year my right hon. and learned Friend has offered the association an additional grant of up to £4,300 towards the cost of sending competitors to the World Olympiad and the World Junior Championship.

  Health Authorities (Revenue)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the health boards which, under the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation formula, lose a proportion of their allocation annually because of revenue equalisation; if he will give details of the original percentage of overfunding of these health boards as defined by the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation formula; and if he will give details for each of these health boards in percentage terms, of the amounts they lose annually; and how much, in percentage terms, each health board still has to lose.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The SHARE process for allocating revenue expenditure among health boards does not involve the best financed boards losing any of their allocations. In general, progress to revenue equalisation is achieved by giving the best financed boards smaller percentage increases in allocation each year than less well financed boards. When the SHARE formula was introduced the following boards were "overfinanced" against their objectively determined targets:

  Board

  Percentage overfinanced

  Tayside

  15·33

  Lothian

  3·52

  Highland

  2·14

  Greater Glasgow

  1·13

  Highland health board is no longer overfinanced in SHARE, and the 1988–89 position of the other boards is as follows:

  Board

  Percentage overfinanced

  Greater Glasgow

  4·11

  Tayside

  2·36

  Lothian

  0·35

  It is not possible to state with accuracy likely changes in boards' allocations in future years as allocations depend upon each board's SHARE target. Targets are recalculated afresh each year to take account of changes in the relative health care needs of each board.

  School Meals
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the comparative uptake
  333
  of school meals served to pupils, in percentage terms, in primary and secondary schools by each education authority for 1979–80.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information from the annual school meals census undertaken in January 1980 is as follows:

  Total uptake of school meals as a percentage of pupils present

  Region, division or island authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Border

  57·5

  35·5

  Central

  44·3

  28·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  66·1

  43·8

  Fife

  45·5

  39·4

  Grampian

  52·4

  32·7

  Highland

  59·0

  30·1

  Lothian

  48·3

  34·6

  Strathclyde

  49·9

  31·1

  Argyll and Bute

  66·6

  38·3

  Ayr

  54·9

  43·2

  Dumbarton

  48·5

  23·6

  Glasgow

  50·8

  28·8

  Lanark

  43·3

  26·3

  Renfrew

  51·1

  36·2

  Tayside

  50·5

  28·0

  Orkney

  72·4

  42·8

  Shetland

  83·3

  33·9

  Western Isles

  71·8

  21·4

  Scotland

  50·5

  32·2

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the price of school meals in primary and secondary schools in each region and division where appropriate, and island education authority as at 31 January; and what was the average amount spent on cafeteria meals in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information taken from the 1988 annual school meal census is as follows:

  Region division or Island authority

  Charge for fixed priced school meals (pence)

  Average amount spent on cafeteria meals (pence)

  Borders

  50

  52

  Central

  58

  42

  Dumfries and Galloway

  61

  32

  Fife

  50

  49

  Grampian

  >160

  53

  270

  Highland

  65

  62

  Lothian

  150

  44

  255

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  63

  50

  Ayr

  63

  50

  Dumbarton

  63

  41

  Glasgow (City)

  63

  45

  Lanark

  63

  57

  Renfrew

  63

  50

  Tayside

  60

  40

  Orkney

  60

  60

  Shetland

  60

  3

  Western Isles

  65

  70

  1 Primary.

  2 Secondary.

  3 No cafeteria service.

  Note:

  Charges for fixed price meals are the same in primary and secondary schools in all regions except Grampian and Lothian.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the total number of
  334
  staff employed in the school meals service in January in each region or division or island authority in Scotland and (b) the number of staff employed for (i) 30 or more hours per week and (ii) less than 30 hours per week.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information taken from the 1988 annual school meals census is as follows:

  Number of Staff Employed

  Region division or island authority

  More than 30 hpw

  Less than 30 hpw

  Total

  Borders

  30

  176

  206

  Central

  282

  330

  612

  Dumfries and Galloway

  112

  387

  499

  Fife

  176

  608

  784

  Grampian

  326

  743

  1,069

  Highland

  173

  447

  620

  Lothian

  534

  1,166

  1,700

  Strathclyde

  1,781

  3,996

  5,777

  Argyll and Bute

  58

  168

  226

  Ayr

  292

  709

  1,001

  Dumbarton

  100

  607

  707

  Glasgow (City)

  711

  1,017

  1,728

  Lanark

  374

  709

  1,083

  Renfrew

  246

  786

  1,032

  Tayside

  273

  633

  906

  Orkney

  31

  40

  71

  Shetland

  52

  49

  101

  Western Isles

  42

  93

  135

  SCOTLAND

  3,812

  8,668

  12,480

  Mental Officers
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the criteria used in the appointment procedures of mental officers has changed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The original guidance issued in March 1985 referred to formal assessment by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work of training undergone by candidates for appointment as mental health officers. Revised guidance issued in December 1986 excluded reference to formal assessment and required local authorities to be satisfied as to the competence of candidates to be appointed before 1 April 1988. The same requirement was prescribed for subsequent appointments in a circular issued in March 1988, which also consolidated the earlier guidance. A copy is available in the Library.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he makes of the effect of air traffic control difficulties on tourism in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Recent air traffic control difficulties are unlikely to have any significant impact on Scottish tourism.

  Companies (Local Taxation)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had about the local taxation of companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) grant and (b) felling licence

  Conservancy

  Number referred to Regional Advisory Committees

  Number resolved by voluntary withdrawal or amendment of application

  Number referred by Regional Advisory Committees to Forestry Commissioners

  Grant Scheme Applications—Two years to 31 March 1985

  North West England

  1

  —

  1

  North East England

  2

  —

  2

  East England

  —

  —

  —

  South East England

  —

  —

  —

  South West England

  —

  —

  —

  North Scotland

  1

  —

  1

  East Scotland

  1

  1

  —

  South Scotland

  4

  1

  3

  West Scotland

  6

  1

  5

  North Wales

  1

  —

  1

  South Wales

  5

  —

  5

  Felling Licence Applications—Two years to 31 March 1985

  North West England

  —

  —

  —

  North East England

  1

  —

  1

  East England

  1

  1

  —

  South East England

  3

  —

  3

  South West England

  1

  —

  1

  North Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  East Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  South Scotland

  1

  —

  1

  West Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  1

  1

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  Year (to 31 March)

  Number referred to Regional Advisory Committees

  Number resolved by voluntary withdrawal or amendment of application

  Number referred by Regional Advisory Committees to Forestry Commissioners

  Grant Scheme Applications—Two years to 31 March 1987

  North England Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  5

  2

  3

  East England Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  —

  1

  West England Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Wales Conservancy

  1986

  1

  —

  1

  1987

  3

  1

  2

  North Scotland Conservancy

  1986

  1

  1

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Scotland Conservancy

  1986

  5

  —

  5

  1987

  5

  2

  3

  South Scotland Conservancy

  1986

  2

  1

  1

  1987

  3

  2

  1

  336
  applications were referred to the regional advisory committee for each Forestry Commission conservancy in each year from 1984, and what were the results.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 March 1988, c. 148–50]: The revised figures to year-end 31 March are as follows:
  337

  Year (to 31 March)

  Number referred to Regional Advisory Committees

  Number resolved by voluntary withdrawal or amendment of application

  Number referred by Regional Advisory Committees to Forestry Commissioners

  Felling Licence Applications—Two years to 31 March 1987

  North England Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  East England Conservancy

  1986

  3

  1

  2

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  West England Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Wales Conservancy

  1986

  2

  —

  2

  1987

  2

  —

  2

  North Scotland Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Scotland Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  South Scotland Conservancy

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) grant and (b) felling licence applications were received by the Forestry Commission in each year from 1984; how many were referred to regional advisory committees; and what proportion of the annual total this represented.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 March 1988, c. 148]: The revised figures to year-ended 31 March are as follows:

  Year (to 31 March)

  Number received

  Number and percentage of cases referred to Regional Advisory Committees

  Number

  per cent.

  Grant Scheme Applications

  1984

  2,000

  7

  0·4

  1985

  2,296

  14

  0·6

  1986

  3,736

  9

  0·2

  1987

  5,362

  17

  0·3

  Felling Licence Applications

  1984

  1,923

  3

  0·2

  1985

  1,767

  5

  0·3

  1986

  2,078

  5

  0·2

  1987

  2,367

  2

  0·1

  Crossroads (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the provision of funding for Crossroads (Scotland) from a source other than the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 28 June, at column 177. I understand that a number of
  338
  Crossroads schemes are negotiated with the Training Commission about participation in employment training and I hope that others will follow suit.

  Poll Tax
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from pensioners concerning the poll tax register; and if he will take steps to ensure that the register will not display birth dates for public inspection.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from pensioners and others on this subject. Under section 20(2)(a) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, only the names, addresses and (in certain cases) the collective community charge multipliers contained in the community charges register are to be available for public inspection.

  Dental Hospital, Edinburgh
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the cost of building a dental hospital in Edinburgh in the event of the University Grants Committee working party's proposals for rationalising Edinburgh and Dundee dental schools going ahead.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: Current plans are to build a replacement dental hospital in Edinburgh for about £5·5 million. No firm estimate has been prepared of the cost of expanding the proposed dental hospital to take account of the working party's proposals for a larger student intake to the Edinburgh dental school than that accommodated in the current hospital plans.

  Tenants' Rights (Counsel's Opinion)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the opinion of senior counsel concerning the right of tenants of public sector housing which may be transferred to private landlords which was referred to by the Minister of State, Scottish Office,Official Report, column 344 of the Official Report of the House of Lords debates for 6 July.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 18 July at columns 511–12.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and names of local authorities which have written to him objecting to the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  A summary of the 1,217 responses received by 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. 124 of the local authorities who commented did not support the community charge. Taking respondents as a whole, those favouring abolition of domestic rates outnumbered those favouring retention by 21. A clear majority of them preferred the community charge to all other alternatives and six times as many respondents supported the community charge as supported a combination of rates and local income tax.

  Since June 1987 my Department has received some 11,000 letters, the majority of which are from private individuals, containing a variety of comments on specific aspects of our proposals or requesting further information. The letters do not readily lend themselves to an analysis of correspondents' views.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he appointed equal opportunity officers; and how many and what percentage of these are women, from ethnic minority groups or both.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department appointed two equal opportunity officers in 1984, one from central DOE and one from the PSA. Both posts are occupied by white, male staff.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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.

  Mr. Ridley
  Non-departmental public bodies and other bodies sponsored by my Department are responsible for arrangements for recruitment and personnel management 340
  of staff they employ. Organisations are encouraged to be equal opportunities employers, and to pursue practices in the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. No central records are held of ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises carried out by these bodies.

  Warrington Runcorn (Factory Space)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures available to him showing the progress of Warrington Runcorn new town development corporation is constructing, allocating and filling factory space.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 28 March at columns 299–300. In addition, for the current financial year to date, 106,730 sq ft of factory floor space has been completed, and 450,540 sq ft occupied; 268,000 sq ft is at present under construction. I am considering the corporation's proposals for a very limited number of further schemes of advance factory building.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the latest position on the developments concerning Heveningham hall.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am glad to say that we understand that the owner intends to open Heveningham hall to the public daily between 31 July and 1 September this year. It remains my right hon. Friend's hope that the restoration of the fire-damaged wing will proceed. My right hon. Friend has also, in a decision issued on 25 July, upheld the recommendation of both his inspectors not to confirm the footpath diversion order made by the Suffolk Coastal district council relating to land at Heveningham.

  Local Authority Tenants
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to give guidance to local authorities on the organisations which are permitted to arrange ballots for local authority tenants being transferred to other organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning made it clear that he expected authorities who are seeking to dispose of their tenanted housing to follow the procedures set out in section 6 and schedule I of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. Authorities themselves have the primary responsibility for ensuring that any ballot which is held is conducted, and is seen to be conducted, without any suggestion of impropriety.

  Under our proposals for tenants' choice, it would be the applicant rather than the local authority who would have responsibility for arranging the ballot.

  Local Authority Housing Transfers
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the guidelines on the transfer of local authority housing drawn up in conjunction with clause 47
  341
  of the Housing Bill differ from the guidance given to local authorities proceeding with transfers under other legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  In issuing guidelines on large scale voluntary transfers of local authority housing to private bodies to English local authorities on 8 June, I made it clear that I would apply the guidance issued in circular 6/88 "Consultation with Secure Tenants before Disposal to Private Sector Landlord: Commencement of Section 6 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986" in the case of all large-scale voluntary transfers to tenanted local authority housing.

  No guidelines have been issued to local authorities on the transfer of their housing under parts III and IV of the Housing Bill.

  Urban Development Corporations (Disability Adviser)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy that a local disability adviser is appointed to each urban development corporation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will outline the measures that are being taken to ensure that urban development corporations are made aware of the access needs of disabled people in the revitalisation of the inner cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  As development control authorities, urban development corporations receive planning circulars and advice. This includes DOE circular 10/82 which draws attention to the Disabled Persons Act 1981 and reminds authorities of the importance of bearing in mind the needs of disabled people. As employers, the corporations receive and are expected to follow the Government's own code of practice "Employment of disabled people".

  House Purchase Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the total numbers of(a) private home purchases and (b) purchases by first-time buyers, in each of the years 1976 to 1987, and what was the proportion represented by (b) of (a).

  Mr. Trippier
  The available information is as follows:

  Mortgage loans for house purhase: United Kingdom

  All1

  of which, to first time purchasers

  thousands

  thousands

  percentage of all

  1976

  739

  373

  50

  1977

  760

  374

  49

  1978

  829

  404

  49

  1979

  750

  358

  48

  1980

  691

  332

  48

  1981

  736

  364

  50

  1982

  861

  468

  54

  1983

  1,107

  555

  50

  1984

  1,187

  596

  50

  1985

  1,227

  605

  49

  1986

  1,446

  666

  46

  1987

  1,298

  588

  45

  1 Mortgage completions by building societies; from 1976 to 1980 by local authorities (excluding council house sales) in England and Wales; and from 1983 to 1987 mortgage approvals by banks.

  342
  The numbers of loans to first-time purchasers is not reported by insurance companies or, from 1981, by local authorities. The annual average number of loans for house purchase by insurance companies in 1976 to 1987 was 20,000. The numbers of loans by local authorities in Great Britain are as follows, including those for council house sales in England almost all of which are to sitting tenants.

  All

  For council house sales

  1981

  73,000

  70,000

  1982

  111,000

  83,000

  1983

  47,000

  40,000

  1984

  36,000

  31,000

  1985

  23,000

  20,000

  1986

  12,000

  10,000

  1987

  10,000

  8,000

  Cornerstone Housing Association
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the activities of the Cornerstone Housing Association Ltd. and Mr. Frans Robey.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Private Landlords (Property Maintenance)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to ensure that private landlords carry out routine maintenance on properties in their ownership in a satisfactory way.

  Mr. Trippier
  Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into leases of seven years or less a convenant obliging a landlord to keep in repair the structure of a rented dwelling and certain installations in it. This provision will apply to assured and shorthold tenancies granted under the Housing Bill. The Bill extends section 11 to cover the structure and common parts of buildings containing flats. Also we have tabled amendments to the Bill to strengthen the powers of local authorities to require private landlords to carry out repairs and themselves to carry out the works where the landlord fails to do so and to recover the costs.

  Private Tenants (Temporary Housing)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to ensure proper protection for private tenants offered temporary rehousing while works are carried out to their homes.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under sections 214 and 215 of the Housing Act 1985 a local authority may not serve an improvement notice until it is satisfied that the housing arrangements for affected occupants are satisfactory. Otherwise, it is for private tenants who are offered temporary rehousing while works are carried out to their homes to negotiate with their landlords to preserve their rights. We have amended the Housing Bill so that existing protected tenants who are rehoused by their landlords will continue to have protected tenancies.

  Subsidies and Benefits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official

  343
  Report his estimate of the amount paid out in 1987–88 in (a) subsidies to local authorities and new town housing and (b) cost of housing benefit to, respectively, tenants of local authorities and private landlords, including rate rebates; and if he will add a forecast for the current and for the next financial year together with an estimate of the increase in a full year as a result of the abolition of rent control.

  Mr. Trippier
  Payments of housing subsidy to local authorities in 1987–88 amounted to £473,511,743 and to new towns £82,839,556. Questions on income support, including housing benefit, are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Waste Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will prohibit the importation of United States waste into the United Kingdom under section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am considering whether further controls on the import of waste are necessary.

  United Nations Clean-up Campaign
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of the problems imposed on Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Benin, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Gabon and Congo by the disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes from EEC countries, he will make it his policy to secure additional United Kingdom donations to the United Nations environment programme special clean-up campaign.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government are increasing its financial support for UNEP by 25 per cent. For 1988 the United Kingdom's contribution to UNEP's environment fund will be £1·25 million.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when his Department first learnt from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. that a canister containing plutonium had been found at the Drigg dump site, as announced by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to the media on 13 July;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 14 June, Official Report, columns 142–43, whether the table included the radioactive content of the canister of plutonium bearing nuclear fuel found at the Drigg dump site as announced by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. on 13 July.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy stated in his reply to a question by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 15 July 1988,Official Report, column 430, this matter is currently subject to a joint investigation by the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution who will report their findings shortly.

  Hazardous Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the United 344
  Nations environment programme project to establish a global convention on the regulation of international transfrontier shipment and disposal of toxic, hazardous and radiotoxic waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We shall continue to participate actively in the development of the UNEP global convention.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 14 June,Official Report, column 142, on export of toxic wastes from the European Community, if he will make a statement on any initiatives taken at the EC Environment Council on the matter.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The subject of export of toxic waste from the Community to developing countries was discussed at the EC Environment Council on 16 and 28 June but no conclusion was reached. Further discussions are under way.

  Access Land (Sales)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to control the sale of random strips of land required by private house builders for access to services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Depending upon the location of a particular site for development, a wide variety of matters relating to neighbouring land may need to be dealt with by those who propose to develop the site and it is for them to ensure that they have made any arrangements for land acquisition, easements, and so on, that may be necessary for development.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold discussions with the London residuary body on the case for holding a public exhibition and consultation over the plans for future use of county hall, after its eventual disposal from the public sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. This will be a matter for the new owners of country hall.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the amount of delay incurred by the London residuary body in the possible disposal of county hall, to allow time for the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No delay attributable to the abolition of the Inner London education authority is expected in the disposal of county hall.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with the London residuary body its sources of expert advice on the architectural and historical aspects of the proposal to convert county hall from public use to hotel use.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Any development of county hall will be subject to the usual planning and listed building procedures. It is for the applicants themselves, whoever they may be, to take what expert advice they consider necessary in preparing their proposals.
  345
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that full and lengthy public consultation will take place and that all the appropriate national and Greater London bodies and agencies will be fully consulted in regard to the disposal of county hall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no grounds for placing such an obligation on the London residuary body in view of its statutory duty to dispose of all surplus GLC property.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current full salary and total expenses, allowances and other emoluments and payments in kind of the chairman and all other board members, and the three senior non-board officials of the London residuary body.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The current salaries of the chairman and board members of the London residuary body are as follows:

  £ per annum1

  Chairman (full-time appointment):

  Sir Godfrey Taylor

  56,320

  Members (part-time appointments):

  Mr. Alan Blakemore, CBE

  13,608

  Mr. Jack Esling

  Mr. Jack Wolkind, CBE

  Mr. Wallace Mackenzie, OBE

  17,010

  Mr. Michael Roberts

  20,412

  Councillor Sir Peter Bowness, CBE

  6,804

  1 From 1 April 1988.

  Remuneration is subject to abatement, if applicable, in respect of public sector pension received.

  Information on the total expenses paid to the chairman and board members during 1986–87 is contained in the residuary body's annual report and accounts for that financial year, which were laid before Parliament on 27 January. No emoluments were paid otherwise than in cash. The salaries and expenses of officials are a matter for the LRB. The 1986–87 report and accounts indicate that the emoluments for that year of the three most senior officials were in the range £35,000 to £40,000.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the amount of office space required by the London residuary body for its work between 1988 and 1990, and from 1990 onwards; and which locations have been selected provisionally or finally for these activities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The London residuary body's requirements for office space in connection with winding up the affairs of the Greater London council will reduce progressively from its present floor space needs of about 30,000 sq m as its functions diminish before 31 March 1990. Accommodation in connection with winding up the residual affairs of the Inner London education authority will depend upon the number and complexity of the functions it may have to undertake.

  Public House Tenants (Tenure)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to provide security of tenure for the tenants of public houses selling alcohol.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 6 May at column 613 by the then Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave).

  Mineral Supplies
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the limitations imposed by the planning system on the supply of minerals from quarries.

  Mr. Trippier
  If the mineral operator has been granted a planning permission and does not subsequently contravene any planning conditions attached to that consent, the minerals may be worked and sold without further statutory constraint. It is not the Government's policy to intervene in these arrangements.

  It is generally the case that purchasers of minerals may seek to obtain the supplies they need, from whatever source they so choose, without the need to consider any further statutory provision. However, public bodies do have a duty under section 11 of the Countryside Act, 1968, to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in exercising their functions relating to land.

  Listed Buildings (Painting)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to issue guidance on the extent to which painting or repainting of listed buildings requires listed building consent.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment has today issued a new circular (DOE circular 18/88) drawing attention to a recent High Court judgment relating to the painting or repainting of listed buildings. The court held that painting or repainting is capable of being an alteration for which listed building consent is required. The critical question in each case is whether the character of the building is affected. Only where the character is affected will consent be needed. Whether consent is needed in any particular instance must therefore depend upon the facts of the individual case.

  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now bring the remaining sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 into force.

  Mr. Ridley
  I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales have now made the third commencement order for the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, covering all the sections not already covered by earlier orders. The provisions in sections 41, 43 and 44 dealing respectively with the strengthening of tenants' rights on variable service charges, insurance and consultation on the appointment of managing agents will
  347
  come into force on 1 September 1988. There are transitional provisions for section 41 to deal with situations where action is already in hand or where the accounting period has already started before 1 September 1988. Section 42, dealing with the handling of service charge contributions will come into force on 1 April 1989, together with an order under section 42(5) dealing with the investment of service charge funds held in trust.

  Under a separate order, the prescribed amounts above which a landlord must consult his tenants about works will be raised on 1 September 1988 to £1,000 or £50 per dwelling whichever is the greater.

  This completes the implementation of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which has siginificantly strengthened the rights of people living in flats, and, as regards the payment of variable service charges and insurance, people living in houses and other dwellings also.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish his proposals for a new financial regime for local authority housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are issuing a consultation document today on a new financial regime for local authority housing in England and Wales. The paper has been placed in the Library and is available in the Vote Office. Copies will be sent today to local authorities and their associations.

  A pattern has developed of major inconsistencies between authorities in the contributions to housing costs made by rent, rate and tax payers, and subsidies are not always being directed towards those authorities and their tenants who most need them. Also, although many authorities have for years pursued sound policies, anomalies in the system of different sources of subsidy have given rise to distortions in the incentives to efficiency and good management. Subject to approval of proposed legislation by Parliament, the new arrangements will take effect from 1 April 1990. These will require authorities to maintain a new-style housing revenue account which will reinforce the distinction between the provision of housing and other local authority functions. A new housing revenue account subsidy will replace a number of existing central Government subsidies and also local rate fund contributions from that date.

  We intend that the new financial regime will make council landlords more accountable to their tenants and put tenants themselves in a position of greater equity as compared to tenants in other authorities.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what relevant scientific conclusions his Department has accepted as a valid basis for a policy regarding the rain forests and their impact on the world environment; and if he will list the different measures which his Department considers should be taken at national and international level so as to protect the rain forests in the(a) short, (b) medium and (c) long term.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: We recognise that tropical forests are an important element in the global environment and we encourage the
  348
  good management of their resources through the tropical forest action plan and by our support of the international tropical timber agreement.

  Sporting Events (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what international sporting events the Minister with responsibility for sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) intends to visit in the next 12 months; and what is the anticipated cost to public funds.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: Listed in the table are the principal international sporting events overseas which I am at present planning to visit in the next 12 months and anticipated cost to public funds.

  13 August—Moscow Marathon, Moscow. No cost to public funds.

  16 September—3 October—Summer Olympics, Seoul, South Korea. Estimated cost to public funds, £5,080.

  20–25 October—Paralympics, Seoul, South Korea. No cost to public funds.

  Water Authorities (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to use those statutory powers available to him to prosecute water authorities which do not comply with EEC directives.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government will use whatever means are necessary to ensure that European Community directives on water are complied with. As I said in reply to a question from the hon. Member on 11 July,Official Report, column 40 where the Government are aware that the obligations of directives are not currently being fully met, water authorities are instructed to take steps to remedy the position and, where necessary, to agree programmes with the Department.

DEFENCE

  Military Lands Act 1892
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries of local authorities he made in relation to rights of way and rights of common for byelaws made under the Military Lands Act 1892 since 1979; and how many rights of way have been stopped-up since 1979 at each site covered by byelaws made under the Military Lands Act 1892.

  Mr. Freeman
  Before any byelaws are made, the Property Services Agency, acting on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, undertakes inquiries with the relevant local authorities to establish the existence and extent of any rights of way and rights of common over the subject land.

  It is not possible without disproportionate effort to identify how many rights of way have been stopped up since 1979 at those sites covered by byelaws made under the Military Lands Acts 1892.

  Ministry Establishment, Shoeburyness
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit the Ministry of Defence establishment in Shoeburyness.
  349
  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the MOD establishment at Shoeburyness.

  Saudi Arabian Orders
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects the detailed procurement aspects of the latest Saudi Arabian orders to be available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Precise requirements have still to be specified by the customer and discussed and agreed in detail. Some discussions are starting now but it is not yet possible to determine how long this process will take. In any event the wishes of the customer, in regard to commercial confidentiality, will need to be respected.

  Trident Submarines (VSEL)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the contract between his Department and VSEL for Trident submarines includes arrangements for compensation to be paid or penalty clauses to be exercised in case of industrial action at the VSEL plant.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Normally, contractual arrangements between MOD and its supplier would be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. However, I can say that there are no penalty clauses in these Ministry of Defence contracts; nor do any arrangements exist in either of the two current Vanguard class SSBN contracts for compensation to be paid in the event of industrial action. However, contractors are expected to mitigate the effects of industrial action to the maximum extent possible.

  There will also, of course, be a progressive impact on the company's cash flow as a result of their inability to claim payments under these contracts for scheduled work which is not being achieved.

  RBS-70 Surface-to-air Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what order his Department has placed with Bofors of Sweden for the supply of RBS-70 surface-to-air missiles; for whose eventual use these missiles are intended; what provision has been made in his Department's estimates for this purchase; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Seabed Operations Vessel Challenger
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on problems which have arisen with the seabed operations vessel Challenger; by how much the work on this vessel has overrun in(a) time and (b) cost in relation to the original specification; and what claims and counter-claims for compensation have been made by his Department and the contractors, respectively.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Reasons for the increases in cost to the sea bed operations vessel and delays to its operational date have been detailed in evidence given by the Ministry of Defence to the Public Accounts Committee and published in its 35th report 1984–85 Session and 31st report 1987–88 Session. The appraisal and cost implications of the further slippage mentioned in the latter report are still under consideration.

  With regards to claims for compensation, whilst negotiations are continuing with contractors on these, details are commercially confidential.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of complaints about low flying received in 1987 were made initially to RAF air bases and other military-installations as opposed to his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested could not be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) during which hours of the day low flying at 100 ft above the ground is permitted in the Borders tactical training area;

  (2) if flying at 100 ft is; permitted in the vicinity of (a) Chapelton, (b) Caldermill, (c) Drumclog and (d) Auldhouse, Strathclyde;

  (3) what consultations have been held with (a) East Kilbride district council and (b) Strathclyde regional council prior to the establishment of low flying at 100 ft in the constituency of East Kilbride;

  (4) if the use of afterburners is permitted by aircraft flying at 100 ft above the ground;

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being conducted by his Department on the medical effects of exposure to the noise levels associated with military jet aircraft flying at 100 ft off the ground.

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD is represented on the NATO working group and will also attend a major international meeting on aircraft noise in Stockholm this summer.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning low-flying military exercises in Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  During June 1988 the Ministry of Defence received 86 inquiries or complaints from Wales about low-flying military aircraft.

  Borders Tactical Training Area
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date the expansion of the Borders tactical training area into the East Kilbride constituency took effect;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a map showing the newly enlarged Borders tactical training area.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Materials Requirements
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 14 June, column 119, on uranium and plutonium, if he will set out the reasons relating to each set of nuclear materials requirements, a-e, why he will not make it his policy to publish them in subsequent defence estimates.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The reason in each case is that it would not be in the national interest.

  Sirius Hull Design
  Mr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the inquiry into the Sirius hull design has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  In November 1986 I commissioned Lloyd's Register of Shipping to undertake a special inquiry into claims that the Sirius concept developed by Thornycroft, Giles and Associates could be the basis for destroyer and frigate designs offering cost and other advantages over conventional designs. Investigation of these claims had been urged by an unofficial committee chaired by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the report of the inquiry, which was led by Mr. R. H. MacLeod. The work has been professional, thorough and impartial, and especial care has been taken to give Thornycroft, Giles and Associates full opportunity both to give evidence and to comment on the report before publication. The report's main conclusion is that, for the Royal Navy's stated requirements in the destroyer and frigate roles, vessels based on the Sirius concept would cost more than conventional designs like the Type 23, without offering commensurate advantage in other ways. I accept this outcome.

  The report was not required, and does not seek, to comment on the possible use of the Sirius concept in other applications.

  Royal Ordnance plc (Agreement)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 232, he expects to announce his decision regarding the agreement between his Department and British Aerospace for the supply by Royal Ordnance of explosives and propellants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) why he has not hitherto been prepared to implement the heads of agreement signed between his Department and British Aerospace in April 1987 concerning the establishment of an agreement with Royal Ordnance plc for the supply of explosives, propellants and related products;

  (2) whether it remains his policy to invest £12 million in assisting Royal Ordnance plc with its productivity improvement programme, as envisaged in the heads of agreement for the supply of explosives, propellants and related products signed in April 1987.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on negotiations between his Department and Royal Ordnance plc over an EP (REP) agreement to supply explosives and propellants.

  Mr. Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates completing the explosives and propellants and related end product agreement with Royal Ordnance; and if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the position regarding the award to Royal Ordnance of an EP(REP) agreement.
  352
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [pursuant to his replies, 28 June 1988, c. 105 and 7 July 1988, c. 703.]: I can now advise the House that subject to final contract negotiations an agreement has been reached with Royal Ordnance plc under which the company will supply some 80 per cent, of the Ministry's requirements for specified explosives, propellants and ammunition at annually reducing prices for the period to 31 March 1993. The cumulative value of the contracts under the agreement is of the order of £400 million and represents something under 50 per cent, of the Ministry's anticipated requirements for ammunition, mines and explosives over the period concerned.

  The undertaking to enter into discussion of a long-term contract of this nature was disclosed to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 2 April 1987 in relation to his announcement of the sale of Royal Ordnance plc to British Aerospace. We are satisfied that the prices negotiated under the arrangement, which also subsume the £12 million investment referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) represent good value for money for the taxpayer as well as ensuring continuation of supply of these important stores to the armed services.

  The new agreement, which will take effect from 1 April this year, will terminate the current agreement between the Ministry of Defence and Royal Ordanance plc for the exclusive supply of most explosives and propellants also referred to by my right hon. Friend on 2 April 1987. This measure, together with the substantial proportion of Ministry of Defence requirements not covered by the new agreement, should be of assistance to other companies seeking to develop their capabilities in this sector of the market.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on allegations of strip searching at Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My predecessor wrote to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 19 July explaining the circumstances of the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 24 May 1984. A copy of his letter was placed in the Library on 21 July; the text is as follows:"John Wakeham promised on Thursday 7 July that a Defence Minister would be writing to you about the Point of Order that you raised on 6 July concerning the Answer 'no such strip searches have been carried out at RAF Greenham Common' given by my predecessor John Stanley on 24 May 1984.
  Prior to 1 January 1986 (when the relevant provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into effect), i.e. at the time of the alleged incident involving Ms. Mann-Cairns and at the time your original question was answered, there was no formal definition of a 'strip-search', personal searches being undertaken according to the judgment of the police officer concerned, as to what was reasonably necessary, and on the basis of common law and relevant statutory provisions. However, at that time, MOD would have taken the expression 'strip-search' to mean a requirement to remove all clothing including underclothing. A requirement to remove all clothing other than underclothing would not have been taken to constitute a 'strip-search'.
  The Answer given by John Stanley to your original question was based on the outcome of an investigation by the MOD Police into a specific allegation that women had been strip-searched at RAF Greenham Common. That investigation had found no evidence to support the allegation and I

  353
  consider that, on the basis of the understanding of the term at that time and of all the available information, your question was properly and correctly answered.
  I should add that the Crown's agreement to settle in Ms. Mann-Cairns' recent case in the Newbury Crown Court resulted from the fact that, due to the emigration of a key police witness, the defence was not in a position to bring evidence to refute evidence given on oath by the plaintiff of facts which were a possible indication of liability. We therefore agreed to a settlement by way of a "judgment by consent". That, however, does not amount to an admission by the Ministry of Defence of any of the allegations made against it and the settlement does not imply acceptance by the MOD that Ms. Mann-Cairns had been strip-searched.
  I am sending a copy of this letter to John Wakeham and Frank Dobson."

  As the letter explained, at the material time, so far as the Ministry of Defence was concerned, the term "strip search" meant a requirement to remove all clothing. To the best of our knowledge, the practice at the time did not include a requirement to remove underclothing and the inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing discovered no evidence that such strip searches had taken place. On the basis of the understanding of the term and all the available evidence, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde's question was correctly and properly answered.

  In the case of Ms. Mann-Cairns, I have since received a copy of a letter from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde in which he says that he does not accept that the recent judgment at Newbury County Court means anything other than that his former constituent was strip-searched. I have today replied to him, and the following is the text of my letter:
  "Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter of 26 July to John Wakeham. It falls to me to reply.
  I cannot accept your view that the recent judgment at Newbury County Court means that your former constituent was strip searched. She herself did not claim that she was required to remove all her clothing, including underclothing, as would have constituted a strip search as the term was understood at the time, nor did the judgment of the Newbury County Court imply that this had been the case. We did take the view that there appeared to have been procedural errors during her arrest and that, on the basis of the evidence now available, the balance of probability lay in favour of Ms. Mann-Cairns having been required unlawfully to remove her clothing down to her underpants.
  You say that the evidence of WPC Ford, who had emigrated between the time of the incident and the case coming to court, supported Ms. Mann-Cairns' contention that strip searches took place. In her statement given in December 1984, WPC Ford estimated that she had carried out about 750 personal searches. However, she stated that she would ask the women being searched to remove their clothing 'up to their underwear'. Nakedness was not, of course, required by the Ministry of Defence Police conducting the search. She could not recall the events of the night when Ms. Mann-Cairns was arrested, but she concluded that this particular duty was routine. She added that, as many did not wear underwear, they would be naked in the search room.
  I should like to take this opportunity of offering your former constituent an apology for the treatment to which she was subjected and the distress which the circumstances of her arrest must have caused her. She has of course received damages consequent upon a Consent Order to that effect given in Newbury County Court.
  I am copying this letter to John Wakeham, Ian Stewart, Sir John Stanley and Frank Dobson."

  I should also make clear that the present practice of the Ministry of Defence Police in searching persons in police custody follows the same requirements as are imposed on other police forces in England and Wales by the Police ana Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 54(6) of the Act is the authority for searching a person in police custody
  354
  "to the extent that the custody officer considers necessary".

  A "strip-search" is now defined in the Home Office codes for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers which were issued under section 66 of the Act, and which took effect on 1 January 1986, as a
  "search involving the removal of more than outer clothing".
  The custody officer, who will normally be a police sergeant, is required to inform the person of the reason for the search and to record the reason for all personal searches and their results in the custody record. Guidance is available to all MOD police officers who each have a personal copy of the Home Office codes of practice, and in detailed instructions based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set out in force standing orders which are distributed to every MOD police station.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Child Health
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what plans he has to improve the information available on child health by computerising information about surveillance and preventive procedures on the lines of the standard child health system developed by the National Health Service computing committee; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that systems of computerised information about child health surveillance and preventive procedures become compatible throughout the country within the next 10 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  Computer-based systems for child health have been available to health authorities in England since the late 1960s. The first such were provided by local authorities, but from the early to mid-1970s health authorities began to develop their own requirements. The main purpose is to provide call and recall systems for vaccination and immunisation, and statistical information useful for epidemiological research into population drift, epidemics and so on. Facilities more recently offered include provision of pre-school developmental assessment, full screening for school children, for example, rubella, sight, hearing, dental fitness and so on, and more sophisticated statistics packages for management and epidemiological purposes.

  The main recent development has been the national child health computer system, originally funded by DHSS and Welsh Office, as one of the major elements in the standard systems programme. It is now administered by a consortium of user authorities and the development work is undertaken by the Welsh Health Computer Services Agency and the South Western regional health authority on behalf of the users in England and Wales.

  It is in use in some 132 health districts in 11 English health regions, and in nine districts in Wales, with others indicating their interest. The cost to each health authority taking the system is around £3,500 per annum to include support and software updates. Although originally developed for use on ICL equipment (hence it has been limited to those health regions with a traditional ICL expertise), a recent development, in collaboration with South Western RHA, has been to produce some software to allow health authorities with DEC/MUMPS equipment to make use of the system. There are also facilities to allow a wider range of other computer equipment to be connected to the system, thus expanding its potential

  355
  marketability to virtually every health authority. The system has also attracted much interest from overseas health services.

  Decisions about the introduction of computer systems are matters for individual health authorities to determine within their own priorities and resources, However, the Department is exploring with health authorities the best way to achieve integrated community health care information systems, using recently available computing technologies, but building on the infrastructure created via the national child health computer system. This may fairly be describe as a success story in the history of NHS computing development.

  AIDS (Needle Exchange)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the effect of the 15 pilot needle exchange schemes set up in 1987 to counter the spread of AIDS; whether he intends to extend this scheme; and whether he intends to include the free supply of condoms to intravenous drug abusers.

  Mrs. Currie
  Our view of the benefits of the pilot needle exchange schemes was given in the reply of my right hon. Friend on 11 July to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at column 57. I understand that the majority of these schemes have condoms available for supply free of charge to injecting drug misusers.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the implications for his policy on abortion of the rise in the number of abortions shown in the 1987 abortion statistics.

  Mrs. Currie
  Like their predecessors of both parties this Government do not take a collective view about abortion beyond ensuring that the law is properly applied.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will list the numbers of non-National Health Service abortions performed under agency arrangements on National Health Service patients resident in each regional health authority and in each district health authority in England and Wales in 1987, and the estimated numbers of women aged 15 to 44 years resident in each regional health authority and district health authority in England and Wales in mid-1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the table. Population estimates for regional and district health authorities by sex and age have not yet been computed for mid-1987.

  Number of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967, non-National Health Service 'Agency'1 by Regional Health Authority and District Health Authority of usual residence, residents of England and Wales

  England and Wales 1987

  Of which non-National Health Service agency1

  England and Wales

  8,041

  England

  8,029

  Wales

  12

  356

  Of which non-National Health Service agency1

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  1

  Hartlepool District Health Authority

  —

  North Tees District Health Authority

  —

  South Tees District Health Authority

  —

  East Cumbria District Health Authority

  1

  South Cumbria District Health Authority

  —

  West Cumbria District Health Authority

  —

  Darlington District Health Authority

  —

  Durham District Health Authority

  —

  North West Durham District Health Authority

  —

  South West Durham District Health Authority

  —

  Northumberland District Health Authority

  —

  Gateshead District Health Authority

  —

  Newcastle District Health Authority

  —

  North Tyneside District Health Authority

  —

  South Tyneside District Health Authority

  —

  Sunderland District Health Authority

  —

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  483

  Hull District Health Authority

  —

  East Yorkshire District Health Authority

  —

  Grimsby District Health Authority

  —

  Scunthorpe District Health Authority

  4

  Northallerton District Health Authority

  —

  York District Health Authority

  2

  Scarborough District Health Authority

  —

  Harrogate District Health Authority

  —

  Bradford District Health Authority

  1

  Airedale District Health Authority

  —

  Calderdale District Health Authority

  4

  Huddersfield District Health Authority

  264

  Dewsbury District Health Authority

  206

  Leeds Western District Health Authority

  —

  Leeds Eastern District Health Authority

  —

  Wakefield District Health Authority

  —

  Pontefract District Health Authority

  2

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  214

  North Derbyshire District Health Authority

  —

  Southern Derbyshire District Health Authority

  1

  Leicestershire District Health Authority

  68

  North Lincolnshire District Health Authority

  2

  South Lincolnshire District Health Authority

  —

  Bassetlaw District Health Authority

  4

  Central Nottinghamshire District Health Authority

  1

  Nottingham District Health Authority

  2

  Barnsley District Health Authority

  6

  Doncaster District Health Authority

  128

  Rotherham District Health Authority

  2

  Sheffield District Health Authority

  —

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  3

  Cambridge District Health Authority

  2

  Peterborough District Health Authority

  —

  West Suffolk District Health Authority

  —

  East Suffolk District Health Authority

  —

  Norwich District Health Authority

  —

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney District Health Authority

  —

  West Norfolk and Wisbech District Health Authority

  1

  Huntingdon District Health Authority

  —

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  999

  North Bedfordshire District Health Authority

  2

  South Bedfordshire District Health Authority

  1

  North Hertfordshire District Health Authority

  2

  East Hertfordshire District Health Authority

  3

  North West Hertfordshire District Health Authority

  2

  South West Hertfordshire District Health Authority

  1

  Barnet District Health Authority

  6

  Harrow District Health Authority

  52

  Hillingdon District Health Authority

  —

  Hounslow and Spelthorne District Health Authority

  3

  357

  Of which non-National Health Service agency1

  Ealing District Health Authority

  7

  Brent District Health Authority

  908

  Paddington and North Kensington District Health Authority

  5

  Riverside District Health Authority

  7

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  44

  Basildon and Thurrock District Health Authority

  —

  Mid Essex District Health Authority

  —

  North East Essex District Health Authority

  —

  West Essex District Health Authority

  2

  Southend District Health Authority

  —

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood District Health Authority

  —

  Hampstead District Health Authority

  6

  Bloomsbury District Health Authority

  8

  Islington District Health Authority

  10

  City and Hackney District Health Authority

  4

  Newham District Health Authority

  1

  Tower Hamlets District Health Authority

  —

  Enfield District Health Authority

  3

  Haringey District Health Authority

  7

  Redbridge District Health Authority

  —

  Waltham Forest District Health Authority

  3

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  240

  Brighton District Health Authority

  —

  Eastbourne District Health Authority

  —

  Hastings District Health Authority

  —

  South East Kent District Health Authority

  1

  Canterbury and Thanet District Health Authority

  —

  Dartford and Gravesham District Health Authority

  1

  Maidstone District Health Authority

  1

  Medway District Health Authority

  1

  Tunbridge Wells District Health Authority

  —

  Bexley District Health Authority

  2

  Greenwich District Health Authority

  3

  Bromley District Health Authority

  4

  West Lambeth District Health Authority

  204

  Camberwell District Health Authority

  17

  Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority

  6

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  54

  North West Surrey District Health Authority

  1

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire District Health Authority

  5

  South West Surrey District Health Authority

  1

  Mid Surrey District Health Authority

  —

  East Surrey District Health Authority

  1

  Chichester District Health Authority

  2

  Mid Downs District Health Authority

  —

  Worthing District Health Authority

  —

  Croydon District Health Authority

  4

  Kingston and Esher District Health Authority

  3

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton District Health Authority

  5

  Wandsworth District Health Authority

  28

  Merton and Sutton District Health Authority

  4

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  611

  East Dorset District Health Authority

  163

  West Dorset District Health Authority

  43

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire District Health Authority

  59

  Southampton and South West Hampshire District Health Authority

  45

  Winchester District Health Authority

  46

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire District Health Authority

  64

  Salisbury District Health Authority

  29

  Swindon District Health Authority

  47

  Bath District Health Authority

  99

  Isle of Wight District Health Authority

  16

  358

  Of which non-National Health Service agency1

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  158

  East Berkshire District Health Authority

  4

  West Berkshire District Health Authority

  3

  Aylesbury Vale District Health Authority

  2

  Wycombe District Health Authority

  2

  Milton Keynes District Health Authority

  135

  Nottinghamshire District Health Authority

  7

  Oxfordshire District Health Authority

  2

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  50

  Bristol and Weston District Health Authority

  9

  Frenchay District Health Authority

  7

  Southmead District Health Authority

  16

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly District Health Authority

  —

  Exeter District Health Authority

  3

  North Devon District Health Authority

  —

  Plymouth District Health Authority

  2

  Torbay District Health Authority

  2

  Cheltenham and District District Health Authority

  5

  Gloucester District Health Authority

  —

  Somerset District Health Authority

  6

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  5,168

  Bromsgrove and Redditch District Health Authority

  11

  Herefordshire District Health Authority

  2

  Kidderminster and District District Health Authority

  —

  Worcester and District District Health Authority

  4

  Shropshire District Health Authority

  5

  Mid Staffordshire District Health Authority

  14

  North Staffordshire District Health Authority

  —

  South East Staffordshire District Health Authority

  4

  Rugby District Health Authority

  210

  Kettering District Health Authority

  3

  North Warwickshire District Health Authority

  382

  South Warwickshire District Health Authority

  566

  Central Birmingham District Health Authority

  321

  East Birmingham District Health Authority

  315

  North Birmingham District Health Authority

  159

  South Birmingham District Health Authority

  354

  West Birmingham District Health Authority

  571

  Coventry District Health Authority

  828

  Dudley District Health Authority

  423

  Sandwell District Health Authority

  537

  Solihull District Health Authority

  122

  Walsall District Health Authorituy

  7

  Wolverhampton District Health Authority

  333

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  2

  Chester District Health Authority

  —

  Crewe District Health Authority

  —

  Halton District Health Authority

  1

  Macclesfield District Health Authority

  —

  Warrington District Health Authority

  —

  Liverpool District Health Authority

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley District Health Authority

  —

  Southport and Formby District Health Authority

  —

  South Sefton District Health Authority

  —

  Wirral District Health Authority

  —

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  2

  Lancaster District Health Authority

  —

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde District Health Authority

  —

  Preston District Health Authority

  —

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley District Health Authority

  —

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale District Health Authority

  —

  West Lancashire District Health Authority

  —

  359

  Of which non-National Health Service agency1

  Chorley and South Ribble District Health Authority

  —

  Bolton District Health Authority

  —

  Bury District Health Authority

  —

  North Manchester District Health Authority

  —

  Central Manchester District Health Authority

  —

  South Manchester District Health Authority

  —

  Oldham District Health Authority

  —

  Rochdale District Health Authority

  2

  Salford District Health Authority

  —

  Stockport District Health Authority

  —

  Tameside and Glossop District Health Authority

  —

  Trafford District Health Authority

  —

  Wigan District Health Authority

  —

  Wales

  12

  Clwyd District Health Authority

  —

  East Dyfed District Health Authority

  —

  Pembrokeshire District Health Authority

  1

  Gwent District Health Authority

  4

  Gwynedd District Health Authority

  —

  Mid Glamorgan District Health Authority

  6

  Powys District Health Authority

  —

  South Glamorgan District Health Authority

  1

  West Glamorgan District Health Authority

  —

  1 Operations carried out under 'Agency' arrangements in non-National Health Service premises on National Health Service patients.

  Nurses (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses have left the Leicestershire health district under retirement age in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of the Leicestershire district health authority.

  Health Authorities (Resources)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he has given to health authorities over the past 12 months regarding the efficient use of resources.

  Mrs. Currie
  Ministers and the National Health Service Management Board are committed to ensuring that health authorities continue to improve the efficiency with which they manage and provide services so as to maximise the resources available for patient care. This objective has most recently been reinforced in the 1989–90 planning guidelines (Circular HC(88) 43), which was issued to authorities on 19 July. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The guidelines highlight a number of ways in which health authorities could seek to improve their use of resources. The provision of advice is, however, a continuous process, and more detailed information has been given to authorities through the year on areas of particular potential for improving efficiency, on ways of structuring value for money initiatives, and general good practice.

  Hospitals (Derby)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the maximum number of in-patients treated at any one-time during each of the past five years at Kingsway hospital, Derby; and what is the overall in-patient capacity of that hospital;

  (2) what is the maximum number of in-patients treated at any one time during each of the past five years at Pastures hospital, Derby; and what is the overall capacity of that hospital;

  (3) what is the maximum number of in-patients treated at any one time during each of the past five years at the Manor hospital in Derby; and what is the overall in-patient capacity of that hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the table. In 1968 the daily average number of occupied beds for Kingsway, Pastures and Manor hospitals was 715·2, 971·9 and 368·8 respectively. Details of the maximum number of patients treated at any one time is not available centrally, and my hon. Friend may wish to write to the chairman of the Southern Derbyshire district health authority who may be able to supply this information.

  The Manor hospital closed in May 1988 with patients being transferred mainly to new or upgraded facilities at the Derbyshire royal infirmary and Ilkeston community hospital.

  In-patient activity for Kingsway, Pastures and Manor Hospitals for the years 1982 to 1986

  Year

  Daily average number of available beds

  Daily average number of occupied beds

  Discharges and deaths

  Kingsway hospital

  1982

  480·0

  449·6

  794

  1983

  470·8

  419·8

  804

  1984

  440·5

  302·7

  762

  1985

  431·0

  319·4

  756

  1986

  405·0

  343·5

  995

  The Pastures hospital

  1982

  725·4

  629·2

  1,019

  1983

  720·5

  596·1

  1,012

  1984

  655·2

  583·7

  1,047

  1985

  672·2

  570·3

  1,107

  1986

  651·7

  539·6

  1,023

  The Manor hospital

  1982

  276·4

  244·8

  1,398

  1983

  276·1

  238·0

  1,725

  1984

  262·7

  224·3

  1,753

  1985

  245·9

  226·2

  1,645

  1986

  266·5

  233·8

  1,897

  Income Support
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make estrangement from home and family sufficient grounds for a young person to qualify for income support;

  (2) what discretion is given to local offices to pay benefit to 17-year-olds forced to live away from home as a result of sexual abuse and unable to undertake a YTS placement as a result of psychological problems;

  (3) what provision is made for young persons to receive benefit where they have been thrown out of their homes by their parents;

  (4) what are the criteria under which a 17-year-old made homeless is entitled to income supplement.
  361
  Mr. Scott
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the situation after 12 September when young people aged under 18 will no longer be eligible for income support, except in prescribed circumstances.

  Income support will continue for those who are estranged from their parents and who are in full-time education, and also for those who are (either physically or psychologically) so ill or so disabled that they will not be capable of work or training under the Youth Training Scheme within a year.

  Income support will be payable for a period—from 12 September to the end of the year for summer school leavers and for 12 weeks after child benefit normally ends for Christmas and Easter leavers—to young people living away from home because of the risk of physical or sexual abuse, those who are in care or prison immediately before their 16th birthday and those who entered accommodation away from home as part of a programme of rehabilitation or resettlement under the guidance of social services or the probabtion service. Such young people will have to be registered for a job or for the Youth Training Scheme. In addition, income support may be payable at the direction of the Secretary of State where failure to pay would cause severe hardship.

  A young person who is estranged from his parents but is not continuing in full-time education will not qualify for income support on grounds of estrangement alone; benefit will depend on his being in one of the eligible categories described above. Similarly a 16 or 17-year-old who is homeless or who has been thrown out by his parents will not receive benefit unless he is in one of the eligible groups.

  Foetuses (Research)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the composition and terms of reference of the committee set up to review the code of practice on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The committee is chaired by the Rev. Dr. J. Polkinghorne, FRS, Dean of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and its membership comprises Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, president of the Royal College of Physicians of London, Professor Ian Kennedy, professor of medical law and ethics, King's college London and Dr. Sally Macintyre, director MRC medical sociology unit, university of Glasgow.

  Its terms of reference are:
  In the light of recent developments in the field of human tissue transplantation, and other relevant medical research, to review the Report of the Advisory Group on the Use of Foetuses and Foetal Material for Research (the "Peel Report"), and in particular to consider whether any modifications or additions should be made to the Recommended Code of Practice in that Report.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the latest estimated income of the national insurance fund from national insurance contributions in the current financial year, the income which would accrue if the upper earnings limit on all contributions was removed and the income which would be lost in each case if (a) the contributions rate for single persons was reduced to 5·5 per cent., (b) the rate for married persons was dropped to 4 per cent., (c) £3,000 were deducted from
  362
  earned income for contribution purposes, rising to £6,000 for a contributor with a non-earning spouse and (d) if the reductions in (a) to (c) were in operation at the same time;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those below and those above pensionable age the estimated number of earned incomes subject to employers' national insurance contributions in steps of £1,000 between £15,000 and £25,000 and in £5,000 steps thereafter, showing single persons and one-earner and two-earner married couples together with the amount collected;

  (3) whether he will bring up to date for the current financial year the information given in his answer of 10 December 1986, Official Report, column 204, to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby concerning the distribution of incomes and national insurance contributions, adding (a) the saving on the abolition of the reduced rate contribution and (b) the numbers contracted-in and contracted-out together with their contributions;

  (4) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those contracted in and for those contracted out, the national insurance contributions rates, including the class 2 and class 4 contributions and the reduced rate, in 1988–89, together with (a) the total number in each category, their sex and their marital status and (b) the aggregate contributions in each category and the earnings to which they relate;

  (5) what is the current reduced rate of national insurance contributions for (a) married women and (b) widows; how many are still paying contributions at this rate; what is his forecast for 1990–91; how many would otherwise be paying at the rate of 5 per cent, and 7 per cent.; and what is the estimated cost to the national insurance fund in the current financial year in each case;

  (6) what has been the increase in the number and annual value of national insurance contributions since 1986 as a result of the reduction in unemployment; and what is the division between full-time and part-time employment;

  (7) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of nationally insured male and female workers in manufacturing and non-manufacturing, respectively, together with his estimate of average earnings in each case in 1987–88 and his forecast for 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Körner Exercise
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the collections of statistical data which will become regularly available as a result of the Körner exercise giving in each case(a) the date on which the first collection was made available or the estimated date on which it will become available and (b) the regularity with which the updated statistics will be made available and the points in the year at which he expects this to happen;

  (2) if he will list the collections of statistical data which will no longer be available as a result of the Körner exercise, identifying in each case the information which will be made available instead.

  Mrs. Currie
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1987,Official Report, column 139–40, why the list of hospital closures included in deposited paper 3399 does not include Barrowmare hospital, Chester, Davenham hospital, Norwich; Princess Mary's hospital, Margate, Dover eye unit; Liverpool psychiatric day hospital, Pemberton day hospital, together with others listed in the answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 8 December 1986, Official Report, columns 49–64.

  Mrs. Currie
  The bulk of facilities listed in the answer of 8 December 1986 but not included in deposited paper 3399, were day or out-patient facilities with no loss of beds, including the Liverpool and Pemberton day units. Barrowmore hospital, Chester and Davenham hospital, Northwich were both omitted in error and Princess Mary's hospital, Margate and Dover eye unit were proposed changes of use, not closures and should be deleted from the 1986 list.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1987,Official Report, column 139–40 relating to information on hospital closures deposited in the Library, he will give the address and main specialty of (a) Harnwood hospital, Wiltshire, (b) St. Mary's hospital, Oxfordshire, (c) Westbury maternity hospital, Milton Keynes, (d) Greenham hospital, Plymouth, (e) Tadley hospital, Chester, (f) Heswall hospital, Liverpool, (g) Crossley (West) hospital, Holton, (h) Hawscroft free discharge clinic, Bolton (i) Ashton on Mersey hospital, Trafford, and (j) Delaunays hospital, North Manchester.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Specialty

  (a)

  Salisbury General Hospital, Harnwood Branch, Salisbury, Wilts.

  Long stay mental illness

  (b)

  Wantage Road, Wallingford, Oxon

  Geriatric

  (c)

  Wolverton Road, Newport Pagnell, MK16 8HY

  Maternity

  (d)

  Greenbank, Plymouth

  Acute medical/surgical

  (e)

  Tabley Superior, Knutsford, Cheshire

  Mental handicap

  (f)

  Telegraph Road, Heswell, Wirral

  Children's hospital

  (g)

  Kingswood, Warrington

  Psychiatric

  (h)

  Havercroft Unit, Victoria Road, Bolton, BL1 5AU

  Mental illness rehabilitation

  (i)

  Sandiway Road, Sale, near Manchester

  Geriatric

  (j)

  Delaunays Road, Manchester, M8 6RB

  Geriatric

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1987,Official Report, columns 139–40 relating to information on hospital closures deposited in the Library, he will give (a) the month in which St. Mary's, Newham in City and East London area health authority was approved for closure in 1981 and (b) the month in 1986 in which; (a) Brunswick house, North East Essex and (ii) Dagenham hospital, Redbridge were approved for closure.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) October

  (i) September, (ii) October

  364
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library a list of hospital closures for 1987 as set out for previous years in deposited paper 3399.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on hospital facilities involving the closure of beds approved for closure in 1987 is currently being collated and will be available shortly. I will inform the hon. Member when I am in a position to place a table in the Library as he has requested.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1987,Official Report, columns 139–40 relating to information on hospital closure deposited in the Library, he will give the address of the Garrett Anderson maternity home in Camden and Islington area health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Garrett Anderson maternity home, which was approved for closure in September 1979, was situated at 40 Belsize Grove, London NW3 4TS.

  Homeless Persons
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what support is given under the new regulation to young people made homeless, with no priority for crisis loans, during the two weeks they must wait for an arrears payment.

  Mr. Scott
  Young homeless people can apply for a social fund crisis loan. A social fund officer must decide whether a crisis loan is the only means of preventing serious risk to the health and safety of an applicant. Relative priority is not a condition generally applied to applications for crisis loans.

  Unemployed people do not necessarily have to wait two weeks for their first payment of income support as benefit for each day since the date of claim can be paid in the first week. Such payments can include a full week's board and lodging charge where this falls due in the part-week.

  Listeriosis
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of listeriosis were notified in 1987; in how many of these deaths occurred; and if he will list the number of cases of listeriosis notified to the Government for the previous three years.

  Mrs. Currie
  Listeriosis is not a notifiable disease under either the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 or the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1968.

  In 1987, there were 17 deaths at ages 28 days and over registered in England and Wales where the underlying cause of death was assigned as listeriosis (international classification of diseases ICD 9th revision 027.0). There were a further three deaths occurring in the neonatal period (first 28 days of life) where congenital listeriosis (ICD (9) 771.2 (part)) was mentioned on the death certificate.

  St. James Hospital, West Norfolk
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1987,Official Report, columns 139–40, relating to information on hospital closures deposited in the Library, he will give the month and year in which St. James hospital in west Norfolk and Wisbech health authority was approved for closure.
  365
  Mrs. Currie
  The hospital referred to was formally approved for closure in May 1978 but did not finally close until September 1986 when phase II of the new Queen Elizabeth hospital opened.

  Infant Feeding
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects publication of the report on the infant feeding survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The report of the third survey of infant feeding practice, "Infant Feeding 1985", produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) is being published today. We welcome this report. This scientific survey of infant feeding practice is part of the Government's continuous monitoring of the health of the population. It is unique to this country, and produces valuable evidence for health professionals.

  Key points in the report are:
  No improvement in breast feeding "starts" between 1980 and 1985, with some decline among particular groups of mothers; overall, 65 per cent, down to 64 per cent. Some decline amongst particular groups of mothers; among mothers of first babies, 74 per cent, to 69 per cent.; and among such mothers who left school aged 16 or less, 65 per cent, to 58 per cent.
  Little change in duration of breast feeding since 1980. Only half of all babies are breast-fed for as long as two weeks; only a quarter of four months or more.

  Highest incidence of breast feeding is among mothers of first babies:

  in higher social classes;

  educated beyond 18;

  living in London and South-east;

  on maternity leave.

  There is no evidence to show that mothers who return to paid employment six weeks after the birth are any less likely to begin breast feeding than mothers not in paid employment.

  Although breast feeding may have reached its maximum among higher social class mothers at around 85 per cent., there is ample scope to encourage other mothers but they will need advice and support.

  Giving infant formula in the first week is associated with ceasing to breast feed within two weeks.

  Mothers likely to stop breast feeding early are those who do not put the baby to breast within the first few hours of life.

  The surveys also provide the factual basis for the reports from the chief medical officer's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA). The COMA report based on this survey and entitled "Present day practice in Infant Feeding: Third Report" was published in February.

  Carers National Association
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will be providing grant aid to the newly formed Carers National Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The merger of the Association of Carers and the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependents was effected on 14 May 1988 with the creation of the Carers National Association. We have today approved the award of a grant of £77,000 to the new organisation in the current financial year.
  366
  The Government have consistently recognised the essential work of carers in looking after disabled people at home, and have supported the proposals for a single national body to take a stronger lead in representing their interests to Government, and to assist and advise their members throughout the country.

  We are particularly keen to see the development of support networks and groups, set up by carers and those working with them, and hope to see more of them in future.

  Discretionary Payments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, what criteria in respect of discretionary payments are used to define severe hardship; and what guidelines are issued to his Department's local offices.

  Mr. Scott
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  Young Persons (Severe Hardship)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines he has issued regarding the cases to which severe hardship applies, according to the new rules, to young people aged 16 and 17 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The announcement will be made in due course.

  Hospital Research
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take, inthe light of the published results of the research work of Shortell and Hughes, concerning the consequences of competitive economic pressures on hospitals, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 15 July 1988]: I have noted the contents of the article by Shortell and Hughes published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 28 April. It is often difficult to draw direct lessons from overseas experience with health care markets; especially if, as in this case, the hospital markets concerned and the forms of Government regulation studied have no immediate parallel in this country.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the data on which he based his allocation to Trent regional health authority of additional resources to meet the full cost of the nurses' pay award; what representations he has received on the adequacy of the sum allocated; what changes there have been to those data; if he will meet the chairman of the regional health authority to discuss the funding of the pay award; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: Health authorities generally have welcomed this year's review body pay awards and the additional funds made available. Both have been discussed in the course of the regular meetings Ministers have with regional chairmen.

  The additional sums provided were to meet the cost of the recommendations made by the pay review bodies for nurses and midwives, doctors and dentists and the

  367
  professions allied to medicine. The sum available to regional health authorities has been allocated in proportion to their 1988–89 initial revenue cash limits and in the form of a single cash limit adjustment. Trent regional health authority's share of this extra funding was £43·1 million.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has of the possible shortfall in funding of the nurses' pay award in the North Western regional health authority as a result of the distribution of the sums allocated by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: The clinical regrading exercise, which forms a major part of this year's pay award to nurses and midwives, will not be completed until 31 October. It is too early to predict the final outcome for any individual health authority.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to make his response to the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: Work is in hand to take forward consideration of Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendations. The Government will bring forward their own proposals in due course.

  Social Work Qualification
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will meet the director of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to discuss the rejection of its plans for a three-year social work qualification.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Health had already met the chairman and director of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and discussed the
  368
  Government's decision not to fund three-year qualifying training. The Government's objectives of better-trained social workers are reflected in the recent announcement about the extra provision to CCETSW of up to £1 million this year to improve planning and co-operation between the colleges and employers and to review teaching standards.

  We feel that more in-service training directed at a substantial number of key staff in the field will more rapidly achieve its purpose than a further year of initial training. Hence the introduction this year of a £10 million training support grant (including £7 million funding from the Department of Health) for local authority staff working with elderly people and the proposed introduction next year of a £10 million training support grant for staff working in the child care field.

  Trasidrex
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make further inquiries into the drug Trasidrex with respect to its association with bronchospasm and dyspnoea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Reports of suspected adverse reactions to all drugs marketed in the United Kingdom, including Trasidrex, are routinely monitored by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. As my right hon. Friend's reply on 12 July, at column 152, made clear, appropriate warnings concerning bronchospasm already appear in the manufacturer's data sheet for Trasidrex. We are not aware of any grounds for further inquiries.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many men and how many women were receiving invalidity benefit and severe disability allowance at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 15 July, at column 389.

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.

Disabled Persons Act: Report
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
When a report in accordance with Section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 can be expected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the first report is expected to be laid before the end of 1989.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that in March of last year Mr. John Major expected to implement Section 11 during 1987 and that in March of this year Mrs. Currie proposed to implement it as soon as possible? Is what he is now saying not a little dilatory in view of the promises of his colleagues in another place last year and this year?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Körner data on which the report will be based are delayed, as I told the House just the other day. However, the most recent data on the numbers of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people treated in hospitals are already available to the House in the Library.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many disabled people and many of those who represent them believe that the continued delay in publishing the report under Section 11 of the Act is linked with the Government's prolonged delay in publishing the results of the OPCS survey which shows that, at 6 million, there are about twice as many disabled people as the Government had assumed? Will the Minister confirm that the review of disability benefits will quickly follow the publication of the surveys? Can he give any more information about when those surveys will be published?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no connection between the implementation of Section 11 of the Act and the OPCS survey which is due to be published in two halves, the first later this year.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend pay particular attention to the fact that this whole process is distressing to the carers of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped and indeed to the sufferers as well? There may be all kinds of administrative reasons, but will he not take to heart the fact that people need to have this information and that there might be a little more genuine effort to produce the reports as promised in earlier times?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I take my noble friend's point. However, it is important that statistical information of whatever kind should be accurate and based on firm data. It has been agreed over the past 18 months or so that the proposals in the Körner Report will produce this data. Until they start to come through and start to be evaluated there is no point in putting a report on this or any other matter before Parliament.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said—and no one would disagree with him—that the information should be correct, why did his two colleagues in another place indicate, first, that the report would be published last year, and then that it would he published this year? If the information is available in the Library, why cannot it be published according to the Act of Parliament?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, fully annotated and correct information is not available. What is available in the Library is a continuation of the existing set of figures which have been found to be inadequate. The answers of my colleagues the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and the then Minister of State, Mr. Major, which have been mentioned in the House this afternoon, were made before the delays in the implementation of the Körner statistics were known.

Food and Drink Intervention Payments
2.41 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that companies in the food and drink industries are receiving prompt payment for export refunds from the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; and what arrangements are being made for payment on account until the payment difficulties are resolved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the intervention board has suffered extended delivery delays and technical problems in implementing its new computerised export refund claims system. Consequently, the board is urgently examining the practicability of some form of payment compensating for unreasonable delays. I hope that a further statement will be possible shortly.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that the amount of moneys owed to food processing companies as a result of these delays is of the order of £200 million for this year? One big company is owed £2·5 million and in recent weeks has received a cheque for £2 and concurrently an invoice for £10·50. Is she further aware that the problem is cash flow, particularly for small companies and now indeed for the big companies? Some small companies have ceased taking up export opportunities because of this delay

253
and because of not having the money. Although my noble friend talks about compensation, will she not take into account the fact that the problem would be solved if companies were given advance payments roughly based on that of the previous year, which could be tidied up later? If a company is owed £2·5 million, an advance payment of £1 million would not he unreasonable. Will my noble friend comment on that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's lengthy supplementary questions, I know that these delays have had a serious effect on traders. I am very sorry about this and we urgently hope to issue a statement. With regard to the question of advance payments, the possibility of making payments on account was carefully considered. The board concluded that, owing to EC implications, it would be unwise to pursue this proposal. I can go into the EC implications if anybody wants me to.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the annual report of the board for 1987 in which it is recorded that staff turnover for that year was of the order of 24 per cent. and the shortage against the establishment was 10 per cent.? Will she not agree that that combination of figures is in part responsible for the delays about which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, so rightly complains?
Further, is it not a fact that there may be a case for considering moving the intervention board's headquarters from a town which is as prosperous as Reading, and which is likely to go on being prosperous, to a part of the country which is more in need of employment and where the overall employment situation would be easier?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord said in the latter part of his supplementary question. However, I must explain that, owing to repeated delays in the delivery of software for the new computerised export refund claims system, technical problems were experienced in bringing the system on stream. The delays in implementation coincided with the introduction of the harmonised custom system and the single administrative document, which created additional difficulties. None of those problems was foreseeable. There have also been staff difficulties and new staff have been taken on. However, the staff who are at present employed there are making excellent progress and the backlog is going down.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the phrase "European implications" makes it inadvisable to do this? Are we to presume from this that in purely British terms it would be helpful and good to do it, but that outside reasons are preventing us from making the advance payments?
Baroness Trumpington: Well, my Lords, I did warn you! Unfortunately payments in advance could, in Community law terms, amount to an interest-free loan constituting state aid if the trader did not
254
subsequently establish his entitlement to an export refund. Should the Commission consider that a state aid of this kind existed, the amount of disallowance they might propose could be large. In that case substantial sums would fall to he met in full from Exchequer funds.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether it is possible that this delay is due to the computer going wrong.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no; the computer has not had a chance to go wrong because it has not properly arrived.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, besides the delays in the payments of export refunds to traders, there are also considerable delays in the payments for such things as the premiums on homegrown rape seed? Is she further aware that the crusher has to reclaim the premium from the intervention board before it can be paid over to the farmer? Will she agree that with interest rates at their current level this can be equivalent to a reduction in the farmer's price of 3 to 4 per cent.?.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that I have given many explanations as to why this has happened and I have also said that I regret it very much. However, I should like to add that there has been an increase in claims because of international activity. In the first six months of this year we paid more claims than in the whole of 1987. We are now within the target on beef, veal and cereals; sugar and milk are almost on target.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it not perplexing that long before these appalling delays occurred—which are irritating and, indeed, sometimes harmful—no excuse could be advanced because of the lateness of computers as computers did not exist and, remarkably enough, nor did the problems about which the noble Baroness has been talking?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, from 1984 until early 1988 when the current difficulties began, the time taken to pay claims in the processed goods area averaged three and a half weeks and, on average, was never worse than six weeks. That compares favourably with the legal and Commission view that a period not exceeding two months is reasonable for the complex transactions concerned, and very favourably with many other member states within this sector. The periods that I have just mentioned go back long before the computer.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her ability to deal with this problem: she is defending the indefensible. Does she agree that her argument against advance payments was not convincing and that it was put up by bureaucrats who ought to be tamed?
Will she also agree that, whatever the complicated answer may be, the matter is worth further study in order to make quite certain that people do not fail to export because they do not have enough money to do so?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think the best that I can do with that supplementary question is to pass it over to my right honourable friend in another place.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, how soon will computer software be harmonised, to coin a phrase?
Baroness Trumpington: I would rather not, my Lords.

Hardwood Imports
2.50 p.m.
Lord Vernon Lord Vernon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions they propose to take to reduce the importation of hardwoods from tropical countries.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government share the general concern about the depletion of the rain forests, but the major cause of forest reduction is domestic consumption for fuel, fodder and agricultural land in the producing countries themselves. International trade accounts for only about 10 per cent. of tropical hardwoods. We believe that the trade-related aspects of this complex problem are best addressed through the work of the International Tropical Timber Organisation.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, despite what the Minister said, is he aware that millions of acres of tropical forest are being destroyed annually? The size is estimated to be the area of England, Wales and Scotland. That is having disastrous ecological and environmental consequences. Does he appreciate that Western Europe is one of the main importers of some of those tropical hardwoods? Should this country not give some lead to the EC by reducing, or preferably halting altogether, those imports?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware that most felling is for domestic consumption. As my Answer reveals, international trade accounts for some 10 per cent. only of the sales of tropical hardwoods. It is a difficult problem. There are complex social, economic and environmental problems involved in the shrinkage of tropical rain forests that require a global solution, which is why we believe that it is best addressed through the International Tropical Timber Organisation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the total bill for timber imports into this country now runs at £6 billion, and that 75 per cent. of those imports are in softwoods (conifers)? Will he assure us that to avoid the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, has raised this afternoon increased planting will take place in this country to ensure domestic supplies? Will he also take steps to monitor the impact of the abolition of tax incentives on the future of planting programmes?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in your Lordships' House we have questions whose main purport is that we have too much planting, followed
256
by questions whose main purport is that we do not have enough. That may mean that we are getting the balance about right.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which is causing tremendous concern to scientists all over the world, is largely due to the reduction in tropical rain forests? Apart from leaving the matter to an international body, does he agree that it is high time that the Government set up a commission to study the problem and collate the various arguments put forward by responsible scientists? It is time that they were collated and a view taken.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, dependence upon fossil fuels is not unconnected with this matter. Those people who often take a particular stand on the use of nuclear power also take a similar stand on the results of the use of fossil fuels. It is a difficult problem. It is not one that is easily settled. We believe that by using realistic energy pricing, which reflects true costs, by improving energy efficiency and by looking at other byproducts, such as chlorofluoro-carbons, which can cause similar effects on the ozone layer—the coming into force of the Montreal protocol next January will have some effect on that—we shall begin to take steps towards solving this difficult and complex problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister has properly stressed the importance of the International Tropical Timber Organisation. What is the British interest and representation on that organisation? What policies does his department advise our representatives to follow?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should be more than happy to write to the Leader of the Opposition to give the exact details of what my department advises on the problem. It is a complex matter and one which I do not believe is suitable to be answered in this form.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the tropical rain forests are enormously important for a whole number of reasons which have been suggested today, the best place to produce tropical hardwoods is in the tropics, and that in a free world that is what should be done?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is difficult to see tropical hardwoods being produced anywhere but in the tropics, so I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord's answer to me mean that he does not have the information in the file in front of him, or is he saying that the information is too long and complex, in which event he proposes to send me a long document which I can read during the long Recess?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am saying that I wish to do full justice to the Leader of the Opposition and that therefore I shall write to him fully.

Fur Coats: Cruelty Labels
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have dropped plans for cruelty labels in fur coats.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we gave careful consideration to the representations made during the consultation process. Legal difficulties were raised, and we regretfully came to the conclusion that it would not be practicable to proceed in the way originally envisaged. We therefore decided not to proceed with the proposed order and to defer further action on the matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. If there are legal difficulties now, why were they not foreseen and investigated before the department made such a fuss in February about how it was going to apply the cruelty label process? Secondly, is it the case that representations have been made by the Canadian Government to protect their trappers; that one of the factors which has influenced Her Majesty's Government is that they are trying to sell £4 billion worth of nuclear submarines to Canada; and that the Canadians also have an offer from the French which they are inclined to take if the British Government do not play ball with them?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fear that on his occasion I must disappoint the noble Lord. It is true that the proposed order was vigorously opposed by the fur trade and by the Canadians, who argued that it would destroy the livelihood of the Canadian native peoples. But it became apparent during the course of the consultation that the legal advice was that such an order, if made, was liable to be struck down as ultra vires under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. In those circumstances, and in those circumstances alone, it was decided not to proceed with the order.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend know how many stoats have to die to make a full set of new judge's robes, and would not rabbit and nylon do even better?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am glad to he able to assure all your Lordships that I have not had the misfortune to appear before a judge.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that similar difficulties arose in connection with the labelling of seal products? The Government made difficulties, legal and otherwise, Canadian and otherwise, until Europe stepped in to make it obligatory for EC countries. It accomplished what the British Government had been unable to achieve.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, on this matter it may satisfy some in your Lordships' House to know that the European Commission is considering
vol. 500
258
the possibility of action on this subject. Commissioner Clinton Davis announced on 5th July last that it is looking carefully into the idea that furs imported into Europe as a whole should bear labels indicating whether or not those who trap the animals use the leg-hold trap. That of course would obviate any difficulties under Section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many believe that Her Majesty's Government are due the highest praise for withdrawing that order, demonstrating yet again their ability to listen to the merits of arguments and to act accordingly? Furthermore, should they need any more confirmation of the dottiness of the original idea, they need look no further than the fact that it appears to be supported by the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my noble friend demonstrates that your Lordships' House contains at least two sides.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, could the very useful concept of a cruelty label be transferred from fur coats to starred questions, particularly those of a repetitious character?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should wear such a label with pride.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would never accuse me of cruelty to him. However he has not answered either of my questions. If there are legal difficulties, why were they not foreseen before his department announced in February that the Trade Descriptions Act would be used for this purpose? Secondly, is it the case that the Canadian Government have threatened not to enter into the deal for 4 billion pounds-worth of nuclear submarines if this is carried through but have threatened to take up the French option, which I believe is cheaper?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess that I do not share the infallibility which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, normally has in these matters. I was not able to see all the legal difficulties at the time when this matter was first raised. Subsequently it became clear that the order would be ultra vires. In those circumstances we did not proceed.
As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I did not answer it previously because I did not think it worth answering. However, if the noble Lord really thinks it is worth answering, then quite assuredly there is no connection between the fur marketing order and any sale of submarines to Canada. The noble Lord should try on occasion not to wave his prejudices about too much in public.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House

259
that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 36 [Damages for unlawful eviction]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 22, line 1, leave out ("3rd December 1987") and insert ("6th July 1988").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. As your Lordships will recall, during our Report stage the Government tabled an amendment to clarify the circumstances under which it would be possible for a tenant to claim damages for illegal eviction. In particular, it made it possible for damages to be claimed when a landlord should have known or had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct would be likely to have the tenant leave his home. As drafted, the revised Clause 36 would take effect from 3rd December 1987. However, because we have changed the nature of the offence it would not be appropriate to make it retrospective to December 1987.
In the circumstances, we now propose that the revised provision should take effect from 6th July 1988, the date on which the amendment was accepted by your Lordships. With this brief explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I can see the reason for this change. What I cannot see—and no doubt the noble Lord will explain—is why, considering it was a government amendment moved on 6th July, the Government had not thought of this point at the time they drafted the amendment. I can see that it is unfortunate to back-date illegality; therefore I have no intention of proposing it. However, surely this point must have occurred to the person who was drafting and approving the amendment. No doubt the Minister will respond.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I must say that it is always possible for those who are drafting legislation to realise after amendments have been put down that they may not cover the whole subject. I am concerned that this Bill should leave the House in good order so that it can be passed and enacted.
On these occasions it is always clever to be wise after the event. With that explanation I am very glad to be able to bring forward this amendment only a week after the previous amendment was passed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who is himself a good lawyer, will understand that what we are looking for is the best possible interpretation of the law.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not wish to stand out as a lawyer but as an arithmetician. A week after 6th July would have been rather earlier than 27th July.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 58 [Application to exercise rights conferred hi this Part and offer to sell]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 36, line 47, leave out ("as determined by the district valuer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. During the Committee and Report stages we debated amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on whether there should be an avenue of appeal against the valuation determined by the district valuer on a property to be transferred under the tenants' choice provisions in Part III of the Bill.
I was unable to accept the noble Lords' amendments and I continue to take the view that there should be no appeal after a valuation has been made. I undertook, however, at Report stage to consider bringing forward amendments to bring the valuation procedures under tenants' choice more closely into line with those in the right to buy legislation. I have further considered the issues involved and government Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will now offer the landlord a choice between the district valuer and another qualified valuer nominated by the landlord and acceptable to the applicant. The amendments also clarify that it is for the landlord to decide whether it should be the district valuer or another qualified valuer who should determine the market value.
This brings the tenants' choice provisions in respect of valuations generally into line with the right to buy provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I am also, however, taking this opportunity to bring forward Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 8 to the Bill. This will amend slightly the wording of the right to buy provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to make it clear, as in the first amendments which we are considering now to the current Bill, that it is the landlord who decides whether the district valuer or another qualified valuer agreed by the tenant should carry out the valuation for each right to buy application.
While I accept that these amendments do not go as far as the noble Lords opposite had earlier requested, I hope nonetheless that our bringing them forward today will be seen as a genuine attempt to reflect the concern that the noble Lords expressed in the House.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, while we have not got exactly what we asked for, it would be churlish not to accept that water dripping on a stone has at last had some effect. We are very grateful for that. We welcome these amendments so far as they go. They give the landlord some assurance that the valuation eventually achieved will be fair.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may ask a question which is rather irrelvant to this amendment. Will the noble Lord assure the House that the amendments he proposed at the last stage to Schedule 3 will occur or be made to occur in Schedule 6 to the Housing Bill so that when Schedule 3 ceases to exist, as it is intended it should do under Clause 59 of the

261
Housing Bill, the provisions moved by the noble Lord will he included in the legislation?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. Yes, I am happy to give him the assurance on the latter point. I have written a very long letter to him which I do not propose to read. The letter bears out the point he makes that Schedule 3 and Schedule 6 are dealt with in the corresponding Bills.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since my name was associated with the amendments to which these amendments refer, perhaps I may also express to the Minister my appreciation of the consideration he has given to the case which was put in this House and to the concessions which are incorporated in the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 37, line 4, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the market value of a house shall be determined by either—

(a) a qualified valuer nominated by the landlord and accepted by the applicant: or

(b) the district valuer,

as the landlord thinks fit.").
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("the district valuer shall have regard") and insert ("regard shall be had").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Housing (Scotland) Act 1987—Minor Amendments]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 72, line 32, after ("tenant")") insert ("—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the word "by", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the word "either"; and

(ii) before the word "as" there shall be inserted the words "as the landlord thinks fit";

(b) ")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 72, line 34, leave out first ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
Page 72, line 35, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc. These amendments are purely of a drafting nature. They simply achieve consistency of presentation with other parts of the schedule.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
262
During consideration of the Bill by this House there has been very useful and detailed debate on a variety of issues as a result of which I consider, and hope noble Lords will agree, that the Bill we have before us now is both improved and clarified. Before discussing detailed provisions it is worth emphasising the Government's overall purpose in promoting the Bill. We are determined to improve the supply of housing in Scotland, and to improve its quality as well as improving the ways in which people may exercise greater choice and control over their housing. These are our objectives and I firmly believe the provisions of the Bill will go a long way towards achieving them.
I have listened carefully to contributions both from noble Lords opposite and from my noble friends during our consideration of this Bill. Where I have considered it appropriate, or where I have considered improvement to the provisions of the Bill could be effected, I am pleased to have been able to take these contributions into account in amendments I have proposed. As a consequence of Committee debate in this House, and also as a result of discussions I and my colleagues have had with other interested bodies, I have been able to propose a number of amendments which I know have been welcomed on both sides of the House, and furth of it as well.
As noble Lords know, one of the main purposes of this Bill is to improve the statutory protection afforded to tenants. We have been able to bring forward a number of amendments to the Bill further to improve that protection. Looking first at the question of the rights of tenants of a statutory assured tenancy, the Bill has been amended to provide that, subject to certain qualifying conditions, the spouse of a tenant will have a statutory right of succession to the tenancy on the death of the tenant.
During Committee debate of the Bill there was obviously great concern that the prohibition of the charging of premiums or key money in connection with residential tenancies should continue, as it has in Scotland since 1920. I was impressed by the strength of feeling and the arguments put forward for the continuation of this prohibition; and I was pleased to be able to bring forward an amendment to the Bill to ensure that such a prohibition on the charging of premiums for regulated tenancies continues. The background in England is of course substantially different and it is not possible for the Government to extend the amendment beyond Scotland, as the House decided earlier this week.
We have also introduced into the Bill a provision entitling tenants under assured tenancies to a written tenancy document setting out the conditions applying to the tenancy which will ensure that both tenant and landlord are fully aware of their respective rights and responsibilities. The Bill introduces a number of measures to protect tenants from harassment, and I have been able to introduce further amendments concerning tenants claiming damages for illegal evictions which take the onus of proof away from the tenant and increase the amount of damages to which such a tenant may be entitled.
One of the other main aims of this Bill is through a range of measures to tackle more effectively the

263
problem of homelessness. That problem has figured in the debates we have had during the passage of the Bill through the House. We are pleased to have been able to introduce a new provision which should help local authorities make the best use of their housing resources by giving them the power, subject to consent by the Secretary of State, to make payments to tenants to help them obtain other accommodation. This benefits the tenant, who is given that modest but crucial help towards a home of his own; the landlord, who obtains a vacant house; and particularly the homeless, for whom the supply of available housing is increased.
Finally, during Report we were able to amend the Bill to allow Scottish Homes to introduce exceptions to the current prohibition on granting tenancies or other benefits to committee members or employees of housing associations or their close relatives. This is a flexible power which will enable Scottish Homes to achieve, in the light of its close knowledge of the affairs of housing associations, the relaxation which is needed in the present rules. I take particular pleasure in the fact that that part of the Bill could be amended in this House. That received a warm welcome.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that we have introduced some significant and important amendments during this House's consideration of the Bill. The contributions of noble Lords to the debate on these important provisions has been invaluable. It is essential that the provisions of the Bill clearly reflect our intention when they were drafted. I am sure as a result of debate in this House that the Bill's clarity has been improved. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Balfour for having brought forward some amendments for consideration and for having pointed to various factors in the text of the Bill.
This is an important Bill which introduces a new framework for the future growth and improvement of housing in Scotland. It will open up opportunities to tenants who hitherto have had little choice in the housing available to them. It will encourage different forms of tenure, new housing provision and house improvement.
On 11 th April on Second Reading, which seems a very long time ago, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that our first concern must be to look at the effects of the legislation on individuals as tenants or persons seeking to be housed. He asked for a positive response from the Government. I have attempted to give that positive response. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in many instances where he has made constructive criticism. I hope that we have been able to address some of the problems that he raised during the course of the Bill.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. At times I thought I was addressing Lord Morton of CoSLA! I thank him very much indeed for the various matters that he has brought to the attention of your Lordships. I also wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for their particular interests, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
264
Finally, I wish to mention my noble friend Lord Selkirk and thank him for the very important contributions he has made during the course of the Bill. He has enabled Clause 43 and Schedule 6 to be redrafted. For that I should like to offer particular thanks to some people who never receive them—the draftsmen in the Scottish Office.
Everyone involved in housing fears change, which is what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said on Second Reading. That is perhaps true. An old adage states that bad news is better news than good news. There is a new refinement to the phrase: presenting news as bad even when no one can tell what its consequences will be. Perhaps at times we Scots dwell more on the dangers than the opportunities presented by change.
In the passing of this important Bill for Scotland, I can assure the House that the Government will support all positive steps to improve the Scottish housing scene. My noble friend Lord Selkirk said on Second Reading that the purpose of the Bill was right. The Government too firmly believe that it is right. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as the Minister said, the real purpose of the Bill is stated in its Long Title:
"to confer on that body and on persons approved for the purpose the right to acquire from public sector landlords certain houses occupied by secure tenants".
The body referred to is Scottish Homes. The specific provisions for this right are contained in Part III of the Bill. Most of the remaining provisions, some of which are very important, are primarily concerned with creating the means whereby this central purpose will be realised.
The other point which has been made repeatedly on the Bill and which the Minister made again today concerns the new right to acquire houses from public sector landlords. That has been promoted as increasing tenants' choice. However, tenants' choice is very much a one-way process. Included among the limitations is the fact that new town tenants are by no means guaranteed the likelihood of being transferred to their local authority as landlord at or before windup. Scottish Homes tenants specifically may not choose the local authority as a landlord. Transferred tenants may not revert to the local authority if their new approved landlord reneges on his undertaking at acquisition. However, in England and Wales tenants will have the right to return to public sector landlords.
Tenants in a minority in block transfers of stock initiated by the public sector landlord will have no option but to lose secure tenancy status. Tenants in transferred stock will have no right to oppose landlord changes even when the new landlord is not approved.
As I said, the list of limitations is not exhaustive. However, it underlines the Government's intention to extend tenants' choice in a most restricted way. They extend that choice only because they have to do so to achieve their real purpose, which is to break up council stock and disperse control of that stock

265
among people who I believe will be speculators. Everything points to a much diminished if not emasculated role for housing authorities. Although they will be left with the full range of statutory responsibilities, they will not have the means to meet those responsibilities.
There is a need for clear responsibilities to be given to Scottish Homes to accord due priority to the various problems of housing in Scotland rather than becoming hogged down in transfers of stock which add nothing to the total of housing stock. The extent to which tenants exercise their new right to choose will become clear in time. But whatever happens, the new legislation will primarily affect those who are already housed. It is much more debatable what, if anything, the legislation will do to help those who are seeking to be housed. Housing authorities will have diminished stocks and less capacity to make provision for new applicants.
Most disappointing of all is the failure to ensure that Scottish Homes will have an absolute duty to co-operate with local authorities in identifying housing needs and the condition of stock on a national and co-ordinated basis as well as on an area-to-area basis. The Government have chosen a radical way in housing. The old system was not perfect but believe that there were merits in it. The effect of the new measures should be closely monitored to ensure that overall improvement is achieved and maximum protection is afforded to those for whom the new measures are unsatisfactory or beyond their reach.
During the passage of the Bill through this House the Minister was most helpful. Part of the reason for that is that he was very much involved in his area of housing and housing asssociation matters. Due to that and to pressure from various parts of the House he was able to do a great deal about housing association payments and benefits, which was well received. Perhaps the Minister will use his influence so that the same provisions can be included in the English Bill.
There have been a number of improvements to the Bill. Key money was dealt with, as were many other points. I believe that that was largely due to the work done behind the scenes by the Minister and by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. The Minister referred to my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna as Lord Morton of CoSLA. He also paid tribute to the draftsmen and civil servants. It is only fair if we on this side of the House pay tribute to the Federation of Scottish Housing Associations, to CoSLA, to the organisations for the homeless in Scotland, to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and to the Law Society of Scotland for the help which they have given us.
There are great worries about the limitations of the Bill. However, within those limits I believe that we have done as good a job as it was possible to do. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for the help that we received from them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the Minister for his response to a point which I raised on our last debate. It concerned resident landlords and the fear that they might turn
266
the whole affair into a business and exert summary eviction on people as a business. The long letter which the Minister sent to me has allayed some of my fears, especially since he stated that a resident landlord must be resident and have some of his family actually sharing facilities with his lodgers. That makes a big difference. However, I must say that students—one of the examples he used—are not subject to that provision. They are subject to eviction because in most cases the bargain is struck with a university. Nevertheless, that is a distinct advance. I also thank the Minister for telling me that the Scottish Development Department will study the whole question and has issued a questionnaire.
I believe that the Bill could prove to be a very good one. It may achieve the objectives stated by the noble Lord. It will do so provided that the Tory Party does not become too doctrinaire about the matter. I shall only compliment the Minister in this way. If he remains the Minister for the length of this Parliament and continues the helpful attitude he has shown to the House, he has a fair chance of achieving something.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, yesterday afternoon we had a long debate on the constitutional position of your Lordships' House and its general functions. It is refreshing to be able to examine the last stages of a Bill in which the House exercised its legitimate and useful function as a revising Chamber. I agree that the Bill is an important one. It deals with an immense social problem which affects many people and those who are least favoured in our community—the homeless. I congratulate the Minister on piloting the Bill through the House and on listening to the representations that were made and giving them serious consideration.
The implications of the Bill have been listed and I shall not pursue them in detail. However, its basic assumption is that it will improve the supply of houses. That is an ambitious target. I hope that the progress of the Bill will be studied to see whether that important target is achieved. The protection of tenants has always been a controversial issue in Scottish housing. As regards the abolition of key money, I am sure that the Minister has embarrassed his English colleagues in so far as he made that concession, which is being resisted in the English legislation.
As regards the care of the homeless, the Minister suggested that the Bill would make some impact on the problem. There is no specific responsibility placed on the new authority to care for the homeless. That is still a local authority responsibility. At least I share the hope that the situation regarding the homeless will be helped by these provisions and the helpful relaxation of the limitations on members of housing associations.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I received representations from a number of Scottish organisations involved in this field. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the detailed study that was made by community organisations which were affected by the Bill and were interested in protecting various groups—for example, Shelter, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the organisations protecting the single homeless.

267
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for the manner in which he handled the Bill. He handled it with a great deal of skill and also with a great deal of sympathy and understanding. I sincerely hope that his efforts will achieve the ambitions which he set out as he introduced the Third Reading this afternoon.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Finance (No. 2) Bill
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I should like to begin with a provisional apology. The noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip and I have an important engagement this evening in connection with my responsibilities for the magistracy of inner London. It may be, depending on the eloquence of your Lordships, that I shall not be able to stay until the end of this debate. If that turns out to be the case, I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is not for any want of desire to stay that I have not been able to do so.
It is one of the privileges of a Minister in this House that he speaks for the Government as a whole. Accordingly a Minister who has a particular departmental responsibilty may find himself speaking in this House for a variety of other departments. It is a particular privilege for me today to move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I have spent a fair proportion of my professional life dealing with Finance Acts, since I was the standing junior to the Inland Revenue in Scotland. I may say that I have not found them all equally easy to understand. I hope that in commending this Bill to your Lordships noble Lords will have no difficulty in understanding it. I regard it as a very important Finance Bill, typical of the quite exceptional character and brilliance of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Bill before us today is a substantial one. It embraces a comprehensive reform of the personal tax system, a radical overhaul of capital gains taxation and inheritance tax, and a series of measures affecting business. All of those were announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement in March.
The Government's twelfth Finance Bill, it represents a further step forward in our strategy of tax reduction and tax reform which, in my view, is helping to transform the British economy. By a combination of supply side reforms to remove barriers to enterprise, buttressed by prudent management of public finances, we have established a virtuous circle. Lower borrowing and lower tax rates allow the private sector to expand. This in turn generates higher revenue for further reductions in borrowing or taxes. Thus last year the public sector was in surplus for only the second time since the 1950s. My right honourable friend announced that in future a balanced Budget will be the norm.
268
The benefits of this strategy are clear to see throughout the economy. Nine years of consistent policies of sound money and deregulation have transformed our economic performance and restored our national pride; they have given new confidence to businessmen who know that they can plan ahead without destabilising lurches in government policy; and they have raised living standards to undreamt of levels.
The 1980s have seen the United Kingdom's best period of relative economic performance since the war, with a growth record that is the envy of our European partners. Not only have we grown faster than any of the major European countries over this period—a welcome change from the 1960s and 1970s when we were looked on as the sick man of Europe—but we are continuing to outperform them this year. We are creating jobs faster than any other European Community country—with a rise in employment of over 2 million in the past five years. Unemployment has fallen for the past 23 months in succession by 835,000 in total—the longest and the largest fall since the war—and it is falling fast in all regions in the UK.
As we enter our eighth successive year of strong and steady growth, at an average rate of around 3 per cent. a year, and the sixth where this growth has been combined with low inflation, let us reflect on the fact that this has been healthy, well-balanced growth. Since 1981 consumption has grown at about the same rate as exports and more slowly than fixed investment, which has risen on average by 5 per cent. a year—many times faster than in the European Community as a whole. A broad range of sectors of the economy have benefited as a result.
Nevertheless, there are now a number of people who, far from taking pride and pleasure from our successful economic performance, are worrying that we are too successful—there is no pleasing some people! What these critics do not seem to be able to comprehend is that the improved supply side performance that has resulted from our policies (and this Finance Bill which we are discussing here today admirably takes these forward) means that British industry is much better placed than in the 1970s to meet extra demand and to operate efficiently at high levels of capital utilisation. The investment boom that we are now witnessing will provide a sure foundation for future prosperity by increasing capacity to enable us to meet further growth in demand. What is vital above all else—and on this your Lordships can have no doubts whatever—is that the Government will take no risks with inflation. Their determination in this respect is surely clear from recent increases in interest rates.
In recent weeks we have heard some doomstruck soothsayers predicting that the Budget will tip the economy over the precipice. They have claimed that yawning trade deficits, a scenario all too familiar from past attempts at demand management, will return to haunt us. This Budget is not about boosting demand; indeed the tax reductions did not reduce the overall tax burden one jot. They simply prevented it from rising. After taking account of lower tax rates, total taxes as a proportion of GDP are forecast to be the same level as last year.

269
So it is clear that the Budget is not behind the higher than expected current account deficit in recent months. With government finances in balance, the deficit reflects purely private sector behaviour. In simple terms, people are saving less and companies are investing more. The very strong growth of business investment reflects the excellent performance of recent years and the prospect of continued improvements in output and profitability. The deficit is being willingly financed by overseas investors drawn to the investment opportunities here. Underlying their confidence is the Government's record and firm resolve to defeat inflation.
The centrepiece of the Finance Bill this year is a reform of personal taxation, which gives Britain one of the simplest income tax structures in the world. The basic rate, at 25p, is the lowest since the second world war and down to the same level as the reduced rate under the last Labour Government. Personal allowances have been raised by twice as much as required to keep pace with inflation. This means allowances are fully 25 per cent. higher in real terms than when the Government took office in 1979. Taken together with the increase in the basic rate limit, these measures account for three-quarters of the first year cost of the income tax changes in the Budget. They reduce the marginal tax rate of 21 million taxpayers of working age and they take three-quarters of a million taxpayers out of tax altogether. They are a further stimulus to motivation, initiative and enterprise. But, although income tax has been reduced in each of the last seven Budgets, our starting rate is still higher than that in most other countries. That is why the Chancellor has set a new objective of reducing the basic rate to 20p as soon as it is prudent to do so. I reaffirm it as a number one priority.
In addition, four higher rates of income tax have been abolished, leaving us with a single higher rate of 40 per cent. The logic of reducing tax rates is now accepted throughout the world and across the political spectrum. Many developed countries, including those with Labour administrations, are pursuing similar tax reforms. The present strength of the British economy testifies that increasing incentives is the key to improving economic performance. By cutting our top tax rate to one of the lowest in the industrialised world, Britain will be better able to attract and retain talented entrepreneurs and key professionals. By no means all those who gain from the cut in top tax rates are in the millionaire bracket. Sixty per cent. have incomes under £40,000. These are the very people on whom we depend for more jobs and a sustained improvement in living standards.
Cutting top tax rates makes sense in revenue terms too. Despite the substantial reduction in the top rate made in 1979 and the abolition of the investment income surcharge in 1984, the wealthiest taxpayers are actually paying a greater share of the total income tax take than when we came to office. That, of course, means that the rest of the population is paying a smaller share. The connection between cutting tax rates and increasing revenues is not confined to income tax. The same is true of corporation tax, inheritance tax and stamp duties. The plain fact is that, through their dynamic effects on the economy,
270
lower tax rates generate more revenue in the long term, not less.
Nor is there any conflict between reducing tax rates and improving public services. The Government have been able to increase resources to priority services thanks precisely to the success of their economic policies. Central to this strategy has been cutting tax rates on individuals and companies to foster enterprise and hard work. In this way resources are created for better public services. Thus, in the Budget my right honourable friend was able, for the second year in succession, to announce a hat-trick of lower taxes, lower borrowing and higher spending on priority services while reducing the share of national income taken in public spending.
As tax rates are reduced to sensible levels, it becomes possible to strip away tax breaks and shelters whose only justification was to mitigate the absurd, penal and counterproductive tax rates of a past era. The catalogue of tax breaks to fall under the Chancellor's axe this year is impressive. The Bill goes a considerable way to remedy the under-taxation of company cars. It abolishes relief for home improvement loans, thus targeting relief on the main objective of home ownership and removing scope for abuse. It ends the use of several reliefs which were not calculated to be directly useful, and it strengthens the Inland Revenue's information powers.
Meanwhile the Business Expansion Scheme has been more precisely targeted on smaller companies. New non-charitable covenants and most maintenance payments will be taken outside the tax system, where they never really belonged. Lower tax rates have unlocked the great prize of aligning the rates of tax on capital gains with those on income, thus reducing a major source of distortion and need for tax planning.
The Finance Bill also strikes several important blows for fiscal justice. From this April only real capital gains accruing since 1982 will be taxed. This ends the taxation of purely paper gains that owed their existence in large part to the rampant inflation of the 1970s. Exempting pre-1982 gains will unlock for more productive use assets that were effectively frozen by the high tax charge that would have arisen on realisation.
Secondly, the Bill paves the way for the introduction of independent taxation of husbands and wives in 1990—perhaps the single most important innovation of this year's Budget. This will transform the tax treatment of married women by no longer treating their income as that of their husbands. By giving married women their own personal allowance, basic rate band and exempt amount for capital gains tax, the new system will give them the full independence and privacy for which they have waited so long. At the same time the Finance Bill proposals ensure the tax system continues to recognise marriage.
Company taxation was radically reformed in 1984 and now that the transitional effects have worked through, we have not only one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the world but the corporate sector as a whole is paying a lower effective tax rate than under the old system. These reforms have

271
encouraged overseas companies to invest in Britain and have greatly improved the quality of investment by British firms. This year's Budget responded to business's need for stability and predictability in the tax environment by leaving corporation tax largely unaltered and by setting economic policy on a course which provides the framework for a continuation of steady growth and low inflation.
Nevertheless, there are a number of measures in the Bill which affect businesses, particularly smaller ones. The reduction in the basic and higher rates of income tax and in the small companies' rate of corporation tax will benefit unincorporated and incorporated businesses alike. The rebasing of capital gains tax, the improvements to capital gains retirement relief and the improvement to employee share schemes will also provide a major boost. The reforms to inheritance tax, which saw the threshold raised significantly and four rates replaced by a single rate of 40 per cent., mean that if a family business has to pay any inheritance tax at all, with business property relief it need never face an effective tax rate of more than 20 per cent. This is one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world. Finally, capital duty—a tax on companies raising money when they set up or expand—has been abolished altogether.
These reforms will help foster the development of an enterprise culture. Businesses and individuals are increasingly free to make their own decisions and to keep the rewards for the risks that they take. It is on their talents and energy that the future health of our economy depends. We must not stifle that energy by making it too burdensome for business to meet the demands of government. A measure of the success with which we have kindled the entrepreneurial spirit is shown by the fact that last year alone nearly 900 additional new businesses were created every week.
As your Lordships will he aware, making markets work better is a recurrent theme of government policy. Of the many measures in the Bill, one has particular significance. This is the extension of the Business Expansion Scheme to investment in companies letting property on new-style assured tenancy terms. By building on a tried and tested tax incentive, the Government are giving a kick-start to our efforts to encourage more privately rented accommodation. It is the shortage of such accommodation that has long been one of the main obstacles to mobility of labour.
The situation in the United Kingdom is in marked contrast to that in our competitor countries where often a third or more of property is privately rented. Here, where the proportion is under 10 per cent. the problem for people in search of work and who may not be in a position to buy their own homes is that frequently all they can be offered is a place on a council waiting list. Increasing the supply of rented accommodation will ease skill shortages and help reduce disparities of regional unemployment.
Since this Government came to office living standards at each and every level of earnings have increased at a rate unimagined 10 years ago. This year a married man on average earnings will be over 27 per cent. better off than in 1978–79; the same man
272
on half the average will be over 21 per cent. better off. Compare that with the record of the previous administration, over the period 1973–4 to 1978–9, when the relevant figures were increases of between zero and 5 per cent. Our record has been based on a solid commitment to budgetary discipline and the re-establishment of an enterprise culture. Tax reform is an important part of that strategy.
This Bill continues to lay the ground for future progress. It gives individuals and companies an outstanding opportunity. I believe that it is an opportunity they will seize. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will willingly understand, as I do, the necessity for the noble and learned Lord to depart rather earlier than he would otherwise have done. Perhaps I may say that, not for entirely similar reasons, it may be necessary for me also to be away from the House for a short period, and a short period only. during the debate.
I have had the honour of being in your Lordships' House for 14 years. I must say that that is the most remarkable speech that I have ever heard delivered by a Lord Chancellor. We have been accustomed to the occasional controversial, very audible, asides of the noble and learned Lord's distinguished predecessor. But we have not, to my recollection, received from any noble and learned Lord occupying the position of the Lord Chancellor, such a partisan speech as that to which we have listened this afternoon. It was a speech that I venture to suggest could quite properly have been delivered from the Benches opposite. As it is, I shall be faced with the necessity, if only out of courtesy, of having a tennis neck in looking first at the noble and learned Lord and next at the Government Benches opposite.
The speech of the noble and learned Lord was a bit of a sandwich. He dealt with certain taxation aspects incorporated in the Bill itself, although that was interposed with what was quite obviously a fairly extensive transcript of a speech prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, which followed very closely on the speeches that we have been accustomed to receive from the left-hand pocket of his brief from time to time. I think it is best said that those parts of the speech of the noble and learned Lord that emanate from the down-graded Department of Trade and Industry—which is now the department of tenuous information—can be left to the noble Lords who sit behind me.
Even before we had this last Budget, was there any need to make the rich very much richer in order to pursue what I presume is the aim: to make life in general in our country, through its economic growth, more tolerable for everybody and in particular those who have the misfortune (which has not been the personal experience of many in your Lordships' House) to endure some of the worst and most degrading living conditions since the end of the war? Was there any real need to turn the screw even

273
further, even before this Budget? The people who comprise the top 1 per cent. of earners of the country's population have very substantial incomes indeed, very substantial property, and arc able to live very spacious lives. These are lives of some voluntary leisure—lives with a degree of culture and serenity which only the complete security of possession of great wealth often confers. Was it then really necessary to turn the screw even further while denying resources to other parts of the country's economy and the country's population? Was it necessary to do so while screwing down every last penny that had to be spent on bringing relief to the millions of distressed and under-privileged people of our country? Was it necessary to put another £2 billion at the disposal of those people who did not need it and who have never needed it?
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel addressed a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking him for some estimates in the reduction of the income tax burdens between the years 1980–81 to 1988–89 covering various categories of income. If noble Lords look at col. 1818 of Hansard of 30th June they will find the result set out. By the time that the current tax year has been taken into account, the top 1 per cent. of earners on average receive an extra £l1,470 per annum by way of relief. The average total relief of the bottom 50 per cent. of earners covering the same period amounts at this date to £230 per annum. That compares with £11,470 per annum to those who need it less than anyone else. In other words, it is 50 times as much.
However, that is on the assumption that it is an average. Within that 1 per cent. other considerations apply. Many people with very large incomes would consider it quite idiotic if they paid any taxes. If your Lordships will look at Hansard for another place for 18th May last, you will find a Question by Mr. Gordon Brown. This has some relevance to the words that fell from the noble and learned Lord's lips concerning the business expansion scheme and the latest scheme covering new enterprise zones, housing and so on. Mr. Gordon Brown asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
"if he will estimate the tax liability in respect of the tax year 1988 of a married man aged 51 with no dependent children who is in receipt for that year of a salary from his employer of £1 million assuming he has a mortgage of £30,000, a BES investment of £40,000, an investment of £810,000 in a new enterprise zone unit trust of which 94 per cent. is attributable to building costs and where 50 per cent. of the purchase price is borrowed in circumstances where guaranteed rent receivable equals the interest outgoing, and who makes a contribution to a retirement annuity scheme amounting to £195,000."
I regret reading out the detail, but the noble and learned Lord will understand the position very well because he knows the clauses of the Bill to which these items refer. So we have a chappie earning £1 million a year—and there are a few of them; some have been in the news recently—who decides to devote it to acquiring investments of a certain kind. What was his tax liability? Mr. Norman Lamont, replying on behalf of the Treasury, said:
"Liability to income tax in 1988-89 would be nil".—[Official Report. Commons, 18/5/1988; col. 503–504.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Never!
Lord Bruce of Donington: Well, my Lords, we have some estimate now of the impact of the Bill together with its predecessors. In referring once again to the figures I gave your Lordships in regard to the burden of income tax and the relief accorded to those in the lower 50 per cent. of income groups in the country, the House will agree that I indicated that they would receive a benefit of some £230 a year. What I did not say, and I hasten to correct the position now, is that that figure is completely overwhelmed by the increase in VAT that they have paid since that time. In terms of total taxation the £230 per annum is cancelled out by the extra £760 payable by way of VAT. On top of that there are increased national insurance contributions.
There we have the position: the top earners have benefited considerably. But we are talking only in terms of tax. It must be admitted, in spite of the agonised pleas of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham—I shall not associate the noble and learned Lord with them—about the wickedness of pay increases now at an inflationary 8 per cent., that we do have to keep an eye on those increases because they are causing inflation. In addition to the ordinary disparity between tax reliefs one has to consider the gross disparities in wages and salaries throughout industry and commerce generally. An increase of 8 per cent. on £200 a week gives an increase of £16 a week—not very significant, many of your Lordships may feel, in view of inflationary pressures coming from other sources. However, 8 per cent. on some £50,000 a year is a totally different kettle of fish. Among managers 12 per cent. is quite common, giving an extra £120 a week. The percentage is not much more but the absolute sum is much greater. Even 20 per cent. increases have been given in the case of many managers. And those were not on incomes of a miserable £5,000 a year but on £50,000 and £100,000 a year. However there is always a difference, with which I shall not associate the noble and learned Lord, but to which I shall refer the Government.
There is a very curious distinction between those who do the work of producing physical goods and products and who supply services—which are treated as costs in the Government's mind—and those who earn these vast salaries. Some of them are quite productive, but others are engaged purely in making money out of money rather than producing any service. They are regarded as the creators of wealth. They create nothing except claims on the goods and services that are produced. The inflationary pressure is generated by them to make money out of money. They add nothing to the supply of goods and nothing by way of provision of useful services either to industry or to the community at large. These are the creators of wealth, in common with the loan sharks in Birmingham, in common with renters to homeless people of lousy accommodation at extortionate prices, and in common with all those engaged in dubious enterprises. But as long as they become rich, they are regarded as the creators of wealth.
It is not my purpose this afternoon to elaborate any further on the results in physical, human and emotional terms of the growing disparity between the excesses of wealth on the one hand and dire poverty for millions on the other. This is not the purpose of

275
the debate. I shall content myself with saying only that this is not a position which we on this side of the House find acceptable. As soon as we have the opportunity of reversing it we shall not hesitate to do so.
The noble and learned Lord was, I thought, running away with himself a little; but then he had a prepared text. He referred to the prosperous and sound economy of the United Kingdom, the growing production, the rates of increase in production and how prosperous the country was. It is perhaps salutary to remember—although this will not catch the headlines—that we have barely caught up with our level of manufacturing production at the end of 1979. We are now slightly in excess of it and we still have not caught up with the level of investment in 1979. That should perhaps be salutary. To talk of a prosperous country and a prosperous economy is to utter a monstrous distortion which I should have thought, in terms of fairness and justice, ought not to have received even an indirect judicial sanction.
A prosperous economy? Of course part of the economy is prosperous—I should say it is! You can see it all over the place. You can see it in some of the best hotels in London and on the riviera at Henley. You can see it all over the place. It is very prosperous indeed. But only part of the economy is prosperous. For anyone in the United Kingdom to talk of a prosperous economy while over 7 million people are living at or below the poverty line, and while nearly 3 million people are unemployed, is monstrous. Come the time, not when we have equality—because equality cannot be achieved in this life and we are not all equal—but when every person in the country, regardless of whether he is rich or poor, can walk with his head erect, does not have to cringe for alms or rely on charity, and come the time when he can look forward not necessarily to great affluence or even substantial comfort but to a degree of serenity in life, then we can say that it is a prosperous country. People live together within a free society bound by those links which, as a nation, bound us together in the years 1939–1945 and a little thereafter but which the Prime Minister says no longer exist (the Prime Minister says that there is no such thing as society). We on this side of the House know full well that before very long we shall be in a position to give the lie to that. We know that in due course a free society with a free Parliament, whose powers are at present being progressively taken by the Executive, will once again ensure a modicum of peaceful progress in our country and with a certain if only modest degree of happiness.
4.12 p.m,
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill affords us in this House the opportunity of taking a broad view of the economic management of the country. We have heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the view of the Government. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, with his customary vigour and eloquence, the view of the Labour Opposition. I should like to add a few comments about some of the problems which I believe lie ahead in the
276
management of the economy and which so far have not been dealt with.
To be quite fair, a number of positive things have been going on. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to the fact that there has been a revival in the activity of manufacturing industries, now at long last surpassing the level reached in 1979. There has been a growth in industrial investment. In recent months there has been a reduction in the level of unemployment. All those things are positive. However, there are also some danger signs on the horizon. On 14th July I raised a Question in this House asking whether the Government were concerned about the over-heating of the economy. In reply the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, quoted his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as saying that:
"the economy has recently been growing at an unsustainably rapid rate and needs to slow down".—[Official Report. 14/7/88; col. 926.]
That is the view of the Government. We have a problem and I believe that we need to analyse it and see how it can be dealt with. If it gets out of control we could be back in the old stop-go situation.
There are various aspects to the question of the "unsuitably rapid growth" in the economy, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for instance, we have a continuing credit boom; a high level of private spending; an abnormally historic low level of private savings; and undue escalation of house prices, particularly in the South-East but spreading elsewhere in the country; and a rapidly deteriorating balance of payments. Today's figues are very depressing because for the fourth month this year we have sustained a net imbalance exceeding £1 billion.
The fundamental problem is what to do about such things as a nation. If the situation is allowed to continue, all the benefits which I mentioned earlier, and which I freely admit have been achieved, will be negated. Therefore I should like to analyse the position and indicate what might be done to stop us going back into the old stop-go situation.
I believe that the fundamental problem is that we are a nation awash with credit. That credit is creating a spending power which far exceeds our ability to supply it with goods and it explains the deteriorating balance of payments situation. When the Government first came to power in the far-off days in 1979 they attached great importance to the control of the money supply and to the surveillance of monetary aggregates. In recent times they have ceased to pay any attention to monetary aggregates. They say that they take them into account but it was noticeable that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech introducing his Budget he referred to only one monetary aggregate. It is not the most informative because it does not deal with the credit situation. It was M0 which merely deals with the amount of money in circulation. The monetary aggregate which indicates the size of credit expansion in this country is M3.
Although the Chancellor did not refer to that, I should like to do so to show the problem that we now face. M3 shows not only the amount of money in circulation but also bank deposits and therefore gives

277
an indication of credit. In the five years to 1986 that increased by approximately 5 per cent. per annum. During those years the Government operated a measure of indirect control of bank credit. That ceased in 1986 and from then onwards the increase in M3 has been no less than 17 per cent. This year it is running at 20 per cent. It is an indication of the way in which the credit boom has been allowed to run out of control. This is leading to the other difficulties which we now face.
The Government have deliberately left themselves with no weapon to deal with the situation except the manipulation of the rate of interest. The interest rate is a very blunt weapon because, while it may cure some problems, it creates others. It is the kind of medicine that one might have to deal with an ailment but which has such violent side-effects that they often exceed the benefits bestowed.
The fact is that if interest rates are increased continuously, it will have the effect of stifling industrial investment on which we largely depend in order to meet the ever-increasing demand, but could have very little impact on private expenditure because people are now borrowing money on their credit cards and in other ways in which they would hardly notice an increase of 1 or 2 per cent. At the same time it would bring sterling right up, would make our goods less and less competitive and therefore add to our balance of payments problems. I cannot see that using the blunt weapon of continually putting up interest rates, which seems to be favoured in some high quarters in government, would necessarily solve the basic problem; namely, how to hold back the explosion in private credit and spending.
On the other hand, if interest rates are used to reduce the value of the currency in order to stimulate exports, that will be taken as a signal for even greater private expenditure. Therefore, I believe that it is time that the Government had a look at other ways to deal with the economic problems which we face.
Of course the situation is compounded by the fact that there appears to be fundamental disagreement in government circles about how they should use this one weapon which they have—whether they should use it with the intention of creating a stable currency, which many people favour, or whether they should use it with the prime intention of dealing with inflationary risks and letting the currency fluctuate up and down. Of all the developed nations in the world we now have the most violently fluctuating monetary values in relation to other currencies and the most violently fluctuating interest rates.
Perhaps I may quote from the CBI this morning. Mr. David Wigglesworth in introducing what was otherwise a fairly positive statement on behalf of the CBI about industrial growth and investment, said:
"If high interest rates and currency instability are prolonged, it could damage business confidence and lead to a slow down in investment plans and that would not be very good for the country".
Yet we are precisely in the regime of high interest rates and fluctuating currency values which the CBI regards as very much against its interests.
Is it not time that the Government gave attention to the real problem which we face in terms of
278
economic and monetary management—the credit explosion? If credit has to be moderated, why not go for credit? Why have the Government given up all the weapons which they used until 1986 to deal with this problem? Why is it that guidelines are not being given to the clearing banks to restrict the amount of credit which they create? Why is it that various technical devices such as overfunding, which I shall not try to describe but which is a technical device for limiting the amount of credit which the clearing banks can give, have been abandoned and that we have been left with the one option of the manipulation of the interest rate, which is causing such perturbation and uncertainty in financial, industrial and private circles?
I believe that is what we have to turn our attention to. It is quite wrong that sterling should now he regarded as the most volatile currency of any developed country. It is quite wrong that nobody should know from one day to the next what will happen to interest rates. I submit to your Lordships that measures are required which will tackle the basic problem at source, which is the unlimited creation of credit, which will thereby enable us to create a more stable currency at a competitive level, which in turn could moderate the level of interest rates. On that basis, we could look forward to a much better future prospect than we can at present.
4.25 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, your Lordships' House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his remarks in introducing the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord and to your Lordships for arriving too late to hear this introduction, which I shall read with great care. However, I understand that he has perhaps not been quite as extravagant in his praise for the Bill, the Budget and the Chancellor as has the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has resorted to hyperbole in her tributes to the Chancellor and his Budget recently, though for much of the past year her actions and words have sometimes suggested that she has come to bury him and not to praise him. If peace has temporarily broken out between the warring tribes of Conservative economists, the rest of us must try to form our own views as to the real achievements and effects of this Budget in the latest stage of the Government's economic strategy.
Although your Lordships' House is impotent to effect any changes on the Bill, at least we have the advantage of coming to it fresh four months after its introduction when its appropriateness can be more accurately judged in the context of the emerging statistics and developments in the economy.
Although some members of the Government have attempted to deny that the economy is overheating with notable and noble exceptions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has pointed out, there are few independent economists who do not believe that that is the case. Indeed, the Government's actions contradict their nonchalant denial of overheating, as is indicated by a 3 per cent. increase in short-term interest rates in less than three months. The new monetary realism which the Chancellor has introduced to the Government, and to which the

279
noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred, means that such corrective measures would not have been taken if the Chancellor did not believe that the real underlying economy was significantly out of balance.
The monetary realpolitik which the Chancellor has introduced since 1983 was dangerously distorted by predictable but nonetheless regrettable laxity in the run-up to the general election of last year. As the Chancellor has admitted, that was followed by a more correct loosening of credit in the aftermath of the stock market fall in October.
It was against that background that the Budget was introduced in March, and although the monetary belt had not yet begun to tighten again, and indeed the Chancellor's worries about the strength of the exchange rate led to a further reduction in interest rates, the key features of the Budget which are contained in this Bill could only risk increasing the heat and pressure in the domestic economy. It is only too clear now that the Chancellor erred significantly on the side of recklessness, and yet the only action which is now being taken is to hike interest rates half a point by half a point, causing far more damage to industry than it achieves in any dampening effect on consumer spending. Once more monetary and fiscal policies are being pursued that are in direct and painful conflict.
The Government cannot merely depend on periodic increases in interest rates to cool the domestic economy. If interest rates are pushed higher and higher either to cool the economy or to hold the exchange rate up, we will through uncompetitive exchange rates and penal costs of funding erode our industrial export performance at the very moment that it is critical that we maintain every bit of export growth that we can.
To ensure export-led growth must be the central objective of government policy, yet the trade statistics have within them an even more worrying trend than those to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. Since 1980 the volume of imports by manufacturers has grown by 76 per cent. compared with a rise in exports of only 28 per cent. Imports during the last year have shown an 11 per cent. rise compared with a 4½ per cent. rise in exports. Of the imported goods there has been a heavy preponderance of consumer rather than capital goods. Now all of this may ultimately be containable provided that, as oil resources fall due both to lower volume and a lower price, we allow the value of the pound to fall to reflect this reality.
Artificially elevating the exchange rate as the principal means of holding back inflation was the single greatest economic mistake that the Government made when in 1980 and 1981 we lost permanently and unnecessarily a significant part of our industrial capacity. In facing now the risk of renewed inflation as a result of the Government's reckless promotion of a pre-election and post-election boom, it is vital that the same mistake is not made again.
At this point it is probably inevitable that the rate of inflation will trend upwards and whatever the Government do may at least temporarily increase that rate. A rise in interest rates feeds through
280
mortgage rates into the retail prices index just as surely as an overheating economy pushes up inflation. In contrast, if the exchange rate is held stable or allowed gradually to fall to reflect the changing position of the United Kingdom economy, and if this is combined with responsible fiscal policies to constrain the level of consumption, inflationary expectations can in comparison remain low and British industry still prosper abroad.
There are two measures which even now the Government can and should take rather than wait until a more acute crisis overtakes us between now and the next Budget. The first is to stimulate savings and the second is to reduce higher income spending, People are now saving a smaller proportion of their incomes than at any time since 1979. The personal sector savings ratio stands at around 5 per cent., half of its 1983 level.
Some marginal increase in the savings ratio could be achieved, for instance, by transferring Premium Bonds into health bonds or, if the Government wish to keep Premium Bonds, by creating a new health bond. With all the national savings expertise in television advertising and a promise that the gains for the Exchequer would be earmarked for the National Health Service, this might attract considerable savings and some of that would surely be new savings attracted by the link with the NHS. Other ways must also be found to stimulate savings, though I believe we should be wary of extending new tax exemptions or privileges to achieve that.
The threat of overheating could be further diminished if the Government are prepared to address the question of those tax reliefs and allowances which continue to operate in a preferential way for top rate taxpayers. Mortgage interest relief is currently payable at whatever marginal tax rate the recipient is paying. This means that a top rate taxpayer receives relief at 40 per cent. while basic rate taxpayers receive only a 25 per cent. subsidy. Seventy-five per cent. of personal lending in this boom is mortgage lending with the frequently attacked credit cards representing a tiny percentage of the consumer credit expansion.
Confining mortgage interest relief to the basic rate of tax would be a sensible way to begin to rein back the extraordinary mortgage boom which is part cause and part effect of an economy which is overheating. More than anyone else it is first-time buyers who are hit the hardest by the mortgage boom because house prices are pushed ever higher. For a first-time home owner stretched to the limit to meet mortgage payments the Government's high interest rate policy can spell disaster.
The change in mortgage tax relief could and should be matched by a change in the way in which tax allowances are assessed. Currently tax allowances, in the same way as mortgage relief, benefit the taxpayer at whatever is their marginal rate. A rise of £100 in the allowance is effectively worth £25 to a basic rate payer but £40 to a top rate taxpayer. Tax allowances could be made the same in value for all taxpayers if they are changed into an allowance against tax rather than against income as they are currently.
That measure, together with the restriction of mortgage interest relief to the basic rate, would take

281
around £1 billion out of the economy. It would cool the boom without giving the impression of panic or of wholesale reverses of economic policy from the time of the Budget. What is more, both those changes are eminently justifiable in their own right on grounds of fairness and simplicity.
The SDP budget proposals in March recommended the removal of the employees' national insurance ceiling and the consequent creation of a more logical and integrated income tax scale. That too would reduce excessive consumer spending as well as produce a fairer and more balanced division of fiscal capacity between selective but necessary public spending in health and other areas and the increase in disposable income among average taxpayers.
The reduction to some extent in higher rates of income tax was justifiable and appropriate, particularly in the international context, but an effective top rate of 50 per cent. (including uncapped national insurance contributions) would still have offered a considerable increase in incentives without the exaggeratedly biased division of the spoils which the Government chose to implement.
The integration of capital gains tax with income tax is in principle to be welcomed. It represents the most significant and radical of the measures in the Budget and in this Bill, though this seems scarcely enough to justify the effusive claims made by the Prime Minister. The reform inevitably opens new anomalies, however, and I remain concerned about the effect of the integration on an individual or a couple of modest wealth and with a modest income who benefit from a single windfall capital gain—the sale of an heirloom or a parental house—who will suffer a 40 per cent. rate of tax in a single year while in other years having no other gains to realise.
Compared to individuals and couples who can make full use of the annual exemption through realising regular small gains, the treatment is inequitable and a retrograde step compared to the previous position. I hope that the Government will examine ways of allowing such gains to be spread over a period of years, in a similar way to the concessions granted to authors, for example, in allowing them to spread the earnings from a book over a longer period than that in which the income is actually received.
Compared to the claims made for the Budget before and after its introduction, the measures in this Bill are unimaginative and have turned out to be a faulty and reckless influence on the management of the country's economy. From a mouse of a budget has emerged the prospect of a mountain of international debt and a potential balance of payments crisis that will allow this Government to stand alongside those who in earlier less oil-endowed times have presided over deficits, stop-go and other economic ills, ills which the Government have so confidently assured us were a thing of the past.
The Government may be deterred from making the necessary moves now by the fact that they may give rise to fears of crisis and collapse. In fact, the reverse would be the case. Nothing would be more damaging than if the Government precipitate economic
282
troubles by avoiding action now in the mistaken belief that immediate readjustment would undermine confidence in the economy.
Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will be familiar with the words "Action this day". That is what is needed to correct the errors of this Bill and stave off serious and unnecessary damage to the economy.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I must share with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the apology that if your Lordships' eloquence is sufficiently sustained over a sufficiently long period I shall be unable to be present at the closing of the debate. I have to go and say goodbye to an old friend who is giving up his post as ambassador in London; I feel bound so to do. I very much hope that the situation will not arise, but I thought it proper to mention it.
Yesterday your Lordships were discussing among other things the rights and duties of this House in respect of financial matters. It was a very interesting discussion. Today we are in an area that is perfectly clear. On the Finance Bill, we have no right to amend it and we have no right to delay it for more than a month. But we have the full right and, I suggest to your Lordships, the full duty to discuss it and to bring to bear on this, possibly the most important measure of the year, the combined knowledge, wisdom and experience of your Lordships' House.
It was in that spirit that I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I can claim to be something of a connoisseur of the noble Lord's speeches. I have had the privilege, and very often the pleasure, of listening to them for some 40 years, and I thought today's a vintage example. That is, I think, an appropriate description. The speech bore all the characteristics of a vintage year—the year 1908—and would indeed have been thought very appropriate in another place during all the discussions in the 1906 Parliament, with the immense amount of invective delivered by the then triumphant Liberal majority (which shows what a long time ago it was) against those who were better off. The sneers then delivered against the dukes have now been delivered against people with high earnings.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, does not appear to understand that invective about turning the screw and cruelty to the distressed and under-privileged simply does not fit with the facts of the situation. Everybody both inside and outside your Lordships' House knows that. It is a fact that the great majority of our population today are better off than they have ever been. It is not just a question of a few people on the highest incomes. The fact is indicated by the high expenditure being undertaken by very large sections of our population; by holidays to the Mediterranean which have all but disrupted charter air services; by the presence of a car or a moter bicycle outside an enormous number of houses; and by the extent to which colour television sets and washing machines now form part of the fittings of a very large number of homes. It does not

283
help a proper discussion of these matters to overlook that fact.
No one is disputing that there are people at the lower end of the scale who are less fortunate. But the fact must be faced first of all that the great majority of the population are better off than they have ever been. And they know it, which is why they support the Government. Equally, the power to relieve the less fortunate depends entirely upon the capacity of the economy to create wealth. It is no use saying that there is all this terrible hardship and ignoring at the same time the methods necessary to generate and create the wealth which has to be created if increasing improvements are to be made in their condition. That is the important point.
I look at this Finance Bill, as I have looked in the course of my life at quite a number of Finance Bills, with that concept very much in mind. Is it going to help in the creation of wealth and therefore the capacity of our society not only to provide better standards of life for the great majority but also to make available the means to give relief and improvement to the least fortunate? In the 1950s and 1960s a steady reduction in tax rates reflected in an increase in tax yields—the decreases in tax rates which we are discussing today will have the same effect—enabled the burden of taxation upon the active working population to be reduced while at the same time more resources were made available to help the poorest and the worst off. Surely that is the central point about which your Lordships are, and I am sure should be, concerned.
It is in that way that one finds the discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, of the tax position of a man on an income of a million pounds a year somewhat irrelevant. I do not think I number among my acquaintances anybody in that category, certainly no one adroit enough to adjust his affairs so that he pays no income tax on an income of that size. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not appreciate as he was citing this somewhat fantastic example that he was really giving away the case against high rates of taxation. It is the inevitable effect of very high rates of taxation that people find themselves deciding to indulge in devices to lower or eliminate the burden upon them. It is for that reason that many people of very substantial incomes have left this country, gone to the Channel Islands, to Portugal and to various other parts of the world, with the result that our Exchequer has lost all revenue by way of taxation from them.
The noble Lord did not seem to appreciate that if you push personal taxation beyond a certain point you get very disappointing results: not only do you discourage enterprise and investment but you also encourage emigration of the better off. And you also encourage people of high earning capacity to practise their professions and trades in other countries where the level of taxation on high incomes is so much lower, notably the United States.
Therefore if we come back to what I know is the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as it is the objective of all noble Lords, that we should build up the creation of wealth in this country, we have then to look at the Finance Bill from that point of view. In
284
this respect I suggest that it is the best Finance Bill, if I may allow personal thoughts to intrude, for a quarter of a century. It is a Finance Bill which really makes an attempt to tackle the problems of direct taxation.
A rate of tax of 60 per cent. on the higher tranche of the higher incomes is a very high rate indeed. Some people would regard it as confiscatory. Most people would regard it as unacceptable save in moments of the gravest national emergency. Whatever view one takes, whether or not one thinks it is right to take three-fifths of some part of somebody's earnings away by taxation, I suggest that we must all consider the results. What are the results? The results must be a discouragement of wealth creation and of enterprise.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, poured scorn on those who make money out of money, as he so politely put it. However, the skilled, knowledgeable handling of investment and of large amounts of capital is of immense importance to the economy as a whole and therefore to the population as a whole. We have seen very often how governments—all governments—have not proved themselves particularly skilful in the way they have made investments. It is the fact that the private sector, including those people who, to use the noble Lord's phrase, make money out of money, has a considerable role to play in securing that capital is put into those projects that most need it. This is working out.
It is no use the noble Lord pretending that these policies are not working. One might say—if my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham were here, I am sure he would say—si argumentum requiris, circumspice, which for the benefit of the Liberal Party I shall translate as "Keep your eyes open mate". It is the fact that our economy is moving successfully forward.
I know there is the point—the noble Lord appears to be overcome by this thought—about the balance of payments and the figures announced today. It is the experience of all of us who have been involved in these matters for some time that difficulties with the balance of payments are especially likely to arise at a moment when the economy is expanding. There is an increased and increasing demand for raw materials and very often for plant, machinery and technical devices. These have to be paid for a long time before the product which those imports are used to produce can be put on the market and provide a return for the money invested. There is always a time lag. If one looks back over the years even since the war one sees that periods of expansion were always preceded by some pressure on the balance of payments. I know of no reason to doubt that that is the case today.
Though the amounts look substantial and can be exaggerated by those who want to exaggerate them, as one or two people who ought to know better have been trying to do on the radio today, they are extremely small in proportion to our enormous resources and to the enormous investments which under the Government and their policy of allowing free movement of capital have been built up all over the world. These amounts are far from being formidable in that context. All of us—perhaps

285
particularly those of my generation—are unduly impressed by these apparently large figures, but when they are looked at in proportion to the even larger figures of our overseas investments or the balance of payments problems which have affected the United States for some years, one can see that they are no more than perhaps the ordinary reaction to the beginning of a period of industrial expansion. This will be enormously helped by the tax changes made in the Budget.
It is the fact that people are inspired to work, to invest and to take risks by the knowledge that if those activities are successful they will be able to retain, use and enjoy the results of their enterprise. This goes at all levels of the scale. I wonder whether your Lordships have in mind the fact that the reduction in the standard rate of income tax means that last month the pay packet of practically every person in employment was substantially increased as a result of the reduction in the deductions by the Inland Revenue. That surely was extremely useful. It gave to those in work the additional income that they wanted without increasing wage rates, with all inflationary effect that that can have. One increases take-home pay without increasing wage rates. That must be an extremely helpful step.
There was also the great improvement in capital gains tax, which was a very unfair tax as it was operating. As the House may recall, it was introduced by the late Mr. Selwyn Lloyd on the basis that it related only to gains made within a year. It was the party of the noble Lord opposite which extended it into the instrument of oppression which it became. It is extremely good that it should be tidied up.
The adjustment of inheritance tax is surely a good thing. In this respect I hope that my noble friends will feel it possible to go further. Given the high price of houses today, it becomes increasingly difficult when someone dies to pass on his home to his children and to his successors. Unless the point of entry into inheritance tax is substantially raised, it will so often be necessary when somebody dies for his children to sell his home in order to pay the duty resulting from the high valuation put on the home.
The Government's policy is to encourage home ownership. One of the factors that moves many of us in respect of home ownership is the desire to leave one's home for one's children to live in after one's death. There is also the fact that we are continually having to deal with the problems of historic houses whose owners cannot afford to continue to occupy them because of inheritance tax. A rather curious concept was put to me the other day. Because of the proper arrangement under which there is no inheritance tax when money passes from husband to wife or wife to husband, it would be possible if one could so arrange it to retain one's home free of tax if one could manage it in this way.
When one reached a certain age one would marry a young and healthy girl and on one's death the property would pass to her. She would continue to occupy it until her old age when she would marry a young and healthy man to whom the property would then pass. After perhaps another half century he
286
would look round for another young and healthy girl, and so on ad infinitum. One might have bad luck—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how this is done?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is not for me to teach the noble Baroness how to attract a consort. I think that her charms are sufficiently compelling for it to be an impertinence on my part to make any professional suggestion to her.
However, that shows, does it not—it is the reductive argument; the reductio ad absurdutn—how tax falls with rather unpredictable incidence and that we ought to consider at least exempting someone's principal home from inheritance tax altogether in exactly the same way as we exempt someone's principal home from capital gains tax. There is a good precedent there and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider that for future budgets. But it would be ungrateful at this stage to press for further improvements.
This is a very good Finance Bill; it is an historic Finance Bill. It is one that will continue the good work which the Government are doing and, moreover, it is producing a state of affairs which has benefited the great majority of the people in this country. The majority of people in this country know that and that is why they are very happy with the Government.
Lord Annan: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say this to him. It is always a great pleasure to listen to him because he is the most formidable debator in the House. Anyone who crosses swords with him does so at his peril. However, I should like to ask him this. He very properly said that a reduction in taxation will stop driving people of talent, imagination and genius abroad to emigrate. However, is it not also true that if you do not pay your dons adequately—you pay them such a pittance that they are driven overseas to emigrate, more particularly because the Government make it clear that they somewhat despise what they do—the same will happen?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord's adroitness, as always, in introducing the question of academic salaries into this debate on the Finance Bill. But having a rather greater respect than he has for the Standing Orders of the House, I shall not follow his argument.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, always puts me in memory of times past. Similarly, the year 1988 puts me in memory of the year 1955, which was also a vintage year. In April of that year the Chancellor of the Exchequer made huge tax cuts which he said would encourage incentive and promote a strong economy. At mid-summer he invited us all to invest in success. However, by July it was clear that consumption and imports were increasing rapidly and the trade balance was in deficit. Also in July of that year interest rates were raised to stop the rot and there was a run on the pound in August. In October

287
the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in another budget and raised taxes all around; in December he resigned.
I know that it will be said that a great deal has changed since 1955 and, indeed, much has changed. Although I would not dream of accusing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of rewriting history—as the noble Lord, Lord Young, does from time to time—a few of those changes are worth recording. Ever since the tariff changes involved in joining the EC in 1972 took place we have developed a large and still growing deficit in manufactured trade. Despite that, in the two years from 1977 to 1979, which is before this Government came to office—a fact which is now sometimes forgotten— unemployment fell by 300,000 and real GDP rose faster than in almost any year since 1945.
Then in 1979, after this change which is supposed to have worked such miracles, the economy was treated to a steep rise in VAT, a gross overvaluation of the sterling exchange rate and interest rates went up at one time to 17 per cent. The result was most instructive. From 1979 to 1981—this is another thing that the noble Lord, Lord Young, does not tell us—manufacturing output fell nearly 20 per cent. and all industrial output by 10 per cent. That is the steepest fall in national production in this century. Unemployment doubled in 18 months. So altogether it was an instructive economic experiment and a large slice of industrial capacity was lost, probably for good.
Unemployment then continued to rise for seven years—that is longer than any period before, at least so far as I know—until the autumn of 1986. At the end of 1986 it began to fall for two reasons which I think are now fairly clear: first, and mainly, because of the sharp drop in the sterling exchange rate in 1986 and, secondly, because of the wise abandonment by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of all the nonsense about M3 and monetarism, which he had himself been talking about five years before.
Incidentally, as one noble Lord has already said today, M3 has been increasing at 20 per cent. in the past year, so on previous theories we ought to look forward to a 20 per cent. rise in the RPI next year. But it is clear from the dates that the main reason for the turn round in employment and output has been the influence of the lower sterling exchange rate in restraining imports and encouraging exports.
However, we have for eight years been under-using our national productive capacity by something like 10 per cent. at least. That means a total loss of national income every year of £30 billion or £40 billion. Indeed, it is simple arithmetic to say that if the rate of rise in output in 1977 to 1979 had been continued for the next eight years, our real GDP would be higher today by something between £50 billion and £100 billion. In addition, in 1988 unemployment is twice as high as it was when this Government came to power; the visible trade deficit is running at £12 billion to £15 billion a year and the balance of payments deficit is the highest ever recorded in this country, despite our oil earnings.
The crucial element in the payments deficit is a huge deficit in our trade in manufactured goods with
288
the EC. We have a direct deficit with the EC in our trade in manufactured goods of over £11 billion, about two-thirds of which is with West Germany. That is due to a considerable extent to the imports of cars—of which incidentally the United Kingdom output has halved since the record figure of 1972.
With the non-EC world we have a surplus in visible trade, so that it is the deficit in trade with the continental EC which is almost wholly responsible for our huge balance of payments deficit at present. Thus I am afraid that if we judge by experience and not by theory or doctrinaireism we must conclude that the famous single market of 1992 of which we hear so much. if it means anything, will materially increase that trade and payments deficit. Meanwhile there is one salutary lesson here for those who say—and there have been some on the government Benches—that manufacturing industry is unimportant and somehow all a bit out of date. But, far from that being true, it is the British public's insatiable appetite for imported manufactured goods, including cars, which is inflating our imports and is the main single cause of the present trade gap.
But since the time when our deficit became wholly due to our trade within the EC a new doctirine has been developed which had never been heard of before. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was moving near to it today. The doctrine is—I must say that I have never heard of it before the last 18 months—that balance of payment deficits do not really matter, for two alleged reasons. The first is that a current deficit must he balanced automatically be capital receipts. Well, that in a way is true, but it is not comforting. It means in plainer English that if one spends more than one's income one must either sell assets or borrow. That is not an encouraging thought.
Secondly, we are told that that does not matter either—here we come to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—because we have large reserves. The official reserve is, I believe—the Minister can tell me if I am wrong when he replies—about £40 billion at present; but our overall current deficit is running at over £10 billion a year, as we see from today's figures. At that rate half our reserve would be gone in two years. There are then the non-government held investments overseas which the noble Lord mentioned. They are of course large and amount to about £130 billion or £140 billion; but due to the abandonment of exchange control they are in private hands. They are not in the hands of the Treasury or the Bank of England, and such investments have never been conscripted in peacetime in this country before now.
It is therefore in my view most unwise for the Government to ignore all those facts and merely to pass on. What then is the right course for the situation into which we have got ourselves? Internally of course that situation is made more awkward because, due to the abandonment of any effective regional policy, an expansion of the economy still leaves a major part of the country underemployed and causes shortages and rising prices in the congested South-East. To have 9 per cent. of the working population unemployed, an overseas deficit

289
and threats of rising prices all at the same time is neither comfortable nor clever.
The Chancellor has rightly abandoned M3 and all of that, and now apparently thinks that he can control everything by interest rates. He says that of course because he has nothing else left; but how high will interest rates go to do the job which they are clearly not doing at present—15 per cent. or again the 17 per cent. we suffered in 1980? The trouble with high interest rates is that in the first place they raise industrial costs all round, they discourage investment just when the Chancellor is encouraging consumption and, more seriously, they worsen still further the current balance of payments by handicapping exports and stimulating imports even further.
It was the fall in the sterling exchange rate, as I said, in 1986 which caused the turn round in output and employment thereafter. If we are now to prevent the payment deficit getting out of hand, we must have a lower sterling rate. I suggest that the right policies are now a more prudent Budget in the matter of stimulating consumer spending, lower interest rates and a lower exchange rate. If that is true we should, above all, avoid joining the EMS at present and so give away the one control—freedom—which we have over our own exchange rate. That would be an act of unilateral disarmament, to which I am always opposed.
Joining the EMS either means a normally fixed rate of exchange, which would be damaging in present circumstances, or it does not, in which case there is no apparent purpose in it. In the medium term, with falling oil revenues, which I have hardly mentioned but about which we are all aware, and the threat of 1992, a fixed exchange rate anywhere near the present level would be untenable.
My concluding hope is that the Government will take the payments deficit rather more seriously than they do at present and meanwhile I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who I regret is not here today, will not come to believe in his own propaganda.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can explain something to me. I know that I am not very good at these things, but if the economy and finances are as bad as he says they are and have been for the past eight years or so, why do the British people continue to support the Conservative Party?
Lord Jay: My Lords, I advise the noble Viscount, if I am entitled to reply, to take a look at what has happened in the United States in the past two years and to wait and see.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps before beginning what I have been preparing to say I may take the chance to answer the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He asked why the British people continue to support the Conservative Party. The answer is that at the last election fewer of them did than at any other election
290
since the war, but under our system the opinion of the people was not reflected in another place. It is a great deal better reflected in this place. The only one of our national institutions in which my party is represented in proportion to its voting strength happens to be the hereditary peerage. Perhaps Aristotle was right when he said that the lot was the most democratic form of selection.
I should like also to apologise to the House and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for arriving late at the beginning of the debate. I had made an appointment with my doctor, it turned out at the same time as my doctor had made an appointment with his removal man. I do not think that I need go on.
The question I wanted to address today is the level of public spending and, above all, how it is calculated, which I believe is very much in order at the moment since to an extent when the Chancellor plans his Budget, tax cuts and public spending must appear at least as partial alternatives.
I am taking some risk here because I wish to address the subject of a communication block between the parties. Communication blocks are normally boobytrapped. Why else do they become communication blocks? I am taking a distinct risk of casting myself as the booby. During the last election it seemed to me over and over again that the parties were talking past one another. The opposition parties were constantly alleging cuts in public services and considerable damage resulting. The Government replied with a whole series of statistics purporting to show increases in public spending in real terms.
The key question at the last election was, I believe, asked by an old gentleman in the back row at an election meeting in Southampton addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, whom I am sorry not to see here today. The old gentleman said, "Can you tell us what are these real terms you keep talking about?" The noble Lord made the classically correct elementary answer: the question needs to go a bit further.
Lack of communication is something that I have observed in this House also. I can recall, for example, one of my vignettes of this House, an experience which I believe is more familiar to many noble Lords than it is to me. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked a question about Birmingham Health Authority. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, produced a long string of statistics appearing to show increases in spending in real terms which were greeted by both parties on this side of the House with a universal groan. The noble Lord sat down looking very hurt indeed. It was apparent to me at that moment that he believed his own figures. The noble Countess, if not the noble Lord, will understand why I found that a terrifying experience.
On another occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was asking questions about university spending, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, produced a long string of statistics purporting to show increases in spending in real terms which were again greeted with the same universal groan. The noble Baroness sat down, pretending that she had not heard what had happened.

291
I can understand that in the short-term, but we have to try to get a little beyond this. I think it is particularly difficult to absorb these claims of increases in spending in real terms when at the same time the Government are priding themselves on decreasing the proportion of GNP which goes on public spending and on their diminution of the public sector borrowing requirement.
One keeps coming back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. I join with others in wishing him a happy and good recovery. In one of his last contributions in the other place he said:
"The Government really must make up their minds whether it is their policy to make cuts in public spending and make them out to be increases or to make increases and make them out to be cuts."
From the point of view of anyone employed in practically any of the public services, these claims of increases in real terms are—to use the word in its plain and literal sense—incredible. A great many people in a great many public service professions share the opinion of the junior hospital doctors during the last election who said that this claim so plainly contradicted their experience that they were incensed.
I wish to take a few examples, although I shall not detain the House with very many. At my son's school, an ILEA school, pupils have been told that if any books disappear from the school library, under no circumstances can the school afford to replace those books, however essential they may be. That does not strike me as what one normally regards as profligacy.
The dissatisfaction seems to extend quite widely. We find that the police force, for example, was reported in the paper two or three days ago as talking of taking its pay claim to the European court. It is not only those branches of the public service which one might think were in the Government's disfavour. Looking at the debate on the Defence Estimates, which I regret to say I was unable to attend but which I have read with some care, we find the same lack of communication. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that Government spending on defence had increased in real terms. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on the other hand, said on 12th July at col. 728 of the Official Report that:
"the financial squeeze in real terms is now, if anything, greater than ever".
Responses to that sort of utterance remind me a little of the family doctor who once said that he made a habit of discounting half his patients' symptoms. We are beginning to get a failure in communication because we are getting a new sort of social stratification in our political system. All the people who work in public services of any kind are on one side and all the people engaged in industry and commerce are on the other. That is something which ought to cause alarm on both sides of the House, not just on one. It is a matter which causes considerable difficulty in communication. I can understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels the need to talk about an enterprise government. It is possible that in the past people have forgotten too much the need to create wealth from which services
292
must be financed. However, we must have both and we must have communication.
I come back to the question: what has gone wrong with the calculation of these figures? I am not an expert in this area; I am hoping that if I do not have it right somebody else may start suggesting what is right. Two points occur to me as well worth pursuing. One is the decision of the 1980 White Paper on public spending to calculate spending in public services in terms of the retail price index and not in terms of the cost of that service.
Perhaps I may take one example of how that operates. The cost of books happens to be something about which I know a little. Between 1981 and 1986 book prices have risen by 82 per cent. and learned journal prices by 110 per cent., compared with an increase in the retail price index of 32 per cent. So we can afford to take a figure for spending on books which is above the retail price index which we can say is an increase in real terms but which nevertheless represents a very drastic cut in the number of books we are able to buy.
I do not know how widely that phenomenon applies. I think that it applies in large areas of the health service and of the defence budget, although I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, made in the defence debate, that there are some years in which the cost of the defence budget has increased less than the RPI. But the form of that statement was itself a concession of the point.
The other point which seems to me to apply in quite a lot of cases is again something to which attention was drawn by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in the defence debate. It is the question of the funding, or the partial funding, of pay increases. If we have an increase which appears to be genuine in real terms but does not cover the whole pay increase, then it is not an increase in real terms.
I take the point that the pay increases are inflationary. I have never had any reason to believe that public pay increases are more inflationary than private pay increases. I do not think we can contemplate running public services without any pay increases at all. So long as there are pay increases there has to be some method by which they can be financed.
That merely underlines the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as recently as 12th July, that the only exception he could remember was the nurses' pay increase. He has since learnt better no doubt. This is quite a technical area.
The problem is also raised: where do we go from here? I am not arguing for a bottomless public purse. I know perfectly well that there is no such thing. I understand that a Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to take a distinctly dim view of programmes which were permanently committed to increasing faster than the retail price index. However, I hope that, in turn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer understands that he cannot have something for nothing. In a number of cases—one of which I think any noble Lord who came to the House by Underground will be aware—in some areas prices constantly increase faster than the retail price index. It can be very difficult indeed to stop that. Sometimes,

293
as with the cost of books, it is not at all under the control of those doing the purchasing.
The case I am arguing is the same case as was argued in the defence debate by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Hill-Norton. That seems to me, mutatis mutandis, to be true for all the public services. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, put it:
"Our commitments arc plainly too great and too diffuse for the money which the Government see fit to make available".—[Official Report, 12/7/88; col. 754.]
There is a mismatch between the level of spending and the level of commitments. I do not say that it is automatic as to what ought to be done with that mismatch. But I will say that I can see no political perspective from which it seems to be sensible to pick that mismatch as a deliberate object of policy. Granted the concern about inflation which I understand, there are some things such as health for which we really have to pay. We do not have much choice about it. I have never been shown any reason why £X of public spending is more inflationary than £X of private spending going on exactly the same thing. If one shifts spending from public to private, I cannot see that it would become less inflationary. If that is a mistake of mine, I hope that someone will put me right. One must consider whether it is cheaper in the long run to spend money. Very often, as with a leaking roof in one's own house, it is cheaper to spend money:
Finally, at the end of the day, one must make a political choice. That is the choice which, for all their talk about hard choices, I do not think this Government have yet made. The Government must give up the idea that they are increasing spending on public services in real terms. Granted their concern not to increase public spending, the Government must choose whether they give up that concern or whether they decide to stop some of the services existing altogether.
In 1981, for example, there was a 15 per cent. cut in the universities' budget. Instead of reducing the costs of every university by 15 per cent., it would have been a much more coherent policy to close 15 per cent. of universities and to reduce student numbers by 15 per cent. I do not say that that would have been a good policy, but I think that it would have been a more coherent one than the policy we have at present. Under these circumstances, to persist with tax cuts and claim that public spending is being increased in real terms seems to me to be a failure to grapple with the problems which are immediately and urgently in front of us.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am the third Member of your Lordships' House who has to rise today and humbly apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for not being in my place when he rose to speak. Being the third Member I cannot really offer any excuses, but I shall make a particular point of reading what I know were his very fine words in Hansard tomorrow.
I thought that the Budget was particularly excellent and possibly one of the finest that we have seen under this Government. It crossed over all social
294
barriers. Almost every single household will be better off than it was before. At last we have seen the heralding of a new phase of budget surplus and the long-term aim of a balanced budget. Those are things which Conservatives have wanted for very many years. At last when we are on the streets talking to ordinary people about what Conservatives are effectively doing for the economy, we can hold up this Budget as being a fine example of what Socialists were never able to do.
There has been a brave and courageous reform of income tax from six banded levels to two; whereas in 1979 this Government inherited 11. The Budget will lead to a more efficient system. We have seen in it a lack of complexity and, obviously, a lack of bureaucracy. Complexity and bureaucracy are no good to anyone. There are no fears now of being a taxpayer. There is less avoidance of tax and more incentive to pay it. I am led to understand that the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers now pay a third as much in real terms as they did in 1978–79.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is not in his place at the moment because what is so nice about speaking in this Second Reading debate is that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord was not in his place when my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was making his speech.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I take the point very clearly that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has made. I did not intend to castigate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for not being present; I simply wanted to talk about some of the things that he mentioned. However, I can do that at another time with the noble Lord.
I wanted to speak today in order to refer to one point in the Budget about which I am confused. It concerns the aspect of capital gains tax. It is a small point and I am not sure that I shall get much support for it from noble Lords opposite, although I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, mention very similar points. On a question of principle, capital gains tax on assets held over very many years is, I believe, an inherently bad thing. It is traditionally unconservative and promotes the seeking of short-term gain instead of long-term gain. There are for instance, the problems of the very prudent investor who perhaps over the past few years has been an investor in The Stock Exchange and who would have paid capital gains tax every April. But he gets nothing back should he have made a loss in the current year because capital losses are only allowable against gains in the current year. He is thus locked into assets, waiting for the day when they might come up again. He is held into them for taxation reasons rather than for sound investment reasons. I believe that that is ultimately bad for the country and we all suffer for that stagnation of investment.
A possible solution to that would be to make capital gains tax assessable over a period of years, or otherwise to make capital losses allowable against income tax. Further, and more specific to this Budget, by reducing the allowance from £6,300 to £5,000, the Chancellor has made it more likely that

295
people will have to pay capital gains tax at a higher rate of income tax. That is what encourages people out of long-term capital gain into what appears at the moment to be safer and more immediate income, which is usually spent as soon as it is received.
That simply cannot be the Government's intention, as I feel that it has always been vital to encourage people to save and invest for the longest term. However, I do not want that to cast any shadow on what I ultimately believe to be the most important Budget of this Government. The benefits and the freeing effects of this Budget will be felt for very many years to come.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I had the pleasure of hearing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor open this debate. I wish to welcome him to our financial and economic debates and, if I may, congratulate him on his delivery. The delivery of the noble and learned Lord is always very good, but this time he did not try too hard to convince us that he believed in every single word that he was uttering. However, at the same time, I hasten to assure the noble and learned Lord that I agreed with some of the things that he was saying.
I also agreed with some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was saying. I did not agree with a lot of what he was saying, but there was, nevertheless, a little part of his speech with which I agreed. I agree that we would be very foolish not to recognise that in recent years the economy here in the UK has been doing very well. We have had higher levels of economic growth than we have had for some time. I welcome that and I believe that it is possible to sustain that, even with the current level of balance of payments deficit, as has been said.
I agree with the Government that with our levels of reserves it is perfectly possible in the short-term—I shall want to say a little more about that later—to live with even the current levels of balance of payments deficit. I also agree with the Government that it is better to see falling unemployment with levels of inflation of 5 or even 6 per cent. than rising levels of unemployment with slightly lower rates of inflation
However, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, to put it mildly, the picture that they painted failed to deal with the serious underlying problems that are there for anyone to see who looks at the situation in the economy. Some of those problems cover the area of responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I very much like the noble Lord and I hope that he will not mind when I say that I consider it a grave discourtesy to your Lordships that he has not taken part in this debate. However, I shall leave it at that as the noble Lord is not present. It would have been interesting, for example, to hear from the noble Lord which side he is on in the dispute between the Prime Minister and his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Which side is he on on the question of exchange rates? It would have been interesting to hear his views. I am sorry that we shall not be able to do so. On the other hand, it may be that
296
he agrees with me; and perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, will tell us that that argument is the wrong dispute at the wrong time, in the wrong place, between the wrong people and on the wrong issue. Let me explain what I mean by that.
It is the wrong argument because, having agreed the economic strategy —the Prime Minister has told us how brilliant the strategy was; the word "brilliant" was used constantly—how can one then argue about what is, in the short term, the comparatively irrelevant problem of short-term interest rates and exchange rates? It is the wrong time because the time for disagreement was when the economic strategy was devised some years ago or at the time when the Budget was announced. The time for disagreement was when the policies were put in place. Any other time is the wrong time.
It is the wrong place because such issues should be discussed in Parliament and not behind closed doors, at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street—if that is where such discussions take place. Sometimes such discussions seem to take place across the Atlantic.
It is between the wrong people because the Prime Minister agrees wholeheartedly with her brilliant Chancellor. It is the wrong issue, not because the question of interest rates and exchange rates are unimportant—far from it—but because the Chancellor is in the absurd position of having a Budget in which he has distributed large sums of money to the applause of many and the thanks of not a few, and some months later he has massively increased interest rates because he is surprised that what he is doing in loosening money supplies, loosening credit and fuelling it by giving further tax reductions has resulted in a growth in consumer demand. I cannot understand why anyone should be surprised at that.
To talk about the peripheral issue of balance of payments and interest rates is to talk about the wrong issue. We should be discussing economic strategy and policy. Has it been successful in fundamentally changing for the better the problems we face as a nation? I pose that question to your Lordships because the Select Committee on Overseas Trade reported to the House on 30th July of 1985. It was an all-party Select Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was its chairman. Perhaps I may quote briefly from the report. It is relevant to the question of whether anything has changed fundamentally. Page 83 of the report states:
"Unless the climate is changed so that steps can he taken to enlarge the manufacturing base, combat import penetration and stimulate the export of manufactured goods, as oil revenues diminish the country will experience adverse effects".
The Select Committee could not have been more right in that matter. It also spoke of:
"an adverse balance of payments of such proportions that severely deflationary measures will be needed".
I do not believe that severe deflationary measures are needed now, for the reasons that I have indicated. We have sufficient foreign currency reserves to avoid those measures. However, the Committee was speaking of the time when North Sea oil would be completely gone. In fact, we have deficits of some £10 billion this year, while we still have a fair amount of

297
North Sea oil. The Select Committee was not being extravagant in its choice of language.
The Committee went on to say that:
"these constitute a grave threat to the standard of living and to the economic and political stability of the nation."
Looking at our economic situation, the success to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, and the great credit which has been given to the Chancellor in his Budget, we must ask, when an all-party Select Committee looks at the matter in that way, whether anything has changed fundamentally.
One of the criticisms which was made of the Select Committee by the Chancellor and others in disagreeing with its conclusions was that it did not come up with any solutions. Equally, I do not have a simple solution to offer. However, I know a wrong solution when I see one. Pouring money into the hands of the consumer and then being surprised when it is used to import more consumer goods because our manufacturers cannot supply them is not likely to be successful in the long term.
Although I do not agree with every figure on balance of payments deficits which was given by my noble friend, Lord Jay, I agree that the problem is not that imports of consumer goods have risen very quickly. It is much more serious. In the first five months of this year exports of manufactured goods actually fell. In those circumstances, how can anyone say that our economic policy is correct? How can it be argued that every problem is solved and we are on a lovely path to prosperity for all? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he is sure that people will be delighted that we now have a balanced budget. I am sure that millions of our fellow citizens will not even be aware that there is a balanced budget; they are too concerned with their own budgets.
In the next few months we may see better trade figures. I certainly hope that we shall. It will also be possible to do a little creative accounting and make them look a bit better; I am sure that we shall have some of that. However, the long-term consequences that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee referred to have been obscured by a short-term economic success which has been used to further an ideological policy which asserts that if the extra money from North Sea oil and increasing growth is put into the hands of the people, then that will solve all our problems. That is, if you like, the opposite of the argument that the Government know best.
I have great faith in the good sense of the British people. I certainly do not agree that the Government always know best. However, I doubt whether even the British people want responsibility for deciding the fate of the British economy. I am not sure that many people anywhere would like that responsibility. I doubt whether the great majority of the British people want it. They know that there is a need for balance. They know that long-term problems will not be solved by throwing money at them, whether problem areas are in the public or the private sectors.
They also know that more money for the National Health Service, for example, would help the sick and
298
disabled in our community. More money for the police would help with the problem of crime. More money for housing would help more people who are living in terrible circumstances. More money for social security would help people at the bottom end of the income scale. More money spent on road and rail transport and capital investment would help private industry more than anything which has been done in this and previous Budgets. Above all, they know that policies in that direction, while not solving everything, would be of great help both to the balance of payments and inflation, and to sustaining the levels of economic growth that we have seen in recent years. Whereas the present policy of maximising tax cuts not only widens the North-South divide—which I do not altogether go along with—it widens the public sector-private sector divide which is the most serious division which the country faces. Private industry cannot survive successfully against the background of a deteriorating public sector environment.
The worst thing about it is that the policy condemns too many of our citizens to a life which none of us should find tolerable. I have always said—and I am not going back on anything that I said when I was responsible for public expenditure—that public expenditure has to be controlled. Unlimited funds are not available for growth in public expenditure. However, that should not mean, especially in current circumstances, a steady decline in the standard and level of public services.
I am sure that Ministers and noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House want their children and grandchildren to grow up in a decent, civilised society. That requires a decent level of public services. We neglect those services at our peril, especially when we have an opportunity for some increase now. It seems to me that unless the present policies are reversed not only do we damage irretrievably our long term economic prospects, but we do great harm to something we all hold dear—the vital social cohesion of our nation.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to make a contribution to this debate and I do so very willingly. I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in a great deal of what he had to say. His contribution, like that of my noble friend Lord Jay, comes from long experience in another place and in government at a high level dealing with the matters which are covered by this debate. I want not only to commend what they said, but also to say how much I enjoyed their speeches. I want also to contrast their view of the realities of the Budget and the underlying situation revealed by the Budget with the comments of, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He said that there is not a family in this country which has not benefited in some way from the Budget. To put it politely, that is not true.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, from a sitting position, shakes his head. I understand that he is circumscribed in what he might have to say.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that the term I used was "household".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should be very interested if the noble Lord would care to sustain that point with statistical evidence.
One of the shams of the argument put forward from the opposite Benches is that in considering the impact of the Budget they look only at what is contained in the Finance Bill, divorcing it totally from the other measures which this Government have taken: in the field of social security benefits, child allowances and a great many others. There are 9 million families in this country who are worse off as a result of the decisions of the past three months, not only because they have been denied benefits but also because interest rates have been increased five times in the past few months. That has not only affected industry, it has also put up the cost of borrowing money and of mortgages. The £3 or £4 a week which was gained in the Budget by many households has completely evaporated in the meantime. I think that this is an incredibly mean and shabby Budget when looked at against the yardstick of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—the social cohesiveness of this country.
I do not deny and the Government have been very proud to say that some people have done very well indeed out of this Budget. There is no denying that. But I think that it is offensive—it is obscene—when one considers the amount of money which has been poured into the pockets of those who already had a great deal while relief is denied to many others. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, set the scene very well—and I commend him on his report. People who are already very well off did not need any more. We are told that apparently those people, who since 1979 have been given on average £10,000 a year in tax benefits, need to be given more in order to work more productively; in order to work more successfully. Others who are struggling are apparently to be denied in order to pay for the benefits of the well-off.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went out of his way to pay tribute to the value of the business expansion scheme as something which would encourage people to invest. He also paid tribute to what it might do for the private rented sector. I was interested in that point because those who have followed the debates in this House over the past few days cannot help but have been deeply impressed by the contributions—primarily from this side of the Chamber—exposing the absolute misery in which hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of our people are struggling to survive in rotten housing conditions.
I shall tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who will benefit from the business expansion scheme—a man called Nicholas van Hoogstraten. Nicholas van Hoogstraten is the modern-day equivalent of Rachman. My honourable friend in another place, Gordon Brown, quoted this, which I should like to repeat here.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that to quote from speeches made in
300
another place in the current session is permissible only in respect of Ministers' speeches?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was not going to quote what Gordon Brown said, I was going to quote what he said that somebody else had said. I am out of order once removed. Let me see if I get away with it. Perhaps I may tell the House what a firm of accountants said the business enterprises scheme would do:
"Rachman, one suspects, would not have been slow to take advantage of the scheme had it been around in the sixties".
I simply say that Nicholas van Hoogstraten will not be slow to take advantage of that scheme.
Whatever the laudable objectives of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Government and others in setting up the scheme, it will be used primarily by those who have the power to make the lives of those who are living in abject conditions miserable as a device to make their lives even more miserable. It is a device which they will take advantage of with relish. It is all part of the strategy of the Budget.
When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and other noble Lords who think like him, point to people being a miserable pound or two better off as a result of the Budget, they forget that in the past few weeks there have been a number of other changes. There have been rises in electricity which will affect those households; there have been rises in water charges, prescription charges, and in gas charges. If the Government have their way there will also be charges for having one's eyes tested or one's teeth checked as well. So when one talks of the impact of the Budget one has to put it in perspective.
I think that one of the sad things about the Budget is that it could have done so much. What it has in fact done is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. We have a Government whose motto is not "God helps those who help themselves" but "God helps those whom he has already helped". In this instance, I think that the Government should be condemned.
The greatest crime of all has been that the Government have failed to address themselves to a number of issues. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, drew attention to one of the almost inconsequential circumstances in which this rich and burgeoning country apparently finds itself; one of the minutiae—of children being able readily to have access to books of a good standard for their education. There is an inhibition there. What about building decent hospitals? I do not deny that new hospitals have been built but what about building more, and what about building more houses?
From listening to our debates on housing, it strikes me how great are the divides in our society. There are those who are adequately or well-housed and those who are not. I have some news for noble Lords opposite: there are now far more people who are not adequately housed than there ever were or than ever the Government are likely to acknowledge. I do not assert that the Government do not know about them or that they ignore them, but those people do not get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to enjoying the good things of life.

301
This Government say that they believe in investment, but if Britain had invested its North Sea oil revenues in the past few years internally in the same way as Japan has done, there would have been £350 billion more invested in British industry. If we had invested at the same rate as Germany, it would have been £100 billion more. Even by Labour Government standards, if investment had been at the same level as it was under the previous Labour Government, we should have had £50 billion more. The Government may well believe that the way to induce us all to work harder is to reward those who already have more than most, but I doubt whether that is true. This Budget was born out of greed, founded on indifference to the poor and erected on selectivity toward the rich. How can one justify allowing 1 per cent. of the population to become increasingly rich by giving them in the same Budget an equal amount of money as 15 million families received? That is inequitable and unjust. It is the way that this Government continue to manage our affairs.
I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about somewhat different matters. The Minister will recall that during the comparable debate last year—I think it was the present Minister—I asked him to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the changes that had been made in that year's Budget which benefited the friendly societies movement. In the closing minutes of my speech I want to claim his attention not only by repeating that sentiment but also by asking him to take fully on board the fact that there are small financial institutions, such as friendly societies, which could benefit from a little more encouragement from the Government. The financial services industry still operates within the powers and legislative framework that were laid down over 100 years ago. It has been modernised and there is now the Financial Services Act, the Banking Act and the Insurance Companies Act. But the friendly societies movement still operates within a framework that was instituted over 100 years ago.
Perhaps the Government will give more recognition to the friendly societies which want to play a bigger and more important part. They have a good record for encouraging thrift and prudence which is not just of benefit to their members, although friendly societies have many members. There are 400 individual societies with a membership of 7 million. I believe that the Government could look profitably at the work of small and financially prudent organisations such as friendly societies. They have recently made a submission to the Chancellor about ways in which it may be possible for the Government to provide them with tax incentives such as those given to insurance companies. I can certainly tell the Minister that should he look favourably upon that submission, his answer will be very well received.
Another interest of mine that I have declared on other occasions is my link with the Co-operative Movement. That movement is grateful to the Government for their amendment to Schedule 7 of the Finance Bill which ensures that the beneficial changes to capital gains tax calculations which are outlined in Section 94 of the Bill are available to industrial and provident societies.
302
Schedule 7 lists the enactments which qualify transactions to be regarded as "no gain/loss" disposals. The Co-operative Movement asked that the merger of Co-operative Societies should he specifically qualified by the acceptance of that amendment. They are not asking for any special favours, nor for a new status so far as concerns the merger of Co-operative Societies. The status asked for by the Co-operative Movement is already enshrined in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The movement wanted the existing status to be repeated in Schedule 7 of the Finance Bill. They believe that its absence from the schedule was an oversight. I pay tribute to the Chancellor and his advisers because I believe that when these matters were drawn to his attention in Committee in another place the appropriate steps were taken.
The matter is a of special concern to the Cooperative Union whose membership is made up principally of retail Co-operative Societies. Those societies regard merger with each other as prime business strategy, partly to avoid the closure of any small society that may be in trouble but mainly to enable the economies of scale enjoyed by large societies.
I appreciate that I have made special pleading for a body with which I have a very long association. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there are certain aspects of the taxation system which bear down heavily on Co-operative Societies in comparision with other organisations. I hope that he will be able to say something kind in his remarks at the end of the debate.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, normally when one speaks at the end of a debate one feels rather fed up because all the good points have already been made. Certainly they have all been made from this side of your Lordships' House so far as I am concerned. I am slightly surprised at the lack of participation of noble Lords from the other side of the House. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would have been queueing up to say how marvellous was this brilliant Budget.
Tonight I am not upset about speaking after many other noble Lords; nor am I concerned about not having anything new to say on the topics that have already been raised. I should like to concentrate on just one matter; namely international monetary reform, which is a theme that I believe to be relevant to the issues that confront our country now and will certainly confront it in the next few years.
I should like to start by considering the question of flexible exchange rates and go on essentially to argue why it would be right to move back to a fixed exchange rate. First, let us consider the case made for flexible exchange rates. The simplest argument assumed that we had a current account deficit caused by our country's price levels being too high. It was then argued that it was easier to deal with such a deficit by allowing a market-led devaluation rather than by having a policy-led intervention in order to try to reduce prices, because such a policy-led

303
intervention would require a large and persistent rise in unemployment.
Another way of putting the case for flexible exchange rates is to say that the exchange rate would simply adjust continually to offset price rises. Therefore in a world of flexible exchange rates there would be no external financial crises. Central banks would not need large reserves of gold and hard currencies in order to preserve any particular parity. A particular aspect of the case for flexible exchange rates was the argument that a floating rate would insulate the economy from external shocks—we should be protected from what was happening in the rest of the world—because the whole burden of adjustment would be borne by the exchange rate. That was also supposed to mean that this country could pursue an independent monetary policy and that in that way we should have no difficulty in maintaining full employment. One final by-product of the case for flexible exchange rates or floating rates is that they would obviate the need for protection and help to preserve free trade.
That is the case, as briefly as I can state it, for flexible exchange rates and of course that case has just one slight difficulty, which is that it is not borne out by the facts. Exchange rates in the era of floating rates have not moved to offset movements in relative international prices. There have therefore been substantial shifts in so-called real exchange rates. I do not wish to horrify the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but apart from real public expenditure, there are also real exchange rates that we have to take into account.
However, there have been substantial shifts. These involve substantial changes in the international competitiveness of British industry brought about by floating rates. They have affected the structure of industry. Because of that, they have on occasions given rise to current account deficits or exacerbated the deficits that we have. We all now recognise that national economies, and our own economy, have not been insulated from external economic effects. It has been the case continually in the flexible exchange rate era that central banks have felt constrained by what is happening in the world at large.
In other words, countries in the floating exchange rate era—for example, the last 15 or more years—have felt themselves to be just as interdependent, just as affected by what happens in the rest of the world, as they were in the fixed exchange rate era.
Another aspect of our economic experience during the flexible era has been that, almost by definition, we have lived in a period of much more unstable currencies than we had during the Bretton Woods regime. Indeed the changes in actual exchange rates in this period have been quite massive. Daily changes of 1 per cent. are by no means rare. Monthly changes in exchange rates of 5 per cent. are by no means rare. Those are large changes. We compare them with the level of profits that exporting firms would hope to earn.
What is the explanation? Why have flexible exchange rates failed in the world economy? The explanation is very simple. It is to do with
304
international capital mobility. That is the nature of the problem. Most of the early theory of flexible exchange rates concentrated on the current account of the exchange rates. I do not say that there were a lot of idiots around. I have given lecture courses over a great many years on this subject. I can assure noble Lord that for a long time I too concentrated solely on the current account of the balance of payments when I was discussing the question of flexible exchange rates. But that was an error.
It is simply not the case that the shocks to the world economy are due largely, or even mostly, to changes in the world's propensity to buy from us or to sell to us. The shocks to the system that we need to take into account are shocks due to the great mobility of international capital; and the fact that capital moves from country to country for purely financial reasons.
The problem that has confronted us—and I give our country as an example, but it has been true of many countries—is that an inflow of funds to our country causes sterling to appreciate. The effect is to make our exports dearer in world terms and our imports cheaper in sterling terms. The effects of this capital mobility therefore are to move the current account into deficit and in particular to threaten those firms producing tradeable goods.
The fundamental point that occurs here is that the adjustment is asymmetric. The excessive rise of a currency damages a tradeable, or potentially exportable, section of the economy. When the exchange rate moves back again—as sometimes happens—those sectors of the economy have gone out of existence. They therefore do not immediately bounce back to take account of the subsequent depreciation.
Some economists have argued that speculators would operate to reduce this exchange rate volatility; that essentially we live in a world of speculators who would buy and sell currencies in a way that would stabilise international financial markets. One difficulty with that view—and again it is one that has dawned on us only in recent years—is that the scale of international capital movements is so large that speculators simply do not have funds that they can use to arbitrage in this matter. But there is a further problem. The way that speculators operate in foreign exchange markets, far from dampening down fluctuations in currency values, seems to exacerbate them. Indeed we have all now become used to worrying about so-called speculative bubbles: currencies that simply move in a particular direction because the speculation is feeding on the fact that speculators expect other speculators to assume that the currency will move in a particular direction. These bubbles build on each other. This factor added to the instability.
Perhaps I may pause for a moment to remark about our current circumstances. There seems to be a great danger at this very moment that a speculative bubble is developing in the sterling:deutschemark rate which again could be extremely deleterious to our economy during the next few months, and longer. Financial markets generally in this era have been much more volatile. In other words, it is not merely the exchange rate that has been volatile. Interest

305
rates, share prices and share yields have been more volatile. Although not excluding the foreign exchanges, it is hard to believe that any of this volatility reflects real forces or fundamentals. It is hard to believe that it reflects it in the short term, but I have some doubts as to whether this volatility reflects it in the long term either.
One particular aspect concerns the Stock Market crash of 1987. What is interesting about that is that it does not seem to have had a major effect so far on most economies. There are some American economists whom I respect who still believe that it is about to happen. However, they suffer from the same illness from which I suffer: the economist's natural pessimism. It does not appear that we shall have a major world crash connected with that Stock Market crash. That means that the world stock markets had become seriously out of line with reality beforehand if in crashing they do not then have a further effect on the world economy.
If noble Lords have any doubts about the nature of the foreign exchange markets, I suggest that the appreciation of the dollar, for example, from 1983 to 1985 casts serious doubts on both the efficiency of foreign exchange markets and the rationality of foreign exchange dealers.
The best example of a floating exchange rate problem—and here I come to our immediate position—is the policy dilemma facing the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time. I have a few words to say on that. I say this with trepidation because I do not wish to ruin the Chancellor's career—although it would be difficult to do that because he has done so well. However, what little I know about the controversy between the Chancellor and his right honourable friend the Prime Minister is that the Chancellor seems to have some glimmering of understanding of the economy and economics. It is hard to see that whoever is advising the Prime Minister has any understanding of this matter whatever.
The problem that faces the Chancellor is one that has already been mentioned. It is that the Chancellor is short of policy instruments. He is in that position from his own decision. He is needlessly short, but he is short of policy instruments. He needs a policy instrument to tie down the rate of inflation. His problem is that of naive monetarism, which has died. Indeed, it has died two deaths. First, it is apparently more difficult to control the money supply than even the most extreme Keynesians among us believe. I never hesitate to remind noble Lords opposite that those of us who did not believe in controlling the money supply were infinitely better at doing so than noble Lords opposite or their honourable friends, who believe in it but do not seem able to carry it out. That is one death.
The Government have had appalling luck. They do not seem able to find any measure of monetary conditions that they can keep under control. I am an economist who believes in my subject. There must be a measure of money control that the Government could follow, but I cannot find one at the moment.
306
However, the second interesting death of naive monetarism is that the key to it, so we are told, is to keep public finances under control. The Government have to some extent kept public finances under control. We no longer have an apparent fiscal deficit and yet, despite that fact—whether it be sterling M3, M2, M4, M Zero or MO (I am never sure what we are supposed to call it)—they all go drifting in any way they will. Unfortunately any way that they will is upwards. Therefore we end up with the points that noble Lords mentioned that the only inflation-controlling instrument left appears to be short-term interest rates. But there are grave doubts about the effect of short-term interest rates on inflation. They put up the value of sterling and that directly mitigates the rise in price levels because of the influence it has on the way import prices are measured. And that is offset by the house mortgage effect.
But putting up interest rates is potentially disruptive to the real economy. It makes exporting less profitable and the demand effect is much more likely to occur on business investment than on consumer expenditure.
All that leads me to two conclusions that I should like to outline. The first is that we really need to move forward on international financial reform. Most economists though not all, have come to the conclusion that we must move back to the era in which nominal exchange rates are fixed. One does not mean by that a precise return to Bretton Woods. That system was too rigid, or at least it would be so for the present day, and some countries, not least our own, were optimistic about the exchange rate targets they could keep to. What we need now are some broad bands within which currencies can and should move without formal devaluation—certainly wider bands than Bretton Woods allowed. I belong to the so-called adjustable peg school of thought, which believes that the mid-points of these bands should be allowed to move gradually and automatically in line with market forces. As we got the benefits of relatively fixed exchange rates which would help to tie down the inflation problem of the economy, we should also have the benefits of showing some rational response to market forces.
I come to one last reform. Having listened to what I thought was a quite brilliant speech from my noble friend Lord Jay, I part company with him at this point. I at least—I must emphasise "I" (our side of your Lordships' House is no less disunited than noble Lords opposite)—believe that the time has come for us to go further and take an immediate decision to join the European monetary system. This has nothing to do with leaving the EC. We shall not leave the EC. One can produce many diagnoses of what the consequences of joining the EC have been, but we are not moving. We are in and have to make the best of it. If we are to make the best of a challenge in 1992 then EMS is part of the key to that. I particularly emphasise on the trading side the enormous benefits we gain to the extent that we can invoice our trading in sterling. We should not underestimate the benefits to us when we are writing invoices in sterling and not in other currencies. If we are not fully in the EMS and fully committed to it there is undoubtedly an exchange risk that foreign importers will find from

307
sterling-invoiced documents. For that, if for no other reason, I suggest that we should be within the European monetary system. It provides a basis beyond that for European monetary co-operation. It provides a basis for European fiscal co-operation.
However that does not mean that it solves all our problems. I am aware that within the EMS there is still the problem of the exchange rate floating against the dollar. I do not doubt that what happens in America strongly affects what will happen in the rest of the world. But the fact that choosing an improvement still leaves one with problems is no reason not to choose that improvement. I am also aware of the extent to which Germany would dominate the EMS. Germany dominates Europe anyway. But the way to deal with that is to be part of it and to use our power to offset the dominance rather than to shrug and to say that we shall not join.
I conclude by saying that there are no simple solutions to international monetary reform. It is a matter of balance. But I can think of fewer more sensible decisions that this country could take at this time than an international monetary move to join an exchange rate system which would give a lead to more general international financial reform.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I wish to pursue the matter that I raised at the time when the House was asked to agree to all stages of the Finance Bill being taken on the same day. I wish to introduce into this discussion upon it—that is the relationship between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons—matters of finance, public expenditure and administration. There is an element of urgency in this, I believe. From my point of view I have been dealing with this matter now for several years and I believe it to be of great importance to the future of your Lordships' House I do not believe enough interest is being taken in how relations between your Lordships' House and another place may develop as a result of the growing assertion of confidence and strength on matters of public affairs in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, alluded to what happened yesterday, which was quite important. The Local Government Finance Bill came back from the Commons. Some of us had wondered when the community charge was included in the Local Government Finance Bill whether that Bill would be certified as a money Bill under the Parliament Act 1911. If one reads the Parliament Act 1911 one realises why the Local Government Finance Bill was not certified as a money Bill because the Parliament Act specifically excludes from its provisions,
"any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes."
That seems to exclude from the provisions of the Parliament Act a Bill which authorises local authorities to impose a certain type of community charge.
Consideration by this House did not remove the privileges of the House of Commons on matters of
308
taxation and public expenditure. It was those privileges which were raised in the message given to your Lordships' House yesterday on matters relating to the community charge which have been subject to decision adverse to the Government in your Lordships' House. These concessions which we decided in the Bill should be granted to certain sections of the community—concessions against the full community charge—the Commons sent back with a single response, saying in effect: "This is an intrusion on the ancient privileges of the House of Commons and that is sufficient for us to send it back". Back it came and your Lordships accepted the return on the terms upon which the House of Commons sent it to us. So, even though the Parliament Act may not apply to a Bill in the terms prescribed by the Parliament Act, underlying all activities are still the privileges of the House of Commons on matters of taxation and public expenditure.
I should like to refer in passing to a few lines in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. They are sometimes lost sight of and probably in many cases not even remembered. They state:
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation".
There was a promise of the reform of the House of Lords well over 70 years ago. The Parliament Act is the same age as the Official Secrets Act. On Friday this House will put the Official Secrets Act through the mincer. At long last the Government say that it must be reformed but there is no "long last" about the Parliament Act. We hear nothing about it and your Lordships do not say much about it either.
From my point of view the urgency is this. It will shortly be 40 years since I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons sitting in this Chamber. I was then over 50 years of age. One does not have to be very good at arithmetic to concede the point that my time to pursue this and other matters is running out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It does not look like it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: That is why I am going to make the best of it while I can. The second urgency from my point of view is the pending implementation of recommendations of the Keith Committee on administration and enforcement of inland revenue. The Keith Committee reported in 1983, having been charged with the duty of looking at the administration and enforcement of taxation and at two areas of self-government in this country. One area was the Customs and Excise; the other was the Inland Revenue. The recommendations have been under review for some years.
In 1986 the Finance Act introduced many changes into VAT and the powers of the Customs and Excise. As I have said in the House on previous occasions, in 1986 Parliament erected within the compass of administration of VAT a separate code of punitive law wholly in the hands of the Customs and Excise. It did not require a separate Act to do so partly because there was no precedent for it and partly because the ethos of the Customs and Excise is more authoritarian and independent than that of the

309
Inland Revenue. The Customs and Excise touches on traders, business people, smugglers, drug traffickers, exchange control breachers and so forth. It does not deal with the millions of citizens at large in the same way as the Inland Revenue.
The Customs and Excise has its new powers following the Keith Report. The Inland Revenue is about to receive its new powers. The first instalment of the Keith recommendations appears to be in Chapter 5 of the Bill, which contains several clauses increasing the powers of the Revenue over the citizen. The Keith Report contained 99 recommendations relating to tax administration. They are set out in an appendix to a pale blue book which was published by the Inland Revenue in 1986. Not all require legislation; some can be implemented by administration. Not all have been accepted. I believe that one recommendation of the Keith Committee came close to re-erecting the stocks and putting tax delinquents in them to be pelted by the more honourable members of the community; the virtuous members of the community. It was not quite so brutal, but the recommendation was to publish the names of those who had reached terms in respect of fraud or gross negligence in their tax affairs and who had settled with the Inland Revenue by paying cash instead of going to trial for a criminal offence. I am glad to say that the Inland Revenue rejected that recommendation. It was a quite astonishing recommendation but that was not the first time that it had been made. It was first made by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1905. Many more of the recommendations are more relevant to tax administration and will come along.
When I was in the House of Commons I pressed continually for the separation of the complexities of administration and of tax avoidance from the main taxing Act. In the past the Finance Bill has tended to be a taxing Act and for that reason it can be certified as a money Bill without complications. As soon as it began to contain a number of recommendations relating to the powers of the Revenue over the citizens, and penalties to boot, the question arose as to whether it was part of a taxing Act.
It was not until 1970 that the Inland Revenue, with a large accumulation of changes in adminstration becoming necessary must have asked the Government to introduce a Taxes Management Act. That Act was not certified as a money Bill and it was not inhibited in its passage through your Lordships' House. That Act has not been consolidated into the income tax Acts; it is still separate. Every new clause in Chapter 5 implementing the recommendations of the Keith Committee is an amendment to the Taxes Management Act. These are not amendments to the income tax Acts; they are amendments to the Taxes Management Act and cover administration.
I shall not go into all of the proposals, because I wish to establish the principle. However, one of the proposals was that in future every citizen is under an obligation to the Inland Revenue himself to declare his own liability for income tax and not to wait for the Inland Revenue to send him a tax return to fill out. He must take the initiative. He must not only declare his/general liability to 'income tax but he is under an
310
obligation to declare at any stage thereafter any new source of income. He just do so within 12 months of the end of the year of assessment or be liable to a penalty of 100 per cent. in addition to the tax which he may have left unpaid.
What is that but a war on the black economy and on moonlighting wages? That is what it is. We shall see how it works out, bearing in mind that a large proportion of workers assessed under Pay As You Earn are not sent a tax return to complete for three, four of five years because the Inland Revenue is saving time by not having a lot of paper to deal with. The returns may not be sent out for completion and potential and actual taxpayers may be unaware that they must report a new source of income whether they return a form or not.
Whether it will make any practical sense depends on how it is to be administered. That is difficult to know. We do not always know what the reaction of people will be to the new phases of bureaucracy nor how unpopular officials can become when there are put into their hands new tools which, if not used with tact and consideration, can lead to a great deal of criticism.
What am I asking? I have already asked this unsuccessfully in the past. I ask the Government to give an assurance that in the implementation of the remaining Keith Committee recommendations, they will introduce amendments to the Taxes Management Act and keep them free of the inhibitions of being included in a money Bill. That is what I ask. if they are to have a step by step approach to this matter, it will go on for years. The public will be asked to take its nasty medicine a spoonful at a time but it will be difficult to measure the cumulative effect of all the new strictures and controls which will be put over the taxpayer until they are in full operation in years to come.
Otherwise, if the Government say that it is not convenient to do it that way, perhaps they will take steps to ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss in Committee parts of the Finance Bill such as Chapter 5 to send them back to the Commons for anything that we believe should be reconsidered without the Commons sending them back claiming their ancient privileges because this House should not be imposing a charge on the citizen and should not be involved in public expenditure. How else are we to get free of the incubus of the Parliament Act and the privileges of the House of Commons being used in matters which relate to the freedom of the citizen?
We should consider that the power of entry and the status of the legal authority to give a power of entry is decided in the House of Commons. It is taken out of our hands because it is in the Finance Bill. It was not in this House that the power of giving a certificate of authority for entry by the Inland Revenue was taken out of the hands of the magistrate and put into the hands of the circuit judge. That should have been done before it was done in the House of Commons when they saw the outrage aroused by enabling the Inland Revenue to go about its raiding operations—very detailed and penetrating they could be—on the say-so of a magistrate. I do not wish to denigrate magistrates but their certificates are given

311
far too freely and one has only to think of Cleveland for that.
In those circumstances, I am pleading for some restoration, if it is that, or some establishment of the right of your Lordships' House to protect the citizen from any excessive bureaucracy in the administration of our tax affairs. These are not revenue issues. This is a question of how the bureaucracy shall control the citizen. It may be a revenue matter in the sense that it involves recovery of tax arrears, but there are other means for that.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what has happened recently. Tax is now deducted from bank interest. Tax is now deducted from all interest payments at the rate of 25 per cent. However, the taxpayer who may have to bear taxes of that kind on interest received has no means of recovering the money if he is tax-exempt, any more than the building society investor can recover the compounded tax embodied in the interest which he receives on his investment. That is a tax on all incomes. There are no exemptions from that. The Revenue now has a grip on interest payments which it has wanted for years and has never been given by any previous Government. The banks nearly went beserk when Gaitskell decided that they should give a return to the Inland Revenue of interest credited in their accounts—something which they have now had to do for a number of years. However, the grip is growing: pay as you earn, tax deducted at source, tax charged upon interest whose recipient may be exempt but who is given no power to recover it—tax which is supposed to be an income tax based on a progressive scale but which is a block deduction at the current or compounded rate of tax.
This amounts to something in which, in my view, we should take an interest. The House of Commons is too pressed at Budget time to give attention to these matters. If we were given some relief from the prohibitions of the Parliament Act, I believe we should be rendering a public service and I do not think that the parliamentary system should deny that. I do not believe that the 1911 Act should be continued in its present form for that purpose. Heavens above! Is what passed in 1911 to stand for all time as the dark and forbidding shadow of the mistakes of the past? If we can revise the Official Secrets Act, I should think we could revise the Parliament Act; and that is what I have stayed here to say.
In conclusion, there is nothing sacrosanct or automatic about certifying a Finance Bill as a money Bill. Twenty-four Finance Bills since the war have not been certified as money Bills because the House of Commons was prepared to rely on its ancient privileges to stop the House of Lords tampering with matters of expenditure.
I do not wish to raise problems between this House and the House of Commons on matters which it might be thought should rest in the hands of an elected Chamber. However, I believe that we should have a reasonable opportunity to look after the interests of the citizen. If we get a comprehensive Bill dealing with the Keith recommendations so that we
312
can see the balance as between the rights of the Revenue and the rights of the citizen, if we can put it in one composite piece and look at it from one citizen's point of view, then I believe that will mean another Taxes Management Act. We can deal with that after the time of the Budget. We shall not be faced two days before the Summer Recess with the need to get the Finance Bill back within the month stipulated under the Parliament Act.
I beseech your Lordships to take an interest in the future of the House of Lords on these and other matters. Otherwise, trouble will accrue, difficulties will arise and we shall not know where we are because not the Conservative Party, not the Labour Party nor any other party knows what it would do with the House of Lords. The one reason why I am curious to live until the next General Election is to see, if a Labour Government come in, what they will do with this place. One thing I can tell you that they will not do: they will not abolish it. They dare not. Indeed, the public would wish this House to enhance its powers and prestige. I believe that many members of the public say, to coin a phrase, "We are safe in the hands of the House of Lords".
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, let us go onwards from 1911 to the Finance Bill of 1988. As I was partially responsible for raising the storm yesterday, it is reasonable that we should have the consequences today.
There were many matters in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which one has to agree. There is no question but that in recent years the economy has recovered in many ways. There is no question but that many people, although by no means all in this country, are feeling more prosperous and are glad to feel more prosperous. I do not know whether that is the reason that the Government have a majority of over 100 seats in. the House of Commons. I cannot bear to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I shall make the point that they achieved it only on a minority of votes, which does not suggest the kind of enthusiasm which we have been led to believe exists in the country by speakers on the Government Front Bench. However, that is for another day. Let us stick at present to the Finance Bill.
There are one or two other points in the Bill which have not yet been referred to and with which I agree. I should like to comment on them. It is satisfactory, although it does not go far enough, that for the first time a Finance Bill has taken a substantial step in the direction of recognising the separate employment of married women. It has moved in the direction of the individual being taxed in his or her own right as a citizen rather than being treated for tax and, one hopes, ultimately for benefit on the basis of marital status. It is interesting that no one else has commented on that substantial change, though the Lord Chancellor referred to it this afternoon.
Having said that, as I see it the Finance Bill represents a sadly lost opportunity. There has not been a Budget for a very long time in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had an opportunity

313
to carry out changes on a substantial scale; changes he has not been able to make in the past because he has been restricted through lack of funds. For the first time, as the Chancellor himself proclaimed with justifiable pride, he had far more resources than expected. This meant that he was far freer to make changes than he has been with previous Budgets, or have his predecessors.
Given that opportunity, what did the Chancellor decide to do? He had, as I said, a considerable amount of resources. He could have had even more resources if he had taken one or two measures which would have brought him in additional funds and therefore enlarged the opportunities open to him. For example—here I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos—he could at least have taken a step in the direction of restricting mortgage interest relief by limiting it to the basic rate of tax. It is extraordinary that, along with all the other benefits which have been showered on the better-off in our society, when it comes to the purchase of property they should have this additional advantage. It is true that the benefit is not as great with the tax rate at 40 per cent. than when it was at a much higher level. But it is still a substantial additional benefit over the standard rate tax payer. That would have brought in a considerable sum of money for the new developments that the Chancellor wished to pursue.
In addition—and I believe no one has mentioned this today—he could have cast a far more severe eye on excise duties. In a country increasingly worried by excess drinking and increasingly anxious about the effects of tobacco, it is extraordinary that in Budget after Budget these to some people desirable and to others less desirable commodities get off as easily as they do. There would have' been considerable public support for an increase in duty on those items because there is a heightened awareness of the increasing dangers to individuals and to society as a whole from the abuse of drink and tobacco. That is another lost opportunity.
However, those are not the lost opportunities to which I primarily refer. The Budget is a powerful—probably the major—instrument in the hands of the Government for their economic policy and to some extent for their social policy. Therefore, surely a Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing his Budget has to ask these questions. What is the major economic target at which I should be aiming? What is it that above all we should be trying to do? How can I so shape the Budget that I move in the direction in which I wish to go?
Surely the overwhelmingly important economic issue for this country is to increase the competitiveness of the British economy. We are moving—it has frequently been said, but it cannot be said too often—into a global economy. We are facing competition from the rising Pacific countries. We shall feel more competition, we hope, as other developing countries increase their outputs. One need only pause for a moment and think of what the effects will be if China and Russia take off economically. Moreover, as well all know, we are moving to the single market in 1992. Therefore, what can be more important economically, and therefore in the long
314
run socially, than to increase the competitiveness of British industry?
Faced with that overwhelmingly important challenge, what has the Chancellor done? As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, it is quite extraordinary that, in wanting to increase competitiveness and to make British goods easier to sell overseas, he has poured money, and therefore purchasing power, into the hands of the consumers. He is then astonished because the consumers spend that money. I do not know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been all these years, but has he never encountered the fact that when people have money they are inclined to spend it? The result of spending it of course is that, instead of improving our competitive position, the Chancellor has worsened it. Faced with that fact, what does he do? Having made the original error of encouraging people to spend, suck in imports and disregard the enormous importance of savings and investment, he deals with it by putting up interest rates.
As an instrument for seeking to improve the competitiveness of British industry, I can think of few instruments more blunt than the interest rate. It immediately puts up prices, reduces the ability of our industries to sell overseas, increases the prices of our imports and makes it far more difficult to maintain our position in international markets. On top of all that—and this is one reason why it is more difficult to sell overseas—he puts up the exchange rate just at a time when we want it down in order to sell overseas.
If those are the economic policies of the second Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold a first-class honours degree in economics, I do not know what it says for economics. It is certainly an odd way of dealing with the central problem in the longer term. However, as we have remarked so often, the Government are a very short-term government. If they can get a few more businesses set up, if they can see a few more people in employment, then everything is all right. But the Government are not asking themselves what will be the effect of these actions over the next five, 10 or 15 years. That is what should be considered. Since the Conservative Government take the line that they will be in office well until the 21st century, I should have thought that they would be interested in the longer term effects.
The Government have thrown away the best opportunity they have had of dealing with the competitiveness of British industry. They have thrown it away by the profligate encouragement of expenditure when the requirement was for the available money which was at last in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be used to encourage both private and public investment. Instead the reverse is the case—savings are down and expenditure is up. There must be a variety of ways in which private saving can be encouraged. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, may or may not be right in expressing doubts about additional tax incentives to encourage savings. However, there was la loi Monory in France, which encouraged people to invest, with tax incentives for private investment. Surely more could be done, if not by an instrument of that kind, in some other way to give people the encouragement to save more.

315
Of even more importance is public investment—public investment aimed at increasing the competitiveness of industry. There should be public investment in the infrastructure; for example, in the railways. Those noble Lords who travel frequently on British Rail, as I do, must be constantly reminded that it is a most uncomfortable way to travel due to the state of the track. That cannot be good for the way in which goods are moved from one part of the country to another. That is just one simple example of the need for public investment in the restructuring of industry, encouraging people to update their industry and to use the most up-to-date high technology developments that are available.
I mention also investment in people. We have spent far too many weary hours of this long, cold summer on the question of education. Too many people regard it as a consumer good. It is a consumer good, but it is also far more than that; it is an investment in people. One has only to read the accounts of what goes on in other countries. They spend money on developing people to get them up to the standard required: more people stay on at school, more money is spent on vocational training and more people go into higher education. Look at the Japanese figures. This is not being done by those governments exclusively because they believe in cultural values and the human values of education. It is being done because they see it as a hard-headed investment.
What are our Government doing? They will be cutting back on the investment in people by the various ways in which they have devised the new education processes, just at the time when above all else that is what we need. Along with that investment in people is the investment in research. At last there was a surplus to be spent. That surplus has not been spent; it has been squandered.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is always rather difficult to wind up from the Dispatch Box debates on the Finance Bill because many of your Lordships seek to range far and wide. It is quite right that you should do so because the Finance Bill itself ranges very far and wide.
I agree generally with a number of things that have been said today by noble Lords on all sides. In particular, I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just said. I shall try not to repeat those things with which I agree.
I cannot help noticing, as one of my noble friends noticed earlier, that the number of Conservatives speaking in support of this Bill is relatively limited. There have been two from the Conservative Back-Benches. Indeed, if I look across the open spaces—I see a noble Lord has just come in—there are not many on the Conservative side who seem to regard this as an extremely important debate. On this side we regard it as an extremely important debate. In addition, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who should have been introducing the debate, is detained elsewhere, and we have had the benefit of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who gave us the wisdom of his views on economics. He has had to leave his place, as
316
he said he would, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has also had to leave. I understand that; but it does become rather like being a member of the orchestra in Haydn's Farewell Symphony, where gradually each member of the orchestra walks out. In the end probably the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and I shall find ourselves alone, talking to one another!
We have the advantage—and we must be fair to the Government; I always try to be fair to the Government—of receiving this Bill in late July. Therefore we can take a somewhat retrospective view of the Budget and its consequential Finance Bill. If I may paraphrase what my noble friend Lord Barnett said, it is a somewhat nostalgic view because what we were told at the time of the Budget was rather different from what we are learning now. Also to be fair to the Government, I must say that we have to be careful in interpreting the statistics which we receive from day to day. Indeed, even this morning a further set of statistics have come out, on which I shall comment later. But I do not wish to base too many conclusions on statistics which are inevitably bound to be in an area of uncertainty.
Nevertheless, there are major questions about this Bill and the policy which it enshrines which have to be asked and which the Government have to answer. I would put those questions in this manner. How is it possible that we are now talking about overheating when there are somewhere between 2 and 3 million unemployed and when the public services are in a state of disrepair, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just described and as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, described earlier? How can it happen that with that number of unemployed we are now starting to talk about overheating?
Secondly, how does it happen that we are now talking about a resurgence of inflation? After all the things we have suffered over the past few years in pursuit of the Government's objective (which I understood was to be a reduction in inflation to zero per cent. per annum) how are we now talking about a resurgence of inflation?
The third question which must be answered is; why are we now facing a balance of payments deficit which is quite disastrous, however the figures are wrapped up?
There are other matters which have been raised in the debate. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton questioned the whole basis of the Government's Finance Bill; the policy, and the question of fairness. My noble friend Lord Bruce also asked questions about that and whether there was any morality in this operation. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby introduced what to me was quite a novel element as to whether we should be enabled to change the management of taxes in some way. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, introduced, apart from a Latin tag (the pronunciation of which I would not entirely agree with) the whole question of whether a reduction in personal taxation was an incentive to hard work. There have been many arguments in this House over that, and I am sure they will continue. In his absence, I do not wish to comment on that.

317
To get back to the major points: the Chancellor now accepts, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that the economy is growing a little to fast. With anything between 2 and 3 million unemployed it is growing a little too fast. Indeed, it is probable that domestic demand is accelerating at something over 7 per cent. in the first half of 1988. CBI surveys show a lower proportion of firms working below capacity than at any time in surveys of this type since 1958, so we are knocking up against capacity restraints and a higher proportion of firms claiming that plant capacity is liable to limit output since 1973.
There is no doubt that there is an investment boom. Obviously that is the result of perceived capacity restraints. While welcome in the long term—it is always good to have an investment boom that will encourage and produce greater output later on—the fact is that on one informed estimate the current surge in investment will add 1·2 per cent. to potential supply in 1989, while adding to the growth in demand temporarily. So we have the problem that there is an investment boom but it will take time for it to pay off; and the low savings ratio to which a number of noble Lords have referred does not really help to finance that investment boom.
There is official concern about the resurgence of inflation. Will the figure be 5½ per cent. or 6 per cent. by next year? The money figures are appalling, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, but we have stopped paying attention to the money figures. Commodity prices have risen by more than a quarter since the middle of 1987, property prices continue to soar, and, in spite of all the attacks the Government have made on trade unions over the past few years, there is no evidence that the problem of excessive wage and salary increases has been solved. If the rate of increase in productivity is falling—and in the whole economy it may be down now to about 2 per cent.—while average earnings are rising at something over 8 per cent. the result will be inflation.
If the Government's only answer is to raise interest rates to the point that will grind the economy down to suppress inflation, as my noble friend Lord Jay asked, will the figure be 17 per cent., 18 per cent., 19 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent.? If that is the only instrument they can use as a result of what the Chancellor said—I am fearful about the future of our investment boom as that is one thing that will cut it off.
On overheating and a resurgence in inflation, there is official concern. The third point on which apparently there is no official concern at all is on the balance of payments. We hear that the balance of payments deficit is a sign of strength. I suppose the corollary is that when in the early 1980s North Sea oil was at its peak and we were running a balance of payments surplus that was a sign of weakness in the economy. If it is a sign of strength and if it is partly due to the expanding economy and we are all moving into the next century onwards and upwards, how does it happen—I am sorry to criticise in his absence the point made by the noble Lord, Lord BoydCarpenter—that the problem is not in imports of capital goods, because in the past three months the biggest increases have been in consumer goods, but in
318
exports? That is the major problem in our balance of trade.
One can follow the trend in imports given the propensity of the economy to import as consumer demand grows, but it is very difficult to say, in spite of the comment today in the DTI press release on the balance of payments, that export volumes are other than totally flat. As long as that happens we shall continue to have an increasing balance of payments deficit.
It is no good having recourse to what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, has said on many occasions, that exports of services will pay for the deficit in our visible trade, because the performance of invisibles is very disappointing. That is fiat too. Noble Lords will remember that last year the estimated invisible surplus was £900 million per month. We are now down to estimates of £500 million, and even that may be optimistic. It is probably true—and again I am being very cautious on the statistics—that we are still losing our share of world trade in services. So services will not get us out of trouble.
The Chancellor said in a lecture to the Institute of Economic Affairs that the external deficit,
"will narrow automatically as the gap between private savings and private sector investment closes once more".
That is an heroic stand, and I suppose that we must all accept that the Chancellor is an heroic politician. However, there is an alternative possibility that the balance of trade figures show an inherently poor underlying industrial performance in this country. In other words, there has been no supply-side miracle except for the North Sea. A recent NEDO report on the electronics industry in this country seems to bear out that latter conclusion rather than the automatic adjustment that the Chancellor is now expecting.
Time will tell. I have said many times to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graham, that time will tell whether he or I or the Chancellor or I are right on this. I know where my money will be. As for finance-ability, this is an irrelevant argument, as my noble friend Lord Jay pointed out. Once a current account deficit is of the order of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is where it is running in current terms, no amount of overseas assets in the world, publicly or privately-owned, will give protection from what happened to the Americans when they ran a balance of payments deficit of the same proportion of their domestic product. People will simply stop financing it, and then one has to mobilise the private assets, or raise interest rates to a ridiculous degree, or expect a serious devaluation.
In the light of this, what is the effect of the Bill? The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, quite rightly said that the Bill had put a good deal of money into the pockets of relatively few people and that a good deal of money was out there waiting to be spent. In retrospect—and I agree that we are talking with hindsight—what was required was a tighter fiscal policy and a looser monetary policy to allow an exchange rate depreciation. What we had, and what we have in the Bill, is a looser fiscal policy—the higher rate tax cuts accounted for nearly half the Budget stimulus—and a looser monetary policy,

319
which is now being rapidly tightened in response to the inflation threat. The balance of the Bill seems to be quite wrong. The short-term problem is unsolved and the long-term problem is aggravated.
We have quite a paradox. The Government show concern about overheating and inflation but little concern about the balance of payments trend. Our concern is less about overheating and inflation—the former because it can be dealt with by a tighter fiscal policy than the Bill provides for, and the latter by more direct action than simply ratching up interest rates—and more about the balance of payments since it is not easy to see what can be done about it in the short-term other than by a major devaluation and possibly a serious contraction of domestic demand. It looks as though that is where we are heading.
That we should be in this position while still enjoying the benefits of North Sea oil, benefits which were undreamed of 15 years ago, is a matter for astonished perplexity. In short, this Bill represents an economic policy that is hitting trouble. It is unfair. It will aggravate social divisions. It is complex and tortuous. It is not a Bill which your Lordships should support.
7.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I shall try, without exceeding my time limit, to answer as many points as possible but noble Lords will understand if I cannot answer every one.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that we had a vintage performance this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I see that the noble Lord is now leaving the Chamber, which is unfortunate because I was about to refer to what he said. However, other noble Lords, in particular, the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton, made some of the same points.
Several noble Lords asked why it was necessary to cut taxes for top earning people. This is a world-wide trend even in certain socialist countries; for example, New Zealand and Australia. They have lowered their top rates of tax because they have discovered, as we have, that it works. It is essential to lower the top rate of income tax to prevent emigration and encourage the return of talented but footloose professionals.
Certain noble Lords asserted that the poor are getting poorer. However, I can say to them that those on the lowest incomes are steadily becoming better off; the bottom 10 per cent. of the population had an increase of over 8 per cent. in their real incomes between 1981 and 1985—those are the latest available figures. That increase is more than the average for the whole population.
So the poor are not doing badly if you contrast the high tax policy of the last Labour government, which not only stopped the rich getting richer but kept the poor poor, with the present Government's policy which has increased living standards at all levels of earnings. I reiterate the figures which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave in his
320
opening speech; that is, that this year a married man on half average earnings will be 21 per cent. better off than he was in the last year of the Labour government. His living standard increased by only four per cent. during the period of the last Labour government.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said. He said that everyone gains if Britain becomes a more prosperous and productive economy. That was the real point of the Budget and of this Bill. The less fortunate especially have everything to gain from a more successful economy. It means low inflation, higher living standards and better public services. That is the lesson of the past nine years. The lesson is that you do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was scornful of the benefits to be gained from our financial services and invisible exports and such industries. Some noble Lords opposite still seem to believe that the only way you can earn an honest penny is by getting your fingers dirty in a factory. But we do excel at the provision of financial services. London is still a world centre, if not the leading centre in the world. In 1986 the City contributed the best part of £10 billion to our balance of payments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords, concentrated especially on the overheating, or alleged "overheating", of the economy and the need for credit control. I welcome the noble Lord's comments on the strength of the economy which were confirmed only yesterday by the CBI's latest survey. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the economy is currently growing at a rate that could not be sustained in the medium term; but it is not overheating. The Government's determination to keep downward pressure on inflation is evidenced by recent interest rate rises. To urge the reintroduction of credit controls, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, did, is a red herring. Past experience has suggested that such controls are soon circumvented, and with the increasing financial sophistication of recent years that would be even more likely now. Perhaps I may just quote what the Governor of the Bank of England had to say on the matter in March. He said:
"I do not think that the re-imposition of credit controls is really a practical proposition in the modern context, largely because of the impossibilty of the enforcing of it. One may introduce some regulations but it would be possible for borrowers to bypass it in one way or another, even by going off-shore".
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said basically that my right honourable friend had made a reckless Budget judgment. I do not agree with that view. The tax cuts did not cut the overall burden of tax at all. When I say the tax burden, I mean the total tax as a proportion of gross domestic product. In a growing and successful economy, it is possible to cut tax rates while leaving the burden unchanged. The public sector borrowing requirement is in surplus for only the second time since the 1950s; public spending is under control and falling as a proportion of GDP. Fiscal policy is highly responsible.
I do not know whether it is the policy of the noble Viscount's party to raise taxes at present, or whether it would have been at Budget time, but nevertheless

321
he made one or two other suggestions such as the abolition of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions. I can say to him that that would increase the marginal rate of tax for over two million people. It would undermine the Beveridge contributory principle and could lead to a dramatic increase in expenditure on the state earnings related pension scheme.
The noble Viscount, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, urged us to put a limit on the mortgage interest relief to the basic rate of taxation. I hear what they say. However, all I can say is that if that is one of the policies of the SDP and of the Social and Liberal Democratic Party, it does not seem to be getting them very far at present. The £30,000 limit on relief already provides an effective ceiling and restricting the relief to basic rate would draw more people into higher rate tax, and a reduction of higher rates of income tax of course means that there is less of a gap in the relief.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, and other noble Lords, talked especially about manufacturing and the balance of payments. The noble Lord made some interesting comments on the erosion of the manufacturing base and the balance of payments position. Of course the noble Lord will be aware that manufacturing industry is flourishing, as the CBI's latest survey showed only yesterday. Indeed, in the first half of this year, manufacturing output will be higher than in any other half year on record.
As to the balance of payments, the deficit we are now experiencing is also a reflection of the strength of the British economy, in particular a strong growth in investment which will increase industrial capacity and be of long-term benefit to our trade position.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does that mean that as our economy gets stronger still, the balance of payments deficit will be even larger?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no; not necessarily. As a great deal of the deficit in the balance of payments is being used to finance investment in manufacturing productivity, and so on, in the medium term it will be greatly to our benefit.
The noble Lord said that many of our overseas assets are in private sector hands and are therefore not at the behest of the Government. That of course is true. However, they are an indication of our credit-worthiness which foreign investors can see, and they are confident in the underlying strength of the UK economy, so that they are content to finance the current account deficit.
I certainly agreed with one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, when he said that he disagreed with unilateral disarmament. Of course that does not have much to do with the Bill before us, but at least I know where one Member of the Opposition Benches stands on the issue—which is more than one can say about the Opposition Front Bench at present.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was slightly unfair in his remarks about my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham when he criticised him for his absence, as did some other noble Lords. I should remind the noble Lord, not that he needs reminding,
Vol. 500
322
that this is a Bill from the Treasury; it is not a Bill from my noble friend's department. As we have no Treasury Minister in the House, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was able to open the debate, and your Lordships have the privilege—if that is the right word—of me winding it up. As the noble Lord was not able to ask my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham where he stood on the disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer he asked me instead, although I am quite certain that he is not nearly so interested in my reply as he would have been in the one that my noble friend would have given. I ask: what disagreement?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to exercise his privilege and tell the House where he stands on the issue?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was just about to deal with that. As I said: what disagreement? I must tell the noble Lord that there is no disagreement on the most important point; namely, the fight against inflation. The fight against inflation is paramount. Both of them agree, and so do I, that monetary policy should remain tight. That means higher interest rates and a strong exchange rate at times like the present when our economy is growing faster than its long running trend rate of growth. It also meant lower interest rates last October when everyone was concerned about the threat of recession following the Stock Market crash. The fact that there did not appear to be a recession following the Stock Market crash last October is a considerable achievement not only for the managers of this country's economy but for the managers of other Western economies.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, concentrated on the business expansion scheme proposals for housing. We have debated the Housing Bill at some length over the past few days and have several more days of debate to come, tomorrow and later in the year. There are safeguards on the relief offered. It will be available only for assured tenancies which give the tenant indefinite security of tenure. That underlines the Government's wish to encourage the continuing provision of rented property. Secondly, there will be limits on the value of each let property to prevent relief going to companies specialising in expensive properties. Finally, the relief will not be available for slum properties. The Bill specifically excludes substandard properties by reference to standards already laid down in law, so there are safeguards in the scheme for rented housing.
The noble Lord also talked about friendly societies. I can assure him that the Government are well aware of the valuable role that they have played, especially in helping the less well off members of society. We are keen to encourage them to continue that work. For that reason we shall of course consider carefully before next year's Budget the recent representations that the friendly society movement has made to us. I was grateful to the noble Lord for the remarks he made about the changes that have been made which affect co-operative societies. He also mentioned some rather detailed points about which I might have to write to him. When winding up

323
this debate it is always a pleasure to answer one or two questions which refer to the Bill itself. It is not all that usual.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, in an excellent lecture on economics, for which he is noted, talked about the flexibility of exchange rates. I noted with interest his plea for fixed exchange rates. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will agree that floating exchange rates have not proved ideal and that large fluctuations in exchange rates have proved damaging to business confidence and economic performance and have not reduced international economic interdependence. That is why he is more interested in a relatively stable set of exchange rates. However, the noble Lord, with all his economic expertise, will appreciate that one cannot fly in the face of market sentiment for any length of time. I agree that the Government can try to counter the effects of destabilising speculative activity which does not reflect basic economic fundamentals; but untimately exchange rates must be part of the overall aim of economic policy, which is to maintain the downward pressure on inflation. In particular, noble Lords can be in no doubt that the Government will not allow a depreciation of exchange rates to accommodate firms that pay excessive wage increases.
The noble Lord was keen that the Government should take us into the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, did not hold that view. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, held that view when I last heard him speak.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the Chancellor also disagrees with the Prime Minister on that, we are more or less even.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not say that there was anything wrong with different views being held on the opposite side of the House. I know very well the views held in that corner of the House, although neither noble Lords nor the noble Baroness mentioned them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when I sat down I remembered that it was the other thing that I wanted to say.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that what I am leading up to saying will not be exciting. It will only be the same as I have repeated at Question Time on many occasions; that is, we shall join when the time is right. It is not the immediate panacea—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have of course been sitting waiting for that precise statement. I am glad to hear it. When the Minister or one of his noble friends is going to make a different statement on the EMS, will he write to some of us ahead of time so that we do not suffer an excessive degree of shock?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may not be possible for me to write to the noble Lord. I suspect that when the time is right and we join, it will be something that has to be done in some secrecy so that it does not have an effect on the exchange markets. It
324
will be a sudden announcement. However, if it happens during my time, I shall endeavour to give noble Lords at least some advance warning.
I turn now to the forthright speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which at the beginning was in many ways a continuation of the debate held at great length yesterday afternoon. I am not as qualified to answer all of it as is my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and other noble Lords who took part in that debate.
The noble Lord asked why amendments to the Taxes Management Act were included in Chapter V of the Finance Bill. Precedent was accepted by the second report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Practice and Procedure in 1977. There are other arguments against including those provisions in a Bill other than a Finance Bill. They are mainly that the management matters dealt with are so closely related to the enforcement of tax liabilities that it would go against common sense as well as precedent to exclude them from the Finance Bill. There are also other reasons. I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks that if further changes are contemplated we shall have a separate Bill.
The noble Lord asked why it was possible to look at changes in the Official Secrets Act after approximately the same amount of time as the Parliament Act 1911 had been in place. There is considerable pressure from all sides of the House and from outside the House for changes in the Official Secrets Act, but, apart from the pleas of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I have not detected much pressure for changes to the Parliament Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made some interesting remarks. She gave us praise for our economic success. However, she asked why when we at last had the resources to make changes we did not use them in a different way. We have the resources this time around to do what we have done because of the sound policies that we have adopted over the past nine years. She asked why we had not taken the opportunity to raise excise duty on alcohol and cigarettes. Of course health is only one of a number of considerations in the Budget judgment. Revenue, inflation and employment arguments are also important; but overall taxes, duty and VAT have risen substantially in real terms since 1979. On alcohol they are up by 12 per cent. and on tobacco by just under 50 per cent.
I appreciate that there is a problem with alcohol abuse at the moment. It is one that is recognised by the Government. I would however make this plea. Just because a few people cannot look after themselves with alcohol, the rest of us should not have to pay through the nose for a drink. The noble Baroness said that the Budget should have tried to improve the competitiveness of British industry. The best way to do that is to reduce inflation, and government policy has that as its prime aim. That is why UK manufacturing industry has broadly maintained its share of world trade since 1981 following decades of decline. That is the most reliable all round measure of the health of British competitiveness.

325
The noble Baroness criticised us for a lack of public investment at the moment. She used the example of British Rail. I can assure her that British Rail is currently investing more than for many years. On the roads too investment is up by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Those are just two examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, talked about the resurgence of inflation; he was worried about that happening. The Government's sound policies will ensure that there is no resurgence of inflation, but we cannot avoid fluctuations. For instance, the rise in mortgage rates will cause a temporary blip. Nevertheless, inflation is on a firm long-term downward trend.
The noble Lord also criticised us for the apparent overheating of the economy, accompanied by high unemployment. The economy is not overheating. It is just growing above the long-run trend and needs to slow down a bit. The benefits of strong growth are spreading gradually.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord repeat that statement slowly so that we can appreciate it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am happy to repeat it. I said that the economy is not overheating. It is growing above the long-run trend and needs to slow down at the moment, but that does not mean that it is overheating. The benefits of this strong growth are spreading through to all the regions. I agree that unemployment is still too high in some regions. That is why growth needs to be sustained and why above all inflation needs to be kept low. The investment boom will help to sustain growth, without overheating, at a healthy rate and will further reduce unemployment.
To summarise, the Bill contains a number of important reforms. Foremost are the changes to personal taxation. The goal of a 25p basic rate of income tax has now been achieved and a new target of 20p basic rate has been set. Four higher rates of income tax have been abolished, leaving just one higher rate of 40 per cent. The radical overhaul of the taxation of husband and wife will ensure independence and privacy for married women, correcting an anomaly that dates back to 1805. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who was appreciative of those changes. The proposed changes to the capital gains tax will further simplify the tax system, releasing resources previously tied up in tax planning.
Over the last nine years the British economy has re-emerged as an example to the rest of the world. The growth rate consistently outstrips that of our European competitors. Last year it even outstripped that of Japan. Only yesterday the CBI reported that:
"British business is in better competitive shape than at any time since the Second World War, with manufacturing industry currently enjoying the longest period of sustained productivity growth of the post-war period".
Central to that success story has been the Government's record of sound economic management. I believe that this Finance Bill will further enhance that record and I therefore commend it to your Lordships' House.
326
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 21st July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
7.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill makes provision for the statutory limit on the borrowings of the Scottish electricity boards to be increased from £2,700 million to £3,000 million. Because the boards' plan and operate the generating system jointly the limit applies to the total outstanding borrowings of the two boards taken together, including any borrowings from abroad and temporary borrowings.
Borrowings against the existing limit of £2,700 million amounted to £2,615 million at the end of June, including temporary borrowings of £130 million. The proposed new limit of £3,000 million is based on projections for 1991, which show the level of borrowings peaking at around £2,760 million towards the end of this year. From around mid-1990 borrowings are expected to fall steadily as the benefits of the boards' investment in Torness begin to flow through to the business. The proposed new limit is therefore sufficient to meet the boards' expected requirements, with a contingency cover of about 10 per cent. It is therefore unlikely that in the foreseeable future there will be any need to increase the borrowing limit. In this Bill we are taking the opportunity to repeal the power to amend the limit by order. Of course if for any reason the board's borrowings look set to rise above the new limit, fresh legislation would be required and there would be a further opportunity at that time to review the board's performance in relation to the borrowing limits.
The main reason for the boards' borrowing is the need to finance capital expenditure. In part this expenditure is met from internal resources and at March 1987 approximately two-thirds of the boards' current cost net assets of £7·5 billion were financed internally. But many of the boards' investments are very large and the assets have long lives. It would not be reasonable to assume that the boards could find the necessary internal resources without having recourse to borrowing.
Obviously Torness nuclear power station has been by far the largest investment in recent years. The station, which will cost £1·8 billion, is now nearing completion and reactor I began to supply electricity to the grid in May this year. Full commissioning of both reactors should be achieved by the first half of 1989 and, as I have already mentioned, as the benefits of this low cost output begin to be realised the boards' borrowing requirement will start to fall.
However new power stations are not the only capital projects carried out by the boards. Existing power stations require refurbishment, while the

327
maintenance and upgrading of their extensive transmission and distribution lines are other major areas which require outlay of capital by the boards. The South of Scotland Electricity Board, for example, spends over £33 million a year on expanding its distribution network. The north board will be investing around £32 million in connecting the Western Isles to the mainland system by submarine cable and is spending a further £23 million a year on refurbishing ageing distribution and hydro assets. Excluding Torness, total capital expenditure for both boards in 1987–88 was £170 million and is planned at £180 million in the current year.
Other important factors when considering borrowings are the level of the boards' costs and their prices. The boards are to be congratulated on their success in holding down costs while delivering a high level of service to their customers. Both boards emerged well from the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries, which concluded that they are skilled in the management of their main function of electricity generation and supply and that they deserve their good reputation for the efficient conduct of their business. The commission, however, noted several areas where further improvements might be made.
As far as prices are concerned since 1983 average tariffs in Scotland have fallen by 9 per cent. in real terms and domestic prices, which have fallen by 7·5 per cent. over the same period, are below those in England and Wales.
This Bill will enable the boards to borrow the sums necessary to finance their day-to-day business and their investment programme. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, normally a Bill such as this to increase the borrowing limits of a profitable and, as the Minister has said, well run, well managed industry would be passed in very much less time than the two and a half hours which the other place took to discuss the matter. Everything the Minister has said is an illustration—and many more could be given—of the ridiculous nature of the Government's proposals for privatisation.
As the Minister has said, there is a well run, well managed and efficient monopoly which over the years has pursued a very careful social policy. That policy has provided electricity in less populated areas and by doing so has managed to distribute industry around less populated areas. That apparently is now to be changed in some unnecessary way. The Government are to substitute some private monopoly for the public monopoly.
We have discussed many times in this House why there should be a great advantage in having a private monopoly rather than a public monopoly. But that is apparently what we are to have. That appears merely to suggest that the short-term view will replace the long-term view that the two electricity boards have taken in the past. We are to have the kind of short-term approach that this Government apply to
328
everything. An example of that was the way they forced the closure of the pulp mill at Fort William, and then a few years later they had to spend vast sums of government money in grants in order to build another pulp mill at Irvine. They closed the smelter at Invergordon which was newly provided and then spent years regretting that it was no longer there.
Now there is the intended closure of the Dounreay plant, with disastrous effects on industry in the north of Scotland. It just seems that the whole of the Government's attitude to the privatisation of electricity is entirely irrelevant to the real needs of Scotland. I have taken this occasion to make that point clear while in no way seeking to oppose this Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for speaking and giving the matter before us—the passing of the Bill—his blessing. I am not surprised that he took the opportunity to raise the question of privatisation, although it is not strictly concerned with this Bill, but it was very much a feature of the debates in another place on this matter. As he knows very well, the Government firmly believe that the requirement to operate in the private sector will provide added incentives to and sustain pressure on the boards further to improve performance and minimise costs to the benefit of customers and shareholders.
The Government's aim is to build on the strengths of the boards. The proposal for two companies, each responsible for generating, transmitting and distributing electricity in its own area, reflects the success of the present structure of the industry and is well suited to the circumstances of Scotland. Obviously, a great deal of preparatory work is required to shape the proposals in detail, but discussions in which the boards are closely involved are progressing well.
Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week in another place his decisions on the reorganisation necessary to give effect to the White Paper's intentions on the structure of the companies. I commend his decisions to your Lordships. They ensure that two viable utilities will be privatised and that the necessary reorganisation will be achieved with the minimum of disruption within the industry. By virtue of the contractual arrangements which are being negotiated between the boards, each company will have available to it the full generating mix at present in the Scottish system-nuclear, hydro, pumped storage, coke, coal and gas/oil. This will make them the envy of the utility world and very attractive investments.
Each company will continue its present expertise—the south company in nuclear and thermal stations, the north company in hydro expertise. The decisions of my right honourable friend continue to recognise the importance of hydro assets to the consumers of the north of Scotland. He has made it clear that the benefit of the hydro assets in terms of the very low running costs will continue to be enjoyed by those consumers. This will ensure that the company is able to pursue a common tariff policy within its area—in other words a continuation

329
of the social clause—despite the very high distribution costs in the more remote areas. It will ensure that these tariffs continue at levels compatible with the rest of Scotland. It is the Government's intention to bring forward these proposals to enable the industry to be privatised within the lifetime of this Parliament.
As regards the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, about the pulp mill in Fort William and the smelter in Invergordon, I draw his attention to the fact that Invergordon is designated as an enterprise zone. I just wish to remind him that at the time when these mills were closed, the inflation rate and the economic outlook in the late 1970s and the early 1980s were such that they gave very little confidence to industrial investment.
I am happy to say that now we see a return of pulp mill production at Irvine next year. I should just like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the eonomic situation, which has been debated at great length in the past hour or two, gives some confidence to industry that investment is worth while in Scotland.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, does not the noble Lord remember that the closure of Invergordon was related to the Government's control decision on the pricing of electricity? Their insistence on increasing the price of electricity unnecessarily was one of the reasons for the closure of the mill at Fort William.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the Government, like any other institution, have to bear costs in mind. It was costs that closed the Invergordon smelter.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 21st July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity
7.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness) rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 30th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986 provides for the Secretary of State to issue codes of recommended practice as regards the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity and such other related matters.
The 1986 Act requires that before issuing a code the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority associations and any local authority with which consultation appears desirable. Extensive consultation has taken place over the past two years
330
with the local authority associations and a number of other bodies concerned. During these consultations no fewer than five drafts of the code have been considered in detail. This demonstrates both the extent to which we have endeavoured to take local government with us on the drafting of the code and our willingness, where appropriate, to make amendments designed to allay their concerns. I would not claim that the local authority associations now welcome the code with open arms, but as a result of these consultations and the amendments that have been made there are now few areas of disagreement about the content of the code.
The 1986 Act provides also that a draft of the code shall be laid before each House of Parliament for approval. The draft that we are debating today has been approved in another place. The introduction to the code explains its status and scope. We have considered at length in this House during the passage of both the 1986 and the 1988 Local Government Acts the appropriate status of this code. As a result, Section 4 of the 1986 Act was amended by Section 27 of the 1988 Act to require local authorities to have regard to the provisions of the code in coming to any decision on publicity. This does not mean that the code is a series of rules and regulations which local authorities must adhere to in all cases. On the contrary, it sets out principles of good practice to act as a benchmark against which authorities must judge their publicity proposals. In each case they will need to consider whether the publicity that they propose to issue is in keeping with the principles set out in the code. If it is not, they will need to consider whether special circumstances exist which justify departure from the code.
Paragraph 5 of the introduction to the code explains that it is not concerned with the statutory ban on party political publicity, but rather with all publicity which local authorities are empowered to issue. Of course observant of the principles of good practice set out in the code would ensure that a local authority did not contravene that prohibition.
The introduction to the code also acknowledges the vital role that local authority publicity has to play in the interests of ensuring local accountability. It welcomes good, effective publicity, aimed at improving public awareness of a council's activities. It explains that the purpose of the code is to set out principles of good practice which will ensure that local authority publicity decisions are properly made.
A final point that I would draw attention to in the introduction to the code is paragraph 8. This paragraph, together with paragraph 43 of the code itself, explains that it will not effect the ability of local authorities to assist charities and voluntary organisations which need to issue publicity as part of their work. Local authorities are, however, called upon in giving such assistance to take into account the principles contained in the code. To the extent appropriate, local authorities should incorporate the relevant principles in any published guidance for applicants for grants and make observance of that guidance a condition of the grant. Where appropriate, local authorities should monitor the observance of the guidance.The extent to which any such monitoring is necessary must remain a matter

331
for the local authority concerned. But in the Government's view prior vetting of all publicity by assisted voluntary organisations would be unnecessary.
The main body of the code is divided into nine sections. These deal in turn with the subject matter of local authority publicity—its cost, content, style and dissemination; particular considerations to be taken into account with general advertising and recruitment advertising; publicity about members of the authority; the timing of publicity; and assistance given to others for publicity. I do not propose to give a detailed summary of each of these sections. I am sure that noble Lords interested will have familiarised themselves with them. Taken together, the principles of good practice set out in the code provide an essential and comprehensive yardstick against which local authorities should judge their publicity proposals. We intend that, as soon as parliamentary approval is forthcoming, the code will be brought into effect by issuing it under cover of a circular to local authorities. I have no hesitation therefore in commending it to the House.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 30th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Caithness.)
8.3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for bringing the code before your Lordships' House. Let me say at the outset that, in accordance with convention, we shall not oppose a code which has been approved by the other place. I notice that the Minister in his speech glossed over the fact that the amendment to the 1986 Act which was made by the 1988 Act was an amendment to the decision reached by this House that such a code should not be obligatory on local authorities. The words "have regard to the code" as a condition in the 1988 Act were imposed by the Government against the judgment of this House when it considered the 1986 Act.
The Minister is correct in saying that the code has, in going through all its drafts to the present sixth version, dealt in detail with some of the drafting points which caused disagreement between the local authority associations and the Government. He is also right in saying that the associations take the view that the final version does not have many of the defects which were present in earlier versions, although their opposition to it concerns a number of specific aspects of the code as well as the principle on which the code is based. However, I wish to deal with the principle first. That is the most important aspect of the code.
In imposing the code the Government are saying in effect that local authorities cannot be treated with the same degree of freedom and allowed to have the same responsibility as the Government assume for their own publicity actions. I am aware that in this country local authorities are the creatures of government. However, that does not mean that in every respect local authorities ought to be treated as inferior to government departments and agencies.
332
If local authorities had been asked to agree to the convention which was drawn up by the Cabinet Office for government publicity, there might have been less dispute about the matter. That convention was referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place only last week. He said:
"The Government lay down conventions on publicity and advertising for themselves". [Official Report, Commons, 20/7/88; col. 1225.]
I have looked up those conventions and I have the first two pages of the note prepared by the Cabinet Office for the Standing Committee on 1st May 1985. The conventions are extremely straightforward. They are nothing like the seven pages of the present code. That note says, first, that the:
"subject matter should be relevant to Government responsibilities".
I shall read the parts which are underlined as being the essence of the case. It says, secondly, that:
"content, tone and presentation should not be 'party political'. The treatment should be as objective as possible, should not be personalised, should avoid political slogans and should not directly attack (though it may implicitly respond to) the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups".
If I thought that local authorities were being given the freedom which the Government apparently have implicitly to respond to the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups, I should be a good deal happier to know that local authorities were being treated on the same terms as government departments and agencies. That is not the case. Section 2 of the 1986 Act provides a complete ban on party political publicity, with which I agree. However, if local authorities should be prohibited from responding, implicitly or otherwise, to the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups, then so should central government.
The amount of money being spent by central government in the promotion of their policies, to which some of us vehemently object, is a thousand times more than the amount of money being spent by local authorities on publicity, political or otherwise. In that respect, the Government are behaving in a totally unbalanced way and in a way which does not reflect creditably on their record as a partner with local government in assuring the good government of this country.
The third point of the note of the Cabinet Office is relatively uncontroversial. It reads:
"distribution of unsolicited material should be carefully controlled".
Much of that is reflected in the local authority code. We do not disagree with it. The final point is that the costs should be justifiable. The note says:
"The Government are accountable to Parliament for the use they make of public funds for publicity, as for any other purpose. The Accounting Officer for the Vote concerned has a particular responsibility to the Public Accounts Committee".
Once again, we agree that comparable powers exist for the district auditors. We believe that they should have those powers over local authority publicity as they do over other local authority expenditure.
If the code was confined to those elements and if local government was treated in the same way as central government, we would have much less objection than we do to the way the code has been drawn up. However, we have a combination of elements in the code which are merely patronising.

333
They are teaching local authorities how to wipe their own noses. They are repeating things which everybody knows about value for money, and when to use media advertising and when to use other forms of publicity. All of those elements could well have been left out had there been a sensible discussion between grown up people.
In the code there is a combination of that kind of patronising, quite irrelevant and unnecessary paragraph with other aspects which are just plain wrong. For example, paragraph 4(iii) says that:
"in areas where central government, another tier of local government, or another public authority have the primary service or policy responsibility, local authorities should issue publicity only on matters that are directly relevant to their own functions".
That sounds all very well but it neglects the fact that local authorities have the duty to be the voice of their communities. They are concerned when other authorities close hospitals in their areas because they have to make provision for the public health services when hospitals are closed. They are involved when transport services are cut in their areas because they arc concerned with the mobility of the people who live there. There are many other examples of cases in which it is entirely proper for a local authority to comment on and to publicise changes in the services provided by other people—by central government, by private industry or by anybody else. To neglect the responsibilities of local authorities to be the voice of their community is to neglect one very major function in the work of local authorities which the Government ought to appreciate and welcome.
I shall not weary the House with the other detailed objections concerning the code. However, to summarise, it ought not to have the force that it has; it ought not to be as detailed as it is; it ought to have been a voluntary code which was readily available from the local authority associations of all parties; and it certainly ought not to be presented to Parliament in the detail in which we are now having to consider it and be the responsibility of Parliament.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I believe this code to be a profound mistake. It is undesirable because it represents yet another heavy-handed intervention in the affairs of local government.
As we all know, and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has reminded us, although the local authority associations prefer the present draft to the version of five drafts earlier they do not like it. That is the view of all the political parties represented in local authority associations, including the friends of the noble Earl. On the other hand, Conservative councillors have had to become accustomed to having their views ignored by their friends in the Government. The code represents another example of that approach.
When the Government tell the House that there have been a number of glaring examples of local authorities misbehaving and producing party political propaganda at the ratepayers' expense, they are entirely right. I have drawn attention to a number of such episodes myself. Five years ago I pointed out
334
to the noble Earl's predecessor—the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who was then Minister of State in the noble Earl's department—that we had evidence that
the local authority in Islington intended to use a drafting error in a small government Bill then going through Parliament to spend £100,000 of public money on a Left-wing broadsheet. We said so in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and I went to see the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. We produced evidence from the solicitor's department of Islington Borough Council that the council proposed to do just that. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, told us that nothing could be done. The Government had to have their Bill on time and he was entirely opposed to introducing any amendment at that stage.
We came back to the House and put down an amendment. The Government Whips were used to vote down that amendment, which was an extraordinary procedure. It may well be that the noble Earl was one of those who trooped cheerfully through the Lobby in favour of the original form of words in that Bill which, I repeat, it was absolutely clear from evidence that I presented to the Minster would be misused.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, agreed with us. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, agreed with us. To do the Labour Party justice, five of its members came into the Lobby with us, despite the fact that Islington was a Labour-controlled authority.
What happened? The council produced its broadsheet, which was a fairly crude piece of party political propaganda, and the broadsheet went bankrupt. It cost the ratepayers of Islington £100,000.
The Government are quite keen on surcharges when councillors are involved. I wonder whether they feel it appropriate in cases of that sort that Ministers in the Department of the Environment should be surcharged themselves for such an episode of gross irresponsibility. There has not even been an apology from the noble Earl's department and I am quite sure that one will not be forthcoming this evening.
This example indicates that when talking about blatant political propaganda it is probably wise for the noble Earl to examine some of the episodes which have been debated in this House on a number of occasions over the past five years and on which the government response was highly unsatisfactory.
In the circumstances of the Islington case, and as a result of a number of other episodes of a similar character—although Islington was undoubtedly the worst—I agreed with Widdicombe that there should be a clear, explicit, statutory prohibition of publicity for party political purposes. Indeed, I believe that on a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said the same. I think that that is entirely right. But of course the code we are discussing this evening goes far further than that.
Perhaps I may give an illustration of what will happen as a result of the code. A district council decides that it wants to oppose a new road scheme. It believes that the scheme will do grievous environmental damage to its community. The council may decide that it wants to hold a number of public

335
meetings to discuss the matter and express its views to the local community. It may well be, and often is, that all the political parties represented on the local authority will take exactly the same view. It will therefore not be a matter of party political dispute.
However, if one turns to paragraph 19 of the code, the last sentence says:
"local authorities, like other public authorities, should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy".
What conceivable advantage to the public interest is derived from a form of words of that kind which will prevent perfectly well-meaning local authorities from taking a view on an issue of high public importance to their local communities and holding the kind of meeting which in a normal democracy would be entirely appropriate? It seems to me a thoroughly daft idea. However, unhappily, it represents the Government's blunderbuss approach to the whole question of local government publicity.
On the other hand, it has to be said that despite the Government's enthusiasm for legislating against their political opponents in local government, they apply very different standards to their own conduct. There was the interesting incident last year in which a leaked memorandum was published in the Guardian emanating from the Department of the Enviroment in which Mr. William Waldegrave's special adviser, Mr. Patrick Rock said:
"As you know, you will be presenting the keys to the 10,000th Wandsworth tenant to buy his home. The date for this has been brought forward so that favourable publicity can be generated before a vital byelection".
There was then the usual hunt for the mole in the Department of the Environment, which had the predictable result.
The memorandum described how the ceremony would be brought forward because there was to be this local authority by-election on 19th November which had great significance for the political control of Wandsworth Borough Council. That therefore is the position of Ministers in the Department of the Environment and their advisers: let us use public resources to receive favourable publicity for a Conservative candidate in a local authority byelection.
What does paragraph 43 of the code say about local authorities which are tempted into similar paths of unrighteousness? It reads:
"Particular care should be taken when publicity is issued immediately prior to an election or by-election affecting the authority's area to ensure that this could not be perceived as seeking to influence public opinion, or to promote the public image of a particular candidate, or group of candidates".
Which of the two arguments of the Government would they like us to take seriously? Would they like us to regard their position as that of paragraph 43 of their code or would they prefer the advice given by Mr. Rock to Mr. Waldegrave, which of course, was acted upon and which undoubtedly assured favourable publicity for a council candidate in a by-election at the behest of the leader of that council, Mr. Paul Beresford? I am sure that the noble Earl will be eager to tell us which of those two approaches he favours.
336
Finally I turn to paragraph 39 of the code:
"The functions of a local authority are discharged by the council corporately. It is therefore inappropriate for public resources to be used to publicise individual councillors".
I think that it would be very difficult for any reasonable person to disagree with the sentiments expressed in that sentence. In the following paragraphs 40 to 42 there follows a list of exceptions—committee chairmen when they wish to speak about a particular development, and so on.
One question in particular arises because I think that it is a mistake, if I may say so from these Benches, to suggest that all wickedness is entirely the creation of Labour councillors in London. I turn to the interesting case of Lady Porter, who is the Conservative Leader of Westminster City Council. Let us assume that she is asked—as I am sure that she will be asked on many future occasions—to meet the press at a council press conference in order to discuss the strange affair of the sale of those cemeteries for a few coppers. All noble Lords will recall Lady Porter's surprise that that exciting new notion of privatisation did not receive the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of the local community, of the relations of those who were buried there and of the Dutch Government, some of whose nationals who had been killed in the war were also buried there.
We are all looking forward—and I am quite sure that the Department of the Environment, which is very keen on value for money, likewise is looking forward—to reading the reports of the various inquiries that are now taking place into the curious matter of Lady Porter, the sale of the cemeteries and their repurchase.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am fascinated by what the noble Lord has said. I understood that the only inquiry that had been allowed by the City of Westminster was an internal inquiry. I did not know that there was to be an independent inquiry.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord can be reassured that various other matters are now being looked into. He will not be altogether surprised to hear that apparently some councillors in Westminster were not too enthusiastic about having too detailed an inquiry. However, I understand that continuing investigations are being carried out and I think that it is right that they should take place.
I hope that there is nothing in paragraphs 39 to 42 of the code to prevent Lady Porter's large team of public relations advisers—indeed, there are a remarkable number in the City of Westminster —from being able to organise council press conferences as soon as it becomes possible to do so following the various investigations that are taking place.
Finally, let me say this. I think that this code is a rather trivial document. In the long term it may not have the damaging effect on free speech in local government as was no doubt intended by some of those who were responsible for drafting it. I hope that its effect will at worst be marginal and that sooner or later this Government will stop nannying local

337
government. Similarly, I hope that some of the more foolish local councils will stop conducting themselves in a way that only brings discredit on our system of local government and offers an opportunity for even greater intervention from Whitehall.
8.26 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was grateful for some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Which things, my Lords?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was just about to say. The consultation exercise that we have gone through was one of the things, and he said that there had been improvements, as indeed I said when I opened this debate—and at least the noble Lord was courteous.
We have heard the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we are seeking to impose one set of rules for local authorities and quite another for central government. That is not true. Both central and local government have a duty to explain their proposals to those who are affected. There is no question of the code seeking to impose restrictions on local authorities that are more onerous than those observed by central government publicity.
Although it is difficult to make direct comparisons because of the fundamental differences in the constitutional position, we have ensured that the code is as consistent as possible with the longstanding conventions followed by central government. The spirit of the rules is similar in both cases and requires, for example, that in cases in which controversial subjects are given publicity, care is taken to concentrate on facts and explanation rather than on persuading the Leader to take a particular point of view on an issue of policy. Following that up, I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that some of the phrases quoted by the noble Lord are in fact in the code and I refer him to paragraph 13. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, went on to say that the code is patronising. The code is meant to cover all aspects of publicity and it would be wrong to be selective.
Both the noble Lords who spoke in this debate were concerned that the code would prevent publicity about proposals for schemes affecting their areas. There are no grounds for concern that the code will in any way inhibit local authorities' efforts to provide information about any proposals that will have a direct impact on their functions. Paragraph 19 of the code makes clear that publicity campaigns can provide an appropriate means of ensuring that the local community is properly informed about a matter relating to a function of the authority and about the authority's policies in relation to that function and the reasons for them.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I should like to say that it is important that public funds should not be used to mount campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade the
338
public to hold a particular view on a policy issue. Again, as regards the point that he raised about the road scheme, should a district council wish to oppose a road scheme and want public meetings to be held, the code will not stop that process.
Paragraph 19, to which I have referred, also states that a local authority can explain its policies and the reasons for it. If the reasons are good, they will be persuasive; if not, it should not try to use advertising techniques to sell its views.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded the House of the code produced by the local authority associations. I remember that we had discussions on Clause 27 earlier this year on the Local Government Bill. I am aware that a draft code on publicity was prepared by officers in main associations in December of last year. In my view this served only to reinforce Parliament's decision to place responsibility for preparing the code with the Secretary of State.
At first sight, the association's draft code bore some resemblance to the Government's draft code. But I see little point in taking up time in the House tonight with a line by line critique of the document. Suffice it to say, although it appeared to cover some of the important matters included in the Government's draft, it excluded a number that we believe to be essential. More importantly, its provisions were written in such vague terms that I saw no prospect that local authorities would be pointed to good practice in any meaningful sense. That is the purpose of having the code in the first place.
Finally, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, dropped well below the normal standard that he sets himself. He quoted an event relating to a memorandum from a political adviser. That is not the usual standard of the noble Lord. That had nothing to do with publicity as defined for the purposes of the Act and the code. No DoE press notice was issued.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl must try not to be pompous when embarrassing political disclosures are made from his own department. I was merely asking him to reconcile the approach disclosed in that memorandum, and the action taken thereafter by his colleague, Mr. Waldegrave, with the paragraph in the code which precludes local authorities from behaving in precisely the same manner.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should hate the noble Lord to class me as being pompous. I was merely saying that he had dropped below his normal standards.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations implement the powers in Sections 16(2)(k) and (1), 16(15) and 24(3) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. They have been drafted after extensive consultation with all interests affected. Your Lordships will know that my department, on behalf of the departments responsible for these regulations, issued a first consultative document in October 1986. This proposed the principle of a statutory system of control for pesticide residues in food. It met with widespread support and, as a result, a second consultative document was issued in April this year proposing specific maximum residue levels for a number of pesticides used on a range of important items in the diet. Comments on this second consultative document were again overwhelmingly in favour of a statutory system, and the result is the regulations that we have before us.
The regulations are designed to achieve three things. First, they will provide a check that farmers and growers are observing good agricultural practice in the use of pesticides in this country. If pesticide users follow the instructions on pesticide labels—as
they are legally bound to do by the Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986—they should have no difficulty in complying with the maximum residue levels—or MRLs as they are known—set out in the present regulations.
Secondly, the regulations will apply the same standards to imports as are applied to home grown produce, by allowing imports containing residues above MRLs to be seized, disposed of, or sent back to the country of origin. This should reassure farmers that their foreign competitors do not have unfair advantages in the use of these pesticides. By the same token, these MRLs, many of which are EC limits, will serve to facilitate trade within the Community.
Thirdly, the regulations are intended to provide consumers with the reassurance that levels of pesticide residues in food are safe and are at the lowest levels compatible with efficient food production. The safety of food for consumers is always of paramount importance. These regulations set maximum residue levels which are in all cases acceptable to the expert toxicologists who help us to run our pesticides registration system, both within DHSS and MAFF, and on our independent advisory committees.
These are the first statutory MRLs for pesticide residues in food in this country. They cover 61 pesticides and a wide range of the more important components of the average national diet, including cereals, products of animal origin (such as meat, milk and cheese) and a wide range of fruit and vegetables. It is the Government's intention to revise these regulations every two years or so, to take account, for example, of new developments in pesticides marketing, changes in use patterns, or developments in European Community legislation.
Turning to the text of the regulations, the MRLs in Schedule 1 are designed to implement mandatory European Community Directives 86/362 and 86/363 which set maximum residue levels for 23 pesticides in cereals, and products of animal origin. These MRLs will come into force in August.
Schedule 2 contains MRLs which we are not obliged to introduce, but which we have chosen to introduce so as to extend the statutory control beyond cereals and animal products to the more commonly consumed fruits and vegetables. Extending the range of foods covered has also meant extending the range of pesticides. There are 53 pesticides in Schedule 2, which comes into force on 31st December.
Responsibility for enforcing the regulations, since they are made under the Food and Environment Protection Act, rests with Ministers. Current monitoring of cereals and foodstuffs by the Working Party on Pesticide Residues is focused on areas where residues are considered likely to be found. This monitoring indicates that residues above the MRLs are rare. We do not therefore expect there to be many breaches of the regulations but where routine monitoring suggests that problems may be arising, we would envisage mounting an enforcement campaign. This would involve Ministers designating individuals as enforcement officers. They would then collect samples and would send them for analysis. Analysis for pesticide residues is a very complicated matter and would probably need to be done in the central laboratories. Local authorities have indicated that they are willing to collaborate with us in this work and to allow their staff to be designated as enforcement officers and, where they have the appropriate expertise, to contribute to analysis. Following a recent meeting they are now considering whether they wish to play a larger role.
Not all pesticides leave detectable residues, and many that are present just after treatment do not persist. But I believe that we owe it to farmers and growers, to the food trade and to consumers, to create a framework within which farmers know that they can operate freely, traders can buy and sell, and the consumer can go the shops in the knowledge that what is displayed there meets stringent national and international standards on residues. Because of their European component, these regulations also make their contribution to the achievement of a wider European market. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am sure we all agree that it is absolutely necessary for this document to be produced because the public are a little afraid of the amount of spraying that goes on. It is reassuring to them to know that there are now regulations of maximum residue levels which are harmless. I never realised that 61 pesticides were used, of which 23 are used on cereals and 53 on the other crops listed in Schedule 2.
I wish to make only one point. In one particular year I counted that we sprayed a field of wheat five times: twice for weeds, twice for disease, and once for aphids. That is five pesticides being used. What happens if the level of each of these pesticides is just below the maximum registered level but the total is very high? I just wonder whether there is anything to stop that happening, otherwise we give a blessing to the statutory instrument.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I concur with my noble kinsman. When I think about pesticides I remember the remark of the Duke of Wellington about his troops: that he did not know what they did to the enemy, but "My God, they terrify me". That is true of the pesticides we use and I believe that the regulations are necessary, The review every two years is certainly also necessary. We commend the regulations.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the MRLs are designed to be limits which will not be exceeded when good agricultural practice is followed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was following good agricultural practice when he sprayed his field five times. However, we have selected the limits which best accord with United Kingdom circumstances. It is up to the noble Lord to take his usual responsible point of view when applying pesticides, knowing the results. I thank noble Lords for being so brief. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Set-Aside Regulations 1988
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th July be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am assuming that the background to the introduction of the Community set-aside scheme is well known to the House—though I can give more details in my closing remarks if required. The timetable set by the Council for implementation by member states has been very tight. Rightly so, because farmers needed to know the details of the scheme as quickly as possible if it was to influence cropping decisions for the 1989 season. So we have had to act speedily to devise these regulations. But the United Kingdom is not alone. Although we were the first to submit a scheme formally to the Commission for approval, we have been closely followed by most of the other member states. Only Italy, Ireland and Denmark have yet to send their proposals to the Commission. So most member states look likely to have schemes in force by this autumn.
Turning now to the details of the measure, I should first say that much of what is contained in these regulations is set by the two EC regulations, Council Regulation 1094/88, the main obligations; and Commission Regulation 1272/88, the detailed rules. But we have tried, so far as possible within the constraints imposed by the EC legislation, to keep the scheme relatively simple and flexible for farmers.
Farmers who enter the scheme must undertake to set aside an area of land equivalent to at least 20 per cent. of the area used for production of the so-called "relevant arable crops"—that is supported crops—in the base year 1987–88. Together with the obligation to set aside a certain amount of land goes an obligation not to increase the area of land remaining in production of relevant arable crops. There are three main options for the use of land set aside:
342
fallow, woodland or non-agricultural use. I shall say a little about each one.
First, fallow: as is clear from a quick reading of the regulations, the word "fallow" does not quite equate with its traditional meaning. Farmers traditionally have thought of fallow as bare ground included in the arable rotation. However, under set-aside, the detailed rules for the management of fallow land include a requirement to establish and maintain a plant cover on the land left fallow. And fallow can be either rotational—in which case it attracts a payment of £180 per hectare (or £160 in the LFAs)—or permanent for the full five years of the scheme—in
which case the payment is £200 per hectare (£180 in LFAs). Schedule 2 to the regulations sets out the statutory management rules designed to help ensure that land is kept in good condition and that there is no damage to the environment. The rules include, for example, prohibitions or restrictions on the use of fertilisers and pesticides, and on land improvement works; and there is also an obligation to maintain features—for example, hedges and trees—on or next to set-aside land. The conditions provide scope for farmers to obtain positive benefits for the environment. We shall also shortly be issuing advisory guidelines to help them.
The House will also be aware that we have decided not to take up the option allowed for in the EC legislation of extensive grazing of fallow land. I am glad to say that our decision on this has been widely welcomed by farmers, who were justifiably concerned that such an option could distort competition for existing livestock producers, particularly in the uplands. France, originally the main advocate of grazed fallow, has reached the same conclusion and will not be permitting it in her national scheme.
For the woodland option, these regulations provide the farmer with a choice of two alternatives. In both cases, eligibility is linked to obtaining a planting grant under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme. Farmers wishing to plant trees can then either opt for the route of direct set-aside to woodland—in which case they will receive the same rates of payment as for permanent fallow but only for the five years of the set-aside scheme—or they can opt to enter the farm woodland scheme and receive the rate of payment appropriate to that scheme for the full term of up to 40 years, depending on the species mix. We felt that it was important that farmers should have the choice between the two routes because, as your Lordships are aware, the farm woodland scheme has specific rules, for example minimum and maximum areas planted to trees; and we wanted set-aside to woodland to be nonetheless available to farmers outside these limits. I should add that while farmers are waiting to begin planting trees they will be required to manage the land as fallow under the management rules.
For the non-agricultural use option, we have tried to keep the regulations as flexible as possible to allow farmers to use their entrepreneurial skills. For this reason we have not included a list of permitted nonagricultural uses. We have, however, specifically excluded from eligibility the use of set-aside land for mineral extraction—including opencast coal—and for permanent buildings related to use for industrial,

343
retail or residential purposes. The rate of payment for all non-agricultural uses is £150 per hectare (or £130 in the LFAs). The lower rate reflects the fact that an income could be expected from the non-agricultural enterprise. Of course, the set-aside scheme does not affect any requirement to obtain planning permission.
Turning briefly to eligibility, to enter the scheme an applicant must have been farming the holding for at least 12 months before the set-aside period begins. We hope that this will help to ensure that the scheme is only taken up by genuine farmers. Tenant farmers on a fixed term lease are eligible to apply provided that the lease has at least five years left to run. However, if tenants wish to take up the woodland or non-agricultural use options, they will be required to obtain the consent of their landlord. For the fallow option, they must notify their landlord. We believe that these requirements are in the best interests of tenants and landlords alike. In particular, they provide the tenant with the opportunity to explore with his landlord ways in which he may enter the scheme wihout incurring the risk of breaching his tenancy agreement.
In the interests of being concise I have given only the main outline of the regulations. I hope that this is sufficient as an introducton, and I shall try to deal with any other points that are raised in my concluding remarks. I should, however, like to say one further thing: that is to emphasise how important it is for arable farmers to register their 1987–88 cropping pattern with us this year even if they wish to defer a decision on whether or not actually to enter the set-aside scheme. The value of registration to farmers is that, if they apply for set-aside in a later year, they will not need to provide further evidence of the 1987–88 cropping pattern on land which has already been registered with us. If land has not been registered, independent evidence will need to be provided probably in the form of a certificate from a qualified surveyor. That may be difficult in some cases and will, in any case, involve further expense to applicants. I hope that arable farmers will see the advantages of registration and send in the shorter registration form to reach us by the end of September. I commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th July be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
8.50 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has a difficult job tonight. She began well and has been concise. She emphasised that time was tight and I cannot agree more. Within the next two months farmers will be busy harvesting and their minds will not be too far ahead. I hope that they will be able to find time to look at the question of registering before the end of September. Time is tight and sometimes it takes farmers a fair time to make up their mind, particularly as regards such an important matter.
The main object of the scheme is to reduce cereal production and many other crops, particularly oil
344
seeds. We must look at the issue from that point of view. The noble Baroness suggested that there is scope within the scheme for diversification and so on. However, that is a side effect and we must look at the issue from a production point of view. I have my doubts about whether cereal production will be reduced.
Sub-committee D of the Select Committee on Agriculture made a comprehensive report. No fewer than five members of the committee will speak tonight. I shall leave it to them to pick out the salient points which the Government have ignored in their report and which I believe are important.
On Monday the Minister of Agriculture was interviewed on "The Farming Programme" and I listened with great interest. I was intrigued by the fact that he stressed most strongly that he wanted to concentrate on less-favoured areas where they should not be growing grain in any event. I doubt whether they should not be growing grain. I know that grain has been grown on some of the less-favoured areas for a long time. However, if he wishes to concentrate on such areas, believing that to be best, why offer the farmers £20 per hectare less than that offered to the other areas? To give the farmers £20 per hectare less than the more-favoured areas seems to be a curious way of stressing the point: that is unless the less-favoured areas are linked to the farm woodland scheme which the noble Baroness mentioned and which would help.
I spoke to a relation in Scotland about the matter. He farms two fairly large farms which were created by amalgamating smaller farms and which are in less-favoured areas. To join the scheme he is to take sufficient land out and plant trees on the farm on which he lives purely to shelter the house and buildings. He says that otherwise he has no interest in the scheme. He emphasised to me the fact that he had been talking to his neighbours, most of whom are still farming the smaller farms in less-favoured areas. They vary in size from 150 to 250 acres. The farmers have no interest because on a farm of that size one has the equipment to run it the way it is. There is probably only part-time labour and the farmer, or at most one worker. One cannot cut down on any of that and the scheme is not attractive to that type of farm. I shall be interested to hear what my noble kinsman has to say because it is probable that he has better knowledge of the areas than I.
The point is that these areas are not creating the surplus. What about the favoured areas? They are the large East Anglian farmers from where the surplus is coming. From the economic point of view, unless the 20 per cent. takes out enough to pay off a man, sell a combine and a tractor, probably leaving 1,000 tonnes of grain storage standing empty, it does not appear to be very attractive. I cannot see a 2,000 acre farmer taking out 400 acres from a fully-mechanised farm and doing just that; that is to say, reducing the staff by a man and selling a tractor and combine. I believe that the percentage should be graded downwards from the 20 per cent. in less-favoured areas to 10 per cent. on the best farms in the country. That may bring a bigger acreage into set-aside than at the moment. However, I give the noble Baroness that point which I believe is most valid.

345
I think that there are several minor points which may have made the scheme more attractive. It is a pity that the French dropped the fallow grazing scheme. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that on the whole farmers did not like it. I believe that it would not have made much difference to the traditional grazing areas. It would be fairly easy to police and I do not believe that many arable farmers would go to the trouble to fence fallow grazing to any great extent. If it were made clear that no nitrogen must be put on the land and that the stocking must be light, I believe it would have been of more value to the country than fallowing, either green or straight fallow.
The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, chairman of the Rural Development Commission, speaks strongly about the matter from an environmental point of view, apart from the economic point of view. The noble Baroness has previously emphasised the fact that this is an experiment. The scheme should be experimented with and it could be altered if it is believed to be hurting the traditional grazing areas.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness how much flexibility there will be. Can one change from one type of fallow to another in the middle of the three-year period? Can one change from grazing horses to a fallow cover, and so on? Are the Government satisfied, as the noble Baroness mentioned, that tenants will have the same rights as owner-occupiers? They must have their landlord's permission and cooperation and that may be difficult to obtain before the end of September. That is a matter which must be looked at urgently.
Why is there the large difference of £50 per hectare for non-agricultural use? I declare an interest in that in my area, which is 22 miles from here, we can let land for horse grazing. It is up to us to find clients and the Government have done nothing to help us to obtain that horse grazing. Why should we find £50 for being a little more progressive than our neighbours who are putting down a green fallow? I believe that that is rather hard. After all, we are taking land out of production, which is what the Government want, and we are going to suffer because we are dealing with it in a different way.
There is the question of plant cover. Apart from pasture the only plant that I can think of is mustard, and you cannot sow that in October. A list of plants is given which are not excluded and I have marked them in the list here. I do not know anything about lupins and the noble Baroness may be able to help. Can one plant lupins in October? The other one is fodder rape. October is rather too late to plant seed rape but I do not know about fodder rape. These questions have to be answered.
If the Government get their acreage, on which they are going to spend £16 million, I worked that out as being between 200 and 250,000 acres. Is there enough mustard seed and so on to plant that acreage in the time we have been given?
I should like to make one last point. We are not allowed to do any more drainage and we have to be careful about how much repairing and keeping up of drainage we do. Would that cover mole drainage? We
346
have to do a lot of that on my farm, as do a whole lot of other farmers. I hope that that is not to be tampered with in any way.
On the question of what will happen, I hope that we shall receive a report fairly regularly. I am sure that we could have a report one month after the end of the first year. It is only a case of adding up figures to see how the scheme is going. On the whole, we are anxious to help over the surpluses hut, as I said earlier, to use a Scottish phrase, "I hae me doots" about the particular scheme.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as usual I follow my noble kinsman knowing that large parts of what I was going to say will already have been said by him. However, I believe that this is a very important measure, not in itself but in what it is trying to do. There is the most enormous interest in it. We have all received literature from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Consumers' Association, all of whom are experts on what should be done to improve the countryside from their particular angle.
I believe that the first thing to remember is that agriculture in this country is still a great business of enormous importance to the country, the biggest single saver of imports that we have, and that remains the basis on which any improvement or lack of improvement in the countryside will be carried out. It must be approached from that point of view.
I do not know how much the Government are hoping for and perhaps the Minister can tell us what is the estimate of the take-up of this scheme. Like my noble kinsman, I see great snags. It comes to £80 an acre, £200 a hectare—I am more used to working in acres, as I am sure is the noble Baroness. At £80 an acre it is wholly unattractive to any farm which is producing in a reasonable manner. I cannot think that it can be taken up by anybody who does his accounting, who is making a living out of farming and who has the normal overheads of a not too large overdraft or is paying a rent, and that sort of thing. I cannot see that it is attractive in any way at £80 an acre.
The experience of the experiment in Lower Saxony, where they were paying £160 an acre, was interesting and we should look at that. I have a paper on it and a speech by the Minister in the Federal Republic which states:
"Farmers' participation in the experiment was lower than hoped for in the first year. In total an area of 33,000 hectares at an average cost of 35 million deutschmark took part. The average green fallow acreage was 4.35 hectares. The participation was concentrated in areas with relatively poor quality land, that is particularly in the heath region which had 35.9 per cent. of total applicants".
That lends some credence to the hope of the Minister of Agriculture that the scheme will take land out of production which should not be growing cereals at all. However, even there I doubt that it will have much effect. My noble kinsman has already cited the example of the family farm. If one takes out 20 per cent. at £80 an acre, I very much doubt if it is possible in the small farms, or farms which are not all that small but certainly big by continentnal standards. Farms between 100 and 200 acres on the east coast of

347
Scotland and upland areas cannot find it very attractive.
As regards the good ground farms and grain growing areas in East Anglia and East Scotland where I am myself, there is no way that I would look at it. I could not possibly look at 20 per cent. of the farm at £80 an acre and continue to be able to buy myself another gin. It would drop my income enormously. The only sort of people who can take it up are those who are doing extraordinarily well, are extraordinarily competent, with very good land and want to plant trees. They can do without the income because in the long run the new grants for trees may pay them to put in trees but in the short run they will lose the income off the farm, and £80 an acre will not cover that.
I believe that experience of this scheme would show that there is not enough money in it—and I have often quoted a figure in this House. If you save the export subsidy and the storage on 2 tonnes of barley, it comes to a great deal more than £80 an acre. In fact half of it comes to more than £80 an acre. If the German scheme did not work at double the money, I cannot see a great deal of hope that this scheme will have any real effect on the surpluses which are bedevilling the efficient farmers of this country and of Europe.
There are a number of points about the present scheme, particularly regarding slippage, about which we have heard a great deal from America. The fact is that one does not get a fall in production in proportion to the number of acres taken out of use. My noble friend Lord Hunt, who is mainly interested in the countryside as a pleasant place to be proud of, is concerned about this aspect and asked me to speak about it. It is simply this. Putting fallow down, particularly rotational fallow, is apt to raise production on the rest of the land.
My noble friend was also worried that we are not using grass as a cover crop from the conservation point of view. If an increase in the production of sheep and beef on a surplus area could be avoided, it is natural to conserve the countryside as a pleasant place rather than having acres of bare fallow.
Another point, again raised by my noble friend, relates to fallow in urban areas. We all know that one cannot put stock on fallow land in urban areas. If one farms too near a town there are problems with dogs and human vandals. It is impossible, therefore, to carry stock. If one has a lot of bare fallow, or land left to what is called natural regeneration, one has the most appalling eyesores. Natural regeneration means growing weeds, thistles, and so on, and the seeds are blown into everyone's gardens. Natural regeneration appears to be a total and complete nonsense.
As regards other uses, it is hoped that 2 million acres in this country will be taken out of production. All the farm shops, horses, nature trails, jumping grounds—however one cares to put the land into non-farming use—cannot possibly take up those 2 million acres. Therefore, we shall be looking at woodland and/or grazing. I put in a plea that the Government should now start examining extensification, which means lowering the amount of
348
fertiliser and the intensity of the farming of grass. To do that one gets back to a system which worked for a long time in my native county of Aberdeenshire.
Land is put down to grass for a number of years. At the end of three or four years one takes a very cheap crop of oats which needs no fertilising and then puts back the land under a cover crop of grass. If you are intensifying to the extent that we are doing today, it is possible that de-intensification, or a more extensive system of farming, would pay just as well and might also be healthier for the countryside than the various schemes we have at present. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government are willing to examine such a scheme.
Even with the present scheme an enormous amount of inspection will be necessary. There will have to be an increase in the number of civil servants looking after affairs if we are to have any form of set-aside. The scheme must be policed properly, otherwise it will come into total disrepute. If that is to happen, I plead for further consideration of extensification. It is a ridiculous word but it means less intensive systems, which will be better for the countryside. A decent subsidy—I call it a subsidy—from the Government would pay farmers as well and keep the population in the countryside, which will look a great deal better. Apart from that, I believe it is an interesting experiment. Like my noble kinsman, I look forward, though I cannot see; I look in fear.
9.13 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining these regulations so clearly. In point of fact they are, in essence, fairly simple. I discard the alternative uses of land as being of only fringe benefit so far as concerns the main objective, presumably, of this set-aside. The main objective—a laudable one—is to save money being spent on surpluses and to diminish those surpluses by taking land out of cultivation.
Then one gets down to the details—I shall be brief because they have all been mentioned already—of whether any land will be taken out of cultivation. When the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned that this might be an experiment, I saw my noble friend nod her head. I think that this is an experiment taken almost to the point of timidity, because there are two main streams here. First, the target is too small, which brings in the point of slippage which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made. So in point of fact very little, if anything at all, will be accomplished in the way of reduction. I did not hear the noble Lord mention in the same breath as slippage advances in biotechnology, plant breeding and those sorts of matters which, if extrapolated from the past, mean that we shall all be growing more crops per acre or a heavier weight of crop per acre, which would therefore cancel out any small advantage that might have been gained.
Having said that, I do not think that set-aside is worthless in any way. It has to be looked at in the context of farm price reviews and stabilisers. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that very few people would want to take 20 per cent. of their land out at the present time—he

349
gave some very good examples—if perchance stabilisers bit deeply and the percentage crop in price accumulated, or if for some other reason, such as a farm price review, prices were really reduced so that some of the smaller and not quite so efficient farmers were put in an awkward position, then they might see this set-aside scheme as an insurance policy, albeit a very poor one.
In that context—I hardly dare mention it since the scheme only runs for five years and people can opt out after three—I still secretly believe that any payment for doing something should be indexed, but I shall not press the point further than that.
At the moment the whole matter might prove to be much ado about nothing. This Government and all the other governments across Europe might conduct their experiments to see what happens; but it will be quite a long experiment if they want to change direction in a hurry.
The matter has been commented on in the press, and very widely in the farming press; but outside farming the whole matter of set-aside is of considerable interest to everybody. Perhaps, unlike me, people feel that large blocks of the English countryside are going to look rather different from the way they have looked in the recent past. Here, if I may make an excrutiating joke, I am a voice crying in the wilderness, because I believe that the proper way to have gone about this matter would have been to allow land to fall back to nature. On the whole, if a blade of grass grows, the Englishman wishes to cut it; if a bush grows, he wishes to clip it; or if a rose grows, he wishes to prune it. That seems to me to be rather a suburban attitude towards country life. If we have to take land out of cultivation, I should be much happier if it were left for God to do what he would with it.
I am sure that the environmentalists have missed a trick here. They seem to think that a fallow with many passes of the cultivator every year and possibly the spray boom, or the green fallow without any animals grazing on it, with the mower and the flail trimming it off, are going to be good for nature. I cannot see that that is good for birds, mammals, reptiles or lepidoptera. Most of us who were brought up in the country knew perfectly well where to go to find brown game and wild flowers. It was in just those messy places to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred. The pheasant always sat in a clump of nettles and the rabbit, I am afraid, with him. Wild flowers grew (at any rate in my part of the world), and we knew exactly where to go to look for wild animals. They were not on the fallow ground. The fallow was huge in those days. Fallow ground had the skylarks, the green curlew and, sadly past, the stone curlew as well. I am sorry that this matter was not allowed. One could do it but I believe that one would be penalised. It would be quite possible and allowable to let land fall back—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Earl knew when he was young where to go to find wild flowers and pastures which had been down for generations. However, we have interfered so much
350
with the land. We have sprayed all the natural flowers; and the weeds that grow now are the ones that have survived the sprays. If you leave for a generation land that has been cultivated, you will not get a very pleasant mixture such as the noble Earl remembers. That is my point.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I take the point entirely; but in the same way the Government are having a little experiment, I should be quite prepared to have one too if I were given the opportunity.
If I wished to set anything aside on my farm (which I would not dream of doing) I could do it by allowing the land to fall back so that little bushes grew for the song birds, and so on. Then I would build a cheap and small bird-watching hide and charge a small sum for people to come and look at whatever had come to my green patch. I shall not pursue that matter further. The regulations are important as an insurance policy if something goes very wrong for the smaller and not so well-off farmers. It will be a rush for them to be organised for September, and difficult for them to realise that they must be organised by 30th September even to join the scheme in future years. Having said that, I give the regulations a qualified welcome.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, perhaps I may settle any lingering doubts that the noble Baroness may have about my attitude towards the regulations by saying that I do not in any way oppose the proposals. Having said that, I cannot pretend that I give them a warm welcome, basically for the reasons that other noble Lords have already put forward. I do not believe that this will work. What is not sufficiently realised other than by farmers themselves is the very great financial burden they have in the form of fixed costs, whether for rent, for mortgage interest, for bank overdrafts or, to a certain extent, for wages. Those things go on year after year, whether one is farming 100 acres, 80 acres, 1,000 acres or 800 acres. Something in excess of £80 an acre on a normal efficient arable farm is a low figure for the actual fixed costs. If a farmer were offered £80 an acre for taking his land out of production he would be worse off than if he were farming that land and getting a low price for whatever he might have produced on it. It would certainly cover his variable costs.
So, while it may be that certain farmers on marginal land, or who wish for one reason or another to have life a bit easier, may be tempted by this, at the present proposed rates I cannot see that there will be any significant response to the scheme. I, may be proved wrong, and we shall see very quickly. However, it would surprise me very much if there were any significant reduction in the total production of the crops in question.
I say that because there is still another factor which I do not think has been mentioned on this occasion, although it has been raised in the past when discussing the matter. It is this. The farmer who is going to go into set-aside will not offer his best land; it will be his marginal land, his worst land. Therefore the average yield of his farm will be enhanced by

351
taking out the worst land. Thus, having rather more effort and time to spare for his remaining land, the chances are that the yields on that land will increase—I think it may be called "slippage" in technical jargon—and the total amount produced will not be anything like 20 per cent. less. For those reasons, I do not believe that this scheme will have any significant effect in solving the problem of overproduction and reducing the costs of the Common Market.
On the question of costs, I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could give us some estimate of figures as to how much this scheme is expected to cost in the first year—and the second year if she has the figures—how much less of the crops in question will be produced and therefore how much will be saved in intervention, and so on.
My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie mentioned the Lower Saxony experiment. I should like to remind your Lordships of figures which were in fact printed in the Select Committee's most valuable report on set-aside of agricultural land, which was printed on 29th March of this year. According to the report, in the first year, that is 1986–87, in Lower Saxony the total cost of the scheme was £11·8 million. The reduction in output was 135,000 tonnes, which at a round figure of £100 a tonne means £13·5 million was saved provided the crop was completely destroyed immediately—if it was burnt. However, had it been sold at some lower price—say, 50 per cent. of the £100 which is the guaranteed price of the Community—the scheme would in fact have cost approximately £6·75 million.
I happily accept, as pointed out in the report, that the first year in Lower Saxony was disappointing but that it looks as if there will be a better response to it for the second year. But it does not necessarily follow if there is a better response that the cost of the scheme will be less. Therefore, if the noble Baroness can give us figures to show how much the scheme will cost and what the savings are expected to be, I think it will put us in a somewhat better position to assess its value.
I turn now to several minor points. It has already been made clear that opencast mining is not allowed on land which is set aside. But it would be interesting
352
to know if, for instance, it would be legitimate to use the land which is set aside for the provision of infill, for the making of roads or for building sites, as in certain areas there is a very considerable demand for infill. Could it be used for the excavation of pits into which town refuse could be put? One of the most valuable uses to which disused quarries or pits can be put is for the dumping of refuse. Will that be allowed on the land which has been set aside or will it be one of the prohibited uses? That is only a minor point, but it is of some interest.
I cannot help feeling—and here again my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie mentioned this point—that more emphasis should have been placed upon conservation and the environment in its widest sense. I know that some—dare I say?—lip service has been paid to that idea. However, many people would be far happier if instead of paying farmers what appear to the outside world to be substantial sums—even though, as I have explained, I do not believe that they will be sufficient to entice them to take part—to grow nothing on their land, they were paid sums to do certain approved jobs which would enhance the environment and give more pleasure to the urban population. Whether it is making land available for picnic sites, growing wild orchids, or doing a whole variety of things, the set-aside should be linked to specified projects agreed to by those authorities which have already been quoted, which will assure the population that the land which has been set aside will add to their pleasure rather than merely left to grow thistles, nettles and possibly a few wild flowers.
My final point is somewhat more philosophical. Surely it is a grave reflection on our so-called civilisation today, and on the form of the world economy as it exists today, that while one-third of the world's population suffers from malnutrition or starvation, we should be racking our brains and evolving all sorts of ingenious devices so that we can produce rather less. Is that the type of civilisation in which we want to live and of which we are proud? Can we not devote the ingenuity, of which there is plenty in Brussels and elsewhere, which is being used to discover the best means of growing less food to discovering how we can ensure that the food we do not want goes to the people who need it so sorely?
9.33 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, whatever else it was, the Commission's set-aside scheme agreed by the European Council last February was never intended to be a major instrument for reform of the CAP, and hence its relatively small Community budget provision. At best, the Commission estimated that Community cereal production might be reduced by 2·3 million tonnes, which would just about balance the annual increase in corn yields attributable to improved production techniques.
It is clear that Her Majesty's Government took the view that the main instrument for reform was the new stabiliser regime, and of course that is right. They would therefore draw up a set-aside scheme which would need to conform with the Commission's guidelines, but which would cost the United Kingdom taxpayer as little as possible; would be as simple as possible to administer; but which would at the same time stand a chance of being taken up by farmers. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, most of the Commission's conditions are contained in the Great Britain scheme. When it comes to payment, the Commission prescribed a minimum of £65 per hectare and a maximum of £390 rising to £455 in certain conditions. Payments under these regulations, as we have heard tonight. range from £130 to £200 a hectare. I have to agree with many noble Lords who have spoken that this scale of payments will not be very attractive to British farmers.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher's Sub-committee D on which I have the great pleasure of serving, when taking evidence on the draft set-aside scheme, was told by the farming organisations that at least £300 a hectare would be needed just to cover the fixed costs on arable land. The Home Grown Cereals Authority thought that £260 might tempt farmers to participate.
Noble Lords have mentioned the green fallow programme in Lower Saxony. That programme was unable to stimulate much take-up until Saxon farmers had been offered compensation in the range of what amounts to £333 to £466 per hectare. A further disincentive is the proportion of a farmer's arable land to be withdrawn. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and his noble kinsman that substantial cereal producers would be very unwilling to reduce their output by 20 per cent. Again, some farmers might have been tempted to participate, had they been allowed to put their set-aside land down to grass for grazing. This has been mentioned by noble Lords. It is allowed by the Commission under their regulations but not under these regulations. I think I understand the reasons for the Government's unwillingness to allow a "grazed fallow", but I too, with other noble Lords, am disappointed that this option was not adopted for Great Britain as we recommended in our Select Committee report.
I cannot believe that when livestock numbers are known through the returns which farmers make for various reasons, it will be impossible to administer more extensive grazing on set-aside land. There are also good environmental reasons for doing so, as noble Lords have pointed out.
354
Turning now to matters of detail and with regard to fallowing, I understand why the farmer is required to establish plant cover on the set-aside land. This is to prevent leaching of nitrates, soil erosion and so on. However, rotational fallow is to be allowed. This is a perfectly normal husbandry practice, especially on clay soils. On a portion of the farm, the stubble is left unploughed after harvest and then ploughed in the following May or June, before there has been much weed growth. The furrow slice will be broken up by cultivation during the late summer. That and the weather will achieve a tilth for September or October sowing, after a year's rest or fallow. In that case, a cover crop would be wholly inappropriate. On heavy land, ploughing in a green crop would turn in the tilth and what was turned up would not have time to form a seed bed.
Turning to Regulation 4(1), I do not see why the set-aside land has to be on adjacent fields if more than one field is to qualify. This might be difficult where rotational fallow is to be adopted. It seems to me to impose an unnecessary restraint. I am sure that there is a perfectly good reason for this which the noble Baroness will tell me. If I remember rightly, the council regulation required members states:
"to take necessary measures to keep land in good agricultural condition".
Yet the plant cover under these regulations, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, may take the form of the regeneration of "naturally-occurring vegetation." That is precisely the language used by scientists employed. by the Nature Conservancy Council, of which I am a member, when they correct me after I have used the word "weeds". They say, "There are no such things as weeds. Those plants are naturally occurring vegetation."
The regulations require the plant cover to be cut at least once a year. But many a weed can spread its seed far and wide if mowing is mistimed. Indeed, under these regulations, a farmer may be excused from mowing his plant cover on the grounds of maintenance of wildlife habitat. That pleases me very much as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council. It certainly pleases my noble friend Lord Radnor. But it horrifies me as a farmer who is well aware of the damage done by rabbits. They certainly come under the heading of wildlife.
Under the requirements as regards the use of set-aside land for non-agricultural purposes, building works for certain purposes are forbidden. As far as I can see, all the set-aside land could be covered in concrete, provided that the use for those particular purposes was avoided. That would hardly be keeping the land in good agronomic condition; nor would some of the uses mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
In my view it is necessary that our European farmland should be kept right and fit for food production in an emergency. Just now there is an urgent need to get land out of production. But anyone who failed to experience a frisson on learning of this year's drought in the United States must be shortsighted as well as unimaginative. The world's climate could change. All our land might then again be in demand for food production.

355
I feel that these regulations are not quite tight enough in requiring that set-aside land should be kept in good heart and condition. I know that the Explanatory Note states that that is the case, but that is not the same thing. Beneath the heading "Explanatory Note" on page 13 is stated:
"This note is not part of the Regulations".
Finally, I do not see why a farmer should not renew his field drainage while the land is fallow. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned mole draining. That would seem to me to be the obvious time to do it.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in giving evidence to the Select Committee, said that a set-aside scheme could:
"accelerate the effect of action on prices by offering producers an alternative to production of cereals and help reduce the impact of lower prices on the incomes of those producers least able to adapt to them."
That is a modest goal and this is a modest scheme. I am afraid that I join other noble Lords in not being very optimistic about the likely take-up.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I have always felt that I had a good deal in common with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, as regards farming. We have known each other for a long time. It gave me a certain amount of satisfaction to learn that he and I evidently wake up at the same time in the morning and listen to the farming programme at a quarter-past six.
On Monday I listened to the programme. When the Minister and my right honourable friend were asked by Mr. Tim Finney who they were aiming the set-aside programme at, the reply was quite specifically:
"at the upland marginal cereal growers"
I am certainly one of those growers. I am a marginal grower indeed, because for years Leaston has been right at the very edge and on the wrong side when the hill subsidies were being offered. It was the last farm outside the hill farming area. So there is no question of the marginality of it.
I shall not detain the House for very long. However, I feel that the reaction of a marginal upland farmer may be useful to your Lordships. Leaston has been farmed on conservative lines of two years of grass followed by three years of grain, with almost equal acreages of the three varieties. The yields vary wildly. In 1981 the yield was 51 cwt. per acre overall, and it went down to 30 cwt. in the disastrous harvest of 1983. The average over the last five years has been almost exactly 2 tonnes an acre.
Much has been said about variable costs. I tend to get confused about which costs are variable and which are fixed. I believe that the expression "fixed costs" is one of the most ridiculous ones that has ever been invented. However, variable costs such as those for seeds, fertilisers and sprays, which are all reducible on a per acre basis, have averaged £79 per
356
acre over the past five years. In 1987 the costs were £84 per acre. It is interesting that the figure from the east of Scotland colleges for the less favoured area farms from 1984 to 1986 shows a variable cost of £79. It is also interesting that in another place Sir Charles Morrison quoted a figure of £80 as the variable cost for Wiltshire.
I am bound to say that tributes to my right honourable friend have been somewhat lacking this evening. But one thing that can be said is that he has done his sums with a good deal of care in arriving at a figure of £80 per acre. However, the cost of set-aside cannot coincide precisely with the figure of variable costs.The point has been made that if acreage is reduced, some of the fixed costs will inevitably rise per acre. I would not be able to save on labour and I cannot see that a large bill in depreciation will come down. When I say that there will be no saving in labour, I dare say that with 60 acres less I might save a bit on overtime, which would not be very popular with the farm staff. Therefore I must say to my right honourable friend that in handing us this cup he has not been able to fill it. It is not his fault; it is the old enemy, the Treasury, which is determined to see whether it can cheese-pare us a bit.
If I am farming outside the less favoured area, I am offered £80 per acre and if I am inside it, I am offered £72 per acre, provided I reduce my 300 acres to 240 acres. I must do that for at least three years and preferably for five. In any case, the figures will come down by £20 per acre if I work the fallow into my rotation. If I reduce down to 200 acres, which is a reduction of 30 per cent., I shall receive a bounty of £140 per year for 20 tonnes of grain being freed from the hated co-responsibility levy. That £140 would be far outweighed by the cost of sowing and tending a green crop on the fallow.
Am I attracted by the scheme? I fear not—and I think that my noble friend will have to face up to the fact that that is the answer coming from all sides. It is understandable perhaps from the National Farmers' Union but, significantly, it is also coming from the economic staff of at least one of the Scottish agricultural colleges—who are very, very good.
My right honourable friend has said—and I commend him for emphasising the point—that set-aside is a payment for managing land, keeping it in good condition and making it environmentally attractive; it is not a hand-out to farmers for doing nothing. I agree with him 100 per cent. that there would be a public outcry if payments were set much too high.
As I have said, my right honourable friend has been hard at work on his statistics. Therefore, surely he must know how many tonnes of grain he is aiming at not being produced. He must also know what kind of tonnage is produced by farms which yield, say, below the 2 tonne per acre range. I suspect that he has a pretty good idea because the statisticians in MAFF are very clever. He probably knows too the tonnage from farms which yield between 2 and 2½ tonnes an acre. Will he get his required tonnage from the marginal upland growers who are his prime target, even if they were all to stop growing grain? Perhaps my noble friend can tell us that. I very much doubt it.

357
Therefore, if my right honourable friend had to take in some of the low ground, his set-aside figures would have to be much higher. He made that point himself when he has said that rates in the less favoured areas are lower because yields are lower, ergo it is not illogical to say that they will be higher if he extends the scheme to areas where the yields are greater.
Finally, I have just two points. I think that £80 per acre is possibly just enough—and that is a guess on my part—to interest a 30 cwt. an acre grower. However, I cannot believe that enough grain is coming off that kind of land to give the result that is wanted. Secondly, as I understand it the runaway costs which are at the back of the scheme, the enormous expenditure on the common agricultural policy, are caused not by payments to farmers but by storing the grain in intervention. Set-aside is something totally new.
It is very difficult having been told "Grow more: you are a wonderful lot, your productivity is an example to the nation", all of a sudden to be told to go into reverse. Was it not Winston Churchill who said something to the effect that if one wants to put an express train into reverse and set it going in the other direction, one has to slow it down and stop it first? Therefore I think that to get a new venture of this kind off the ground one must pitch one's offer on the high side and then, if it proves a success, there will be the possibility of reducing it.
My noble friend will embark on what I think is fairly rough water when she replies to this debate. I am quite certain that she will calm the waves with her usual eloquence. But as it is, I am afraid that I must join other noble Lords in expressing what perhaps I might politely call a good deal of froideur about these proposals.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, most of the points that I had intended to make have already been made. I too give a qualified welcome to these proposals. I must agree with earlier speakers that the amount of compensation that is being offered is probably totally inadequate. I should like in particular to support those noble Lords who have advocated the grazed fallow option or deplored the fact that grazed fallow is not included in the provisions.
If I may, I should like very briefly to speak about the environmental issues involved. The Government have introduced this set-aside proposal under Regulation 1094/88 of the Community. Unlike many other Governments in the Community, they have done so by the due date for the introduction of such regulations, for which they certainly deserve to be congratulated. Under the same regulation they will have to introduce within the next two years provisions for compensation for the extensification of farm operations as an alternative to set-aside. I suggest to your Lordships that extensification is of the greatest importance—possibly, indeed definitely, of much greater importance in the context of the countryside and environmental issues than set-aside.
358
In that context I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention the CPRE evidence which starts on page 107 of the excellent report from Sub-Committee D. Extensification undoubtedly has potential advantages over set-aside but it is fair to say that not all extensification is necessarily good for the countryside. Many noble Lords will remember the countryside in the 1920s and '30s when the gaps in hedges were blocked with bedsteads and when grazing fields were often rotten with ragwort and thistles which spread their seeds all over the fields.
The maximum benefits from an extensification scheme will only be obtained if there is a farm plan and payment under the scheme is conditional upon the observance of that farm plan. I suggest to noble Lords that the Government are making fairly heavy weather of the concept of the farm plan, but there is absolutely nothing new about having a farm plan in agriculture. Certainly when I was training as a land agent every tenancy agreement had clauses related to the way in which the land should be used. For example, there were restrictions on the sale of manure and straw off the farm and ploughing permanent pastures and very often provision for specific rotations. The object of all those provisions was to keep the land in good heart.
A single visit or, at most two visits, per year by the land agent responsible for running the property was quite sufficient to ensure that those covenants in the lease were broadly observed. I think that there could be greater difficulty in the specific case of the grazing density of cattle. There is a problem in relation to extensification and indeed in the grazed fallow option in relation to the control of the number of beef animals grazing on a particular property.
In the context of extensification, I ask the noble Baroness whether there is any prospect of the introduction of some experiments on the concept of extensification which could be carried out forthwith, most suitably perhaps on the experimental husbandry farms.
There are questions that need to be answered. Among them of course are questions relating to the practices which are most valuable from an environmental point of view and also acceptable from the point of view of production. An obvious example of a practice that is becoming accepted as most valuable in both contexts is the non-use of herbicides and insecticides on the headlands of cereal fields. However, there are some proposals which the CPRE has suggested in its evidence which I believe would not work and would lead to an infestation of noxious weeds. I am conscious of the fact that conservationists often seem to want to make two weeds grow where one grew before. However, there are weeds and weeds; and some of the more noxious weeds are not the most valuable from the point of view of wildlife.
Another question that we have to ask ourselves is this. What kind of countryside do we want? The Countryside Commission and the CPRE seem to prefer a patchwork of fields interspersed with hedgerows—a kind of countryside traditional in many parts of the country for the last 100 or 200 years but not always. Before the enclosures, the English

359
[LORD NORTHBOURNE.]
countryside must have looked very different. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with, and love as I do, the countryside of northern France, where there is not a hedge to be seen and the poplar trees are planted in straight lines. Straight lines are anathema to the experts. The shelter belt planting scheme specifically excludes from the receipt of Government grant trees planted in straight lines. We are left with the question: what kind of countryside? Is there a danger of a bureaucrat's landscape or one drawn by a committee—a landscape in impeccably good taste but dreadfully dull?
Finally I should like to turn back to the set-aside scheme and discuss for a moment the question of access. Farmers were described by the Nature Conservancy Council in its evidence as custodians of the rural environment. We are all probably agreed that there is a need for long-term goodwill and cooperation between farmers and the public if access to the countryside is to work satisfactorily. In its evidence the CPRE refers to the provision of quiet access on foot to areas which are the subject of set-aside or extensification. Some other witnesses go much further and call for mandatory access to such areas. I think that many farmers would welcome quiet access on foot provided that it is for a purpose and subject to decent standards of behaviour. But how does one enforce decent standards of behaviour? The existing rights of way network gives us an example of the difficulty of doing so. The problem with the rights of way network is not its use but its abuse.
On the estate for which I am responsible, we have three examples of how access to the countryside can work. We have a scout camp which has been there for many years. In 25 years I do not think that we have ever had one single cause to complain about the occupation of that area by the scout camp. We allow the Pony Club to use some of the woods. Occasionally we have cause to complain but a telephone call to the secretary of the Pony Club usually puts the matter right. Finally, in the third example, we have for three or four months of the year gypsies who spend the winter in some of our woods. But, again, because the relationship is a permissive one, we get very little trouble from them.
How different this is from the problems that we have as a result of the rights of way running across some of our fields, which, due to sheep worrying, entirely prevent us from keeping or breeding sheep in those fields, and from the vandalism which is also associated with the right of way network. I think the difference lies in the fact that one right is conditional on reasonable behaviour and is given to a limited group of people; the other right is enjoyed as of right and is given to the public at large.
I would urge that if public access is to be a feature of set-aside, the Government should ensure that it is offered only subject to reasonable and enforceable conditions and to specific groups for a specific purpose. Only in this way can we hope to enlist and retain the co-operation of the farming community that is so important to the success of all the projects which we have, and which I wholly endorse, for the greater access to the countryside by the public.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this discussion of the regulations provides the only opportunity the House has had to debate the set-aside policy and to draw attention to the report on set-aside prepared by Sub-Committee D. It also provides an opportunity to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Gallacher who I believe finishes his term as chairman of the subcommittee at the end of this Session. Suffice it to say that I have never served anywhere under a better chairman whose combination of wit, firmness and courtesy has made membership of the committee a positive pleasure.
I do not propose to go through the report or the regulations in detail: but I should like to draw out just a few points from both. Before I do so, I shall repeat a point that I made when I asked a Starred Question on the set-aside policy because the Minister referred to landlord and tenant. I congratulated her on achieving what the Labour Party has been trying to do since it was formed: to end the private landlord in British agriculture. She will have to explain why the landlord, if a let farm returns to hand, should let it for a rent of, say, £35 or £45 an acre on a lifetime secured tenancy when all the landlord has to do is to plant it up with a cover crop and to draw the compensation of £80 an acre.
On the business of the grazed fallow and the grassland option referred to by a number of noble Lords, I too was disappointed that this was not included in the proposals. All of us who supported it and the EC regulations have recognised that if this is to be introduced there will have to be very strict controls on the stocking rate. I should include an absolute prohibition on any increase in the number of breeding animals on the grazed fallow which is in the set-aside scheme. It is obvious that the size of the national flock or herd and the growing animals is a function of the size of the national breeding herd or flock. If the arable farmer in the set-aside scheme could use the grazed fallow only for a very low stocking rate of store cattle or sheep, that would slightly increase the demand for store animals and would help the hill and upland farmer. He could let the grazing to sheep in winter and reduce the overgrazing on the uplands and moors.
It is an interesting statistic that if the national and the stocking rate of sheep and cattle was reduced or was de-intensified by a quarter of an acre per livestock unit nationally this would require an extra 3 million acres of grassland. A number of noble Lords referred to the extensification proposal which will have to be introduced. It will be interesting to see how the Ministry will deal with that when the proposals are introduced. It would also be interesting to know from the Minister when she thinks that those proposals might be introduced on the extensification scheme which has to be produced.
In the debate on set-aside in another place, the Minister, Mr. MacGregor, said that his mind was not closed on the grazed fallow option. It would be helpful if the Minister will repeat that assurance in this House.
I noticed the well-concealed glee with which the Minister pointed out that the French, who first

361
suggested the grazed fallow, had not included it in their set-aside scheme. I can only say that it is not only Albion that is perfidious. There is an important point of detail in the regulations which was referred to by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie and also by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. although the technique that he described was what is called the bastard fallow, which I believe is the term.
I refer here to page 12, paragraph 1. It is clear that the cover crop that has to be planted under the terms of the set-aside scheme has to be sown in the autumn. It is made entirely clear that it is to be planted immediately after harvest. As was pointed out earlier, one of the commonest crops for cover or for green manure is mustard which is a spring sown crop. There is great difficulty in establishing a grass cover in a wet autumn. Almost all the listed crops in this list B are spring-grown crops. I should like to ask which are the autumn-sown cover crops that the Ministry is recommending that farmers should use to meet the conditions of Schedule 2, paragraph 1.
I have referred to list B. There is a curiosity that although it is listed in the schedule to the regulations, list B is not mentioned anywhere else in the regulations. It is a little curious why it should be there. An important point has been raised by the CPRE regarding the list of crops. It points out that there is a loophole in the regulations which will allow events to occur which are damaging to the environment and undermine the agricultural integrity of the scheme.
Under the regulations, farmers can extend their cropped area at the expense of wildlife habitat and landscape features while in receipt of set-aside money. That is because the requirement under Regulation 3(1), that a farmer must undertake not to increase the area of his relevant arable land, does not cover all arable crops. It is covered only by the EC regimes. Thus a farmer could increase his crop area by removing hedges, scrub or marshland, to compensate for land which is set-aside, and increase his area of forage crops under List B whilst receiving set-aside money as long as his relevant arable area has decreased by 20 per cent. or more. The result to the countryside will be a further loss of semi-natural habitat and landscaped features. How does the Ministry intend to ensure that farmers who participate in set-aside do not increase their area of forest production at the expense of semi-natural vegetation and landscaped features?
The Minister will know that there has been a lukewarm welcome to the scheme in this House and outside from farmers because of the level of compensation that has been offered. This is not the time of night to indulge in a seminar on marginal economics. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, was wrong when he referred to the variable costs as the cost of the set-aside. The farmer must consider the loss of the gross margin from the crop. It is the difference between the value of the output and the variable costs and will be in the region of £120 to £200 per acre depending on the yield of the crops.
The conservationists are disappointed because of the absence of the grassland option. I believe that the
362
Ministry and the Commission have missed other opportunities. For example, a number of the proposals in the report from Sub-committee D suggest a lower limit of 10 per cent. on arable land. That would encourage the larger arable farmers to join. It also suggests the use of the co-responsibility levy to increase the resources for set-aside and the use of a tendering procedure to set the level of compensation.
There is a widely held belief that all of this is a Machiavellian plot and that the Ministry have produced a set-aside scheme which they do not believe will have much uptake. It is hoping that other member states will produce set-aside schemes which work and which will help to solve the problem of services leaving our farmers better off. However, it would be unfair to ask the Minister to comment on that belief.
Like the farm woodland scheme, we wish this scheme well. It is an experiment and an attempt to reduce surplus production. However, like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I have doubts about its effectiveness.
10.13 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House for not putting my name to the list of speakers at the correct time. I shall be brief.
A number of doubts have been expressed about the potential lack of take-up of the scheme due to the low figures of payment offered, especially in relation to the typical fixed costs or growth margins of genuine farmers. However, I have in mind one type of person who may be tempted and who appears to be specifically excluded. I refer to the landlord who has a farm come-back in hand. He may well be tempted as am I, to extensity his management along the lines so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The farm could be reorganised to include setting aside 25 per cent. of it to green fallow under the regulations, a further percentage to farm woodlands and the balance to some extensive operation such as hay production or horse grazing outside the scheme. All that would maintain the farmer's previous income and please his environmental instincts and those of others.
However, the set-aside element is precluded by the regulations, which demand one year's previous farming occupancy in order for the land to be eligible. I wonder about that point. Bearing in mind the object, which is the reduction of cereal surpluses, perhaps the Minister could explain the thinking behind it. Otherwise, I should like to extend a cautious welcome to the regulations.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have listened to your Lordships' speeches with great interest. Perhaps I may try to reply to the various questions which have been asked of me immediately. I should like to agree warmly with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, concerning his remarks on my noble friend Lord Gallacher. I should like to offer my best wishes, in which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will

363
join, to my noble friend Lord Middleton who I believe takes the chair in his place.
A great many of your Lordships have wondered whether the scheme will be picked up. Nothing like this has been proposed before. We shall have to see what happens. I must tell my noble friend Lord Stodard of Leaston and others that the number of inquiries which we are receiving testify to the keen interest in the scheme, notwithstanding his misgivings.
I believe that rates of payment was one of the major issues which came up this evening. Setting an appropriate level of payment is most difficult in a novel scheme, and we gave it very careful thought. I can understand that to highly profitable farmers the rates may seem low, but we have to strike a balance. If the rates were set at a level attractive to farmers with the highest yields in the country, they would greatly overcompensate the less efficient. As my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston would agree, Members of this House and the general public would soon protest if we paid farmers too much. Whatever rate is offered, farmers are likely to set aside their least productive land first and to cut back the area of the crop which produced their lowest margins. We have taken that into account in determining the premium.
Similarly we must recognise that growers taking up set-aside would probably not only save on their variable costs but also on some fixed costs. I believe that if growers do their sums with those factors in mind, many will find set-aside well worth considering, and particularly so if their resources are currently stretched or their profits on some crops are marginal.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the rate of payment can only be judged once the scheme is in operation. We shall be carefully monitoring take-up. It would be unwise to judge set-aside on take-up in the first year.
My noble friend Lord Radnor suggested that the target was too small. There is no target. We have made it quite clear that we are not aiming at any particular number of hectares to be taken out of production. It will depend on how farmers respond.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked why there should be a £50 cut for non-agricultural use. That is to take account of the fact that nonagricultural use should attract an income. EC rules require that to be reflected in the level of premium.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston asked for a forecast of the costs and the savings. It is impossible to forecast uptake, as I have already said, particularly in view of the late date of launch. I assure your Lordships that for each hectare set aside, the savings on crops not grown should more than offset the cost of the premium.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about tendering. We considered that very carefully, but there are many technical problems. He will be interested to know that no member state has opted for it.
364
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—I hope noble Lords will forgive me for skipping about, but I have tried to keep subjects together, although perhaps unsuccessfully—suggested that there should be a lower than 20 per cent. requirement for bigger farms. The EC rules require a 20 per cent. reduction in arable area. We do not have discretion on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also spoke about tenants and how difficult it was to obtain the landlord's consent between now and the end of September. I agree that that may be the case. As I made clear, the timetable is tight. Inevitably, because of the late date the Council agreed on the set-aside proposal, this year's uptake may be affected. However, tenants can still register, and should, and can apply for next year if they do not have time this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also spoke about the tenanted sector. In devising the rules for the United Kingdom set-aside scheme, close attention was paid to its implications for the tenanted sector—despite the noble Lord's naughty smiles at me. The possibility of having an upper limit on the proportion of the holding to be set-aside was considered and discussed with the Commission. However, it was felt that such a limit would be inconsistent with the main aim of the scheme to reduce surplus production. Therefore, we decided to include the requirement for an applicant to have farmed the land for at least one year by the date his set-aside obligation is to start in order to provide a disincentive to speculators or landlords wishing to resume let land without farming it. However, we did not favour a three-year rule as it would discriminate against bona fide farmers occupying land which had changed hands by sale, leasing or inheritance.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked whether mole drainage was permitted on fallow land. I must tell him that it is not for a new system, but routine maintenance of existing systems is permitted. The noble Lord also asked about plant cover. We will be issuing guidelines on plant cover, among other things. Grass, mustard, certain game cover crops, and naturally regenerated vegetation are all possibilities. The participant in the scheme is required to establish cover as soon as practicable after 1st October. I agree that it might not be worth planting a mustard crop, for example, at that time but a farmer could leave cereal stubble as a cover over the winter and then put in mustard in the spring.
I now come to the environment, which is a very important subject. The primary purpose of set-aside is to discourage surplus production. We have a further important aim—to protect the environment and, if possible, gain positive environmental benefit. First we must avoid environmental problems. The basic rules for the management of set-aside land address not only keeping it in good condition from an agricultural point of view but also preventing an adverse impact on the environment. A green crop cover must be maintained. That is important to avoid the land becoming an eyesore. It will also help to avoid erosion and minimise nitrate leaching.
Inorganic fertilisers are banned and organic fertilisers can be applied only with specific

365
authorisation to prevent soil erosion. I address these remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who was particularly interested in environmental aspects. Pesticides, apart from herbicides, are banned. Herbicides are permitted only on the specific authorisation of the Minister in order to deal with weed problems. Farmers are required to maintain existing hedges, trees and water courses on or next to set-aside land.
My noble friend Lord Radnor will understand that the scheme does not confine itself only to avoiding environmental damage. There are also opportunities for environmental improvements. For example, set-aside may be in the form of strips, providing opportunities for habitat creation or recreation. There is specific provision within the rules for the management of fallow land to encourage farmers who wish to develop wildlife habitats on the land to do so, and we jolly well hope that farmers will come forward with imaginative ideas. More generally, the department will be issuing advisory guidelines for farmers on how to select set-aside land with the greatest potential benefit for the environment and how to manage it to secure that benefit. The Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, as well as ADAS, are helping in the preparation of these guidelines.
One noble Lord asked me about extra payments to do with specific management practices on set-aside land which would be of benefit to the landscape or to wild life conservation. My right honourable friend has already announced that within the Government we are considering the feasibility of such a scheme. However, extra payments for less intensive farming are not appropriate under set-aside and there will be a separate scheme for extensification.
Turning to extensification, which was mentioned by several noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, work on the detailed rules is going on in Brussels. We are reflecting. However, there is a long way to go in sorting out the many practical problems which the scheme raises. Pilot schemes might well be one way forward if they can be accommodated within the EC rules, though they would be more suited to normal farms and not specialised experimental farms. I accept that there could be environmental benefits from extensification. I also maintain that there are environmental benefits from set-aside.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Radnor raised various points which also came, I understand, from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He was concerned that a farmer participating in set-aside would intensify production on the rest of his holding. We have always accepted that some slippage will occur, by which I mean the percentage of land withdrawn will not be reflected in exact proportionate cuts in production. Inevitably we think that farmers will set aside their poorest land first. We cannot hold back the rate of technological change on the land remaining in production; but the scheme expressly prevents farmers from increasing the area remaining in arable production, so there will be no incentive to convert other land to arable.
366
On the point about use of grass as a cover crop, grass is permitted but under the rules of the scheme it cannot be grazed even by farm livestock already on the holding. Our decision not to introduce grazed fallow has been welcomed widely in Parliament and elsewhere. We always made it clear that one of our main objections to grazed fallow was the difficulty of control, which applies to existing livestock producers as well as to new ones. In any case the EC rules do not permit us to restrict the option to existing livestock producers only.
Before I leave that point, perhaps I might just mention my favourite subject, horses. The keeping of horses is permitted on set-aside land. It would count as non-agricultural use and the compensation payment would be the appropriate rate for that use. None of that would alter the treatment of horses for rating purposes. However, I should point out that if horses were to be treated as agriculture for rating purposes we should need to think again as to whether we would permit them on set-aside land.
One other point was raised jointly by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and his absent noble friend. As far as set-aside on the urban fringes and in the green belt is concerned, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for policies relating to the control of development in the countryside. Those policies apply with special force in the green belt. Set-aside will not change that. Of course most development is specifically excluded on set-aside land.
My noble friend Lord Middleton said that cover crop was not appropriate for rotational fallow. It is a requirement of the EC scheme that there should be a plant cover. Farmers can choose the right plant cover to suit the soil. If they do not know what is best they must take advice. My noble friend said that set-aside must be on adjacent fields. This requirement is only for a minimum of one hectare, as set-aside can be either in a single field or in an adjacent field; for instance, in a single block. This is an EC requirement, but above one hectare this requirement does not apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, talked about encouragement for better access to the countryside. I do not see the case for compulsory access to set-aside land. Nor would we be within the powers in the EC regulations if we provided for this. However, in our advisory guidelines we shall certainly be encouraging farmers to consider possibilities of better access.
Finally, with regard to fallow grazing, the Government will take a great deal of convincing that this would not simply transfer extra quantitites of livestock and problems to their sector. I think that in this stormy sea I shall rest my laurels on what I have said. If any noble Lord wishes me to write to him, I shall gladly do so as I pass into smoother waters.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think we should compliment the noble Baroness on the way she has replied to all our questions. I admire her immensely for that and we thank her for finishing on such a nice note.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
British Waterways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.

Education Reform Bill
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 25TH JULY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 25TH JULY
  KATYN MASSACRE
  KATYN MASSACRE
  SIRIUS HULL DESIGN CONCEPT: REPORT
  SIRIUS HULL DESIGN CONCEPT: REPORT
  MULTIPOINT VIDEO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: REPORT
  MULTIPOINT VIDEO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: REPORT
  ENGLISH ESTATES
  ENGLISH ESTATES
  EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS AND CAR EXPORTS
  EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS AND CAR EXPORTS
  EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SMALL CARS
  EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SMALL CARS
  DORSET SSSIs
  DORSET SSSIs
  SANDFORD HEATH SSSI
  SANDFORD HEATH SSSI
  LISTED BUILDINGS: PAINTING
  LISTED BUILDINGS: PAINTING
  LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987, SECTIONS 41 TO 44: IMPLEMENTATION
  LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987, SECTIONS 41 TO 44: IMPLEMENTATION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING FINANCIAL REGIME: CONSULTATION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING FINANCIAL REGIME: CONSULTATION
  HUNGERFORD SHOOTING INCIDENT: REPORT
  HUNGERFORD SHOOTING INCIDENT: REPORT
  CIVIL DEFENCE COLLEGE
  CIVIL DEFENCE COLLEGE
  SPEECH THERAPISTS
  SPEECH THERAPISTS
  DISPENSING DOCTORS
  DISPENSING DOCTORS
  RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES: INCOME SUPPORT
  RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES: INCOME SUPPORT