Sitting of 28 July 1988

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Gibraltar Shootings
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the repercussions to date in Northern Ireland of the killings of three suspected terrorists in Gibraltar.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I am aware of the interest in Northern Ireland in the deaths of three Provisional IRA terrorists in Gibraltar earlier this year. The inquest will be held in September by the Gibraltar coroner. It will address matters of substance and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage.
    Mr. Flannery: In view of the seriousness with which the inquest is rightly regarded, and assuming that proper precautions will be taken in the interests of safety, may we have an assurance that the Government will not intervene to stop the SAS soldiers who carried out this operation from attending the inquest?
    Mr. King: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have already made it clear that we hope that the fullest evidence can be given at the inquest. It is in everyone's interests that that should be clear, not
    528
    least so that no one is in any doubt about the appalling outrage that would have been committed in Gibraltar had the terrorists' plans not been interdicted.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his latter remarks are those that should go out from the House? Two things are not in dispute: that those people were terrorists, and that they were planning the most brutal and dastardly outrage in the history of the IRA.
    Mr. King: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it cannot be said often enough. What might have happened on that occasion if more than 60kg of Semtex had gone off in that confined space in the centre of Gibraltar would have been outside the realms of any previous outrage. As my hon. Friend said, the IRA has admitted that they were its members engaged on active service.
    Mr. McNamara: We are all agreed that it would have been the most terrible atrocity had those 60 kg of Semtex gone off in the centre of Gibraltar. That is why we want to know why the Government were prepared to allow a car, which had been checked through Spain, across the border and into the centre of Gibraltar, to be left alone for two and half hours when it was believed that it might contain such explosives. Why did the Government take the action that they did in relation to the car when they believed that the explosion would not take place until the procession on Tuesday——
    Mr. Harris: Weasel words.
    Mr. McNamara: They are not weasel words. From that decision and those deaths in Gibraltar came the deaths at Milltown and the tragic deaths of two British soldiers. They were a direct result. The Government should be concerned about maintaining peace and respect for the law in the British Isles and in Northern Ireland. That is at risk, and that is why I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to withdraw the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) about the restrictions that will be placed on the amount of evidence that can be given by the SAS soldiers, if they attend the inquest. Will we get all the facts, or only the circumscribed facts that the Secretary of State is suggesting?
    Mr. King: The first thing that I can do in response to the hon. Gentleman is simply to say, as I said in my answer, that the inquest will address matters of substance. The issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are not for bandying across the Floor of the House. They are extremely germane to the inquest. No doubt they will have to be thoroughly examined, and will be, I have no doubt, by those concerned and the counsel representing them. In the interests of the proper proceedings that will now take place, that is the procedure that should be followed.

    Identity Cards
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of an identity card in the Province; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): We have no present plans to introduce identity cards, but this is a matter that is regularly reviewed in consultation with the security forces.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to the security forces, who have to carry identity cards, if, after a terrorist atrocity, they could readily identify whether people stopped at road blocks were local, from another part of the Province, or from over the border where people do not even need to have a passport?
    Mr. Stewart: I remind my hon. Friend that in Northern Ireland the security forces already have powers under the emergency powers legislation to establish identity. The question of identity cards is a practical matter and I am certainly aware of the arguments. However, in Northern Ireland the problems are different in nature from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We would need to be persuaded that the advantages clearly outweighed the disadvantages before we incurred not only the cost and administrative problems, but the obvious difficulties of enforcement.
    Mr. William Ross: If we are to have a card to identify under-age drinkers, a card to identify football hooligans, and as people in Northern Ireland already have to identify themselves when they come to vote, is there any good reason why we should not have a comprehensive identity card system, not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom? Surely the only people in Northern Ireland who would object to identity cards are the fellow travellers of terrorists. Normal law-abiding citizens would be delighted to carry cards to help the security forces.
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. However, this is not a simple issue. Very considerable questions are involved in the matter of implementation and enforcement. If we were persuaded that this was undoubtedly an advantage and that it outweighed the difficulties, then, as I say, that could be taken into account in future when the matter is reviewed. We keep the matter under review, as I said earlier.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Why does the Minister say that it would be difficult to administer an identity card system? Could not that system be linked, as it is in other countries, with the social security system? At the moment the police and the Army can check immediately the registration and ownership of a motor car by signalling through to the central computer and receiving the answer back within seconds. Surely there is an unanswerable case for identity cards, especially as the Government have leant on the soccer clubs to force them to introduce identity cards.
    Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under review. I note what has been said this afternoon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me, after such a short spell, to be able to pass judgment on what is a very intricate matter. These are important questions, and I was very interested to hear the exchanges today.

    Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to improve the standard of education of the lowest 40 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Curriculum
    530
    initiatives, which the Government have already under-taken in Northern Ireland, are aimed specifically at enhancing the educational opportunities available to less able pupils. In addition, one of the main objectives of the proposals for education reform is to provide a balanced curriculum and common means of assessment for all children so that pupils with learning difficulties can be identified more effectively and the necessary remedial action taken.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is wide admiration for the education provided for academically inclined children in Northern Ireland, but real concern about the under-achievement of the bottom 40 per cent.? Does he also accept that the whole curriculum for children in that area needs to be re-thought, and that it is especially important for that to happen so that those children may be given the chance that they deserve?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the situation in Nothern Ireland. I assure him that, although decisions have not yet been taken as a result of consultation on the education reform proposals, we wish to make available to children and to their teachers a system that is as flexible as possible, so that it might best be shaped and moulded to meet the needs of the less able children.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister assist those who are preparing for change in Northern Ireland by publishing all examination results this year and relating those results to the attainment levels and abilities of the pupils? Does he agree that qualifications must have relevance to the world of work? Does he further agree that preparation for life and work often means more than attaining a questionable little certificate at the end of one's school career?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree that the education system should prepare people for the world of work. I agree also that education involves more than a simply utilitarian function. With respect to employment, it also involves the broadening of the mind and the developing of the personality. Having said all that in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that I share the perception that I have of the underlying reason for his question.
    Ms. Mowlam: Is the Minister aware of the recent national report on child care, which highlights the appallingly inadequate system of child care in Northern Ireland? It is a system that provides only 2·8 places per thousand in Northern Ireland, compared with 16·7 per thousand for the whole of the United Kingdom? What is the Minister's response to those parents with nursery age children in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, I do not accept the designation of the position in Northern Ireland as appalling. Secondly, the hon. Lady will be aware that in primary schools in Northern Ireland there is a much higher proportion of nursery age children than in England and Wales.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for private conversations to take place elsewhere?

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met Irish Ministers yesterday at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. A copy of the joint statement issued after the meeting has been placed in the Library. As indicated in the joint statement, among the subjects discussed were security, Government proposals for disadvantaged areas of Belfast, for promoting fair employment, the International Fund and relations between the security forces and the community.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the report that the Stalker-Sampson inquiry was discussed during yesterday's talks and that the British Government gave assurances that disciplinary action would be taken against certain members of the RUC, why is no disciplinary action being taken against Jack Hermon, who is clearly unfit to hold office as Chief Constable? If we believe even half the allegations in Mr. Stalker's book, early retirement is not good enough. The man should be dismissed and charged.
    Mr. King: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. He may be aware that disciplinary charges have been preferred against a number of members of the RUC. The position of Sir John Hermon, the Chief Constable of the RUC, was considered by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, whose responsibility it is, and its decision has already been announced.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite obvious difficulties in a number of areas, the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a developing success and that yesterday's meeting is a further example of that development?
    Mr. King: I have yet to hear any convincing argument in the House or elsewhere, and nobody can seriously believe, that we are likely to be more successful in tackling the evil of terrorism if we do so in isolation in Northern Ireland rather than in co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. Yesterday's meeting was extremely encouraging in the respect that I described. It showed increasing goodwill between the RUC and the Garda, represented by the Chief Constable and the Commissioner.
    I should like to pay tribute, as did the Irish Ministers yesterday, to the leadership of Sir John Hermon, especially in respect of the RUC, its growing reputation and standing and most recently in the matter of its conduct with respect to parades and marches in Northern Ireland, about which all sides have paid their compliments to the RUC.
    Mr. Hume rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. John D. Taylor.
    Mr. Hume: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well, Mr. Hume.
    Mr. Hume: In relation to security matters that may have been discussed, does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland recognise that adequate protection for police stations is not only necessary, but seriously necessary? Can he tell me
    532
    why the protection given in the city of Derry is so different from that anywhere else in Northern Ireland? It disrupts the life of the entire city and is causing serious concern. Will he consider urgently reviewing the protection that is given to police stations with a view to ensuring that adequate protection is provided which does not disrupt the life of the entire city, especially when other Departments agree that the city is starting to move forward?
    Mr. King: There is a real difference between the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
    The hon. Gentleman raised a serious issue, about which I am concerned, but I hope that nobody will forget who is responsible for the disruption and inconvenience. It i.s the deliberate determination of the IRA to inflict, by explosion, attacks on the police stations. Evidence has already been given for that and it leads, unfortunately, to measures having to be taken. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who is the Minister with responsibility for the environment, was in Derry yesterday, where he was made aware of anxieties about this matter. I have discussed the issue further this morning. We shall be anxious to see how we can tackle this real problem while causing the minimum disruption to commercial and social life in that city.
    Sir John Farr: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to raise with the people from Dublin a matter that is causing a good deal of anxiety in the House—the lack of security on important information that is passed from Belfast to Dublin about the movements of important people when travelling to or from Dublin to go abroad by air?
    Mr. King: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is of concern and it is still under investigation. I await a full report. The matter was mentioned in passing. Irish Ministers share our feeling to the full and the Taoiseach is on record as expressing his horror at the outrage. Ir. is a little early to identify how the problems arose. There is considerable traffic of people backwards and forwards and, in general, security has been extremely good in terms of information. Any lapse such as this is most serious and tragic. Perhaps I might mention in passing that, as the House is meeting, the funeral is taking place at Hillsborough of the Hanna family. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we condemn the outrage and express our deep sympathy to the family of the victims of this latest IRA atrocity.
    Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State mentioned the International Fund for Ireland. Can he say something about any agreement that was reached at the meeting on its early and effective application to disadvantaged areas?
    Mr. King: The International Fund for Ireland is already involved in a range of projects. I have expressed my hope that it will be able to play an increased role and complement some of the initiatives in which I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the environment, whom I have asked to take responsibility for the "Making Belfast Work" initiative, have been involved. We shall be anxious to see how the fund can complement such initiatives.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is not the good faith of the Government of the Irish Republic in question? Did my right hon. Friend ask the representatives whom he saw yesterday to justify the restrictions that they have recently placed unilaterally on the extradition process from the Republic to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. King: I have made clear my anxieties, and did so again yesterday, about the problems that have arisen over extradition. My hon. Friend will be aware that in respect of one problem which has arisen recently the Irish Government intend to appeal against the district court's judgment. We attach the greatest importance to effective extradition. Clearly there are problems in that area and they relate to both terrorist and non-terrorist crimes. It is also clear that the Irish Government view with some concern certain aspects of this matter which we shall discuss again.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is inadequate for the joint communique merely to condemn continuing terrorist outrages in a week when we have been mourning, among others, the Hannas? We share the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed on behalf of the House. Does he accept that there is something wrong if the brigade that is supposed to be looking after the border is logistically under strength?
    Mr. King: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our approach is a great deal more comprehensive than merely expressing our horror or outrage. We discussed several specific matters yesterday designed to heighten that co-operation, but all start from the basis of whether there can be good will and trust between the respective security forces north and south of the border. In that respect, I was much encouraged by yesterday's meeting. We have additional Army resources over those which used to exist in Northern Ireland, and it is certainly not a question of a lack of resources for the security forces.

    De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement on progress in recovering public moneys owing since the collapse of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): As I informed my hon. Friend on 7 June in answer to his written question, some £12·6 million has been recovered through the receivership. The recovery of further amounts will depend on the outcome of legal actions and inquiries in the United Kingdom, the United States and Switzerland. In the United States the trustee in bankruptcy has not yet paid a dividend, as the process of proving and agreeing claims is not yet complete.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than £50 million of taxpayers' money remains outstanding from this disgraceful scandal, which includes $5 million which were stolen from British taxpayers by Mr. De Lorean in the GPD swindle in Switzerland? Will my hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to press hard to get back every penny that was stolen by Mr. De Lorean?
    Mr. Viggers: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government are satisfied that all necessary courses of
    534
    action are being followed expeditiously. As legal proceedings are pending in relation to the responsibility for those losses, it would not be advisable for me to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that I resigned from the Labour Government, who approved the original payment, and that I criticised both the original payment and the subsequent payments by Conservative Governments? In pursuing the recovery of the money, will the Minister turn his mind to how the money was approved in the first place, the advice from civil servants and the link between the Civil Service, De Lorean and the company? Clearly, bad advice was given to Ministers, which tragically led to wrong decisions.
    Mr. Viggers: I know the hon. Gentleman's long connection with the case and I recognise the points that he has made, but it would be inappropriate to add to what I have already said.

    Short Brothers
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further proposals he is considering for privatising Short Brothers.
    Mr. Viggers: I informed the House in a statement on 21 July that the Government were ready to consider suitable proposals that might lead to the acquisition of Short Brothers by private sector interests.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: While privatisation remains the ultimate goal of the Government's policy towards the company, can my hon. Friend say what steps are being taken in the meantime to return the company to profitability and to give it the long-overdue capital restructuring and the same approach that has been given to other state industries that have been returned to the private sector?
    Mr. Viggers: I recognise that the company would benefit from further capitalisation. However, we take the view that the proper disciplines of the private sector are appropriate to the company and that it would be for the private sector acquirers of the enterprise to decide what further capitalisation they propose to make.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware of the Opposition's deep concern about Short Brothers? The firm is a flagship for Northern Ireland because of its high technology and modern development. If it were to be sold off and then broken up, that would be a disaster. The Government should leave Short Brothers in public hands and develop the company, rather than retard it.
    Mr. Viggers: We are well aware of the importance of Short Brothers to Northern Ireland and I recognise that the work force must be apprehensive. However, we believe that the long-term interests of the employees and of the company generally will best be served by the company operating within the private sector.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Given that the production of commercial aircraft is subsidised either by open subsidy or by the construction of military aircraft, will the Minister explain why Short Brothers has been singled out and accused of being a loss-maker?
    Mr. Viggers: It is quite wrong to say that Short Brothers has been singled out in terms of privatisation. The policy of privatisation—in which the Government firmly believe—has been extended to some 17 enterprises in Great Britain and we believe that it is right that companies and organisations in Northern Ireland should also benefit from the disciplines and opportunities of the private sector.
    Mr. Kilfedder: If Short Brothers is sold off by the Government—and I hope that it will not be—will they ensure that the purchaser gives a guarantee to maintain the employment level in that admirable firm, which, as the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, leads in technology in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister also ensure that the eventual purchaser will not be receiving money from Libya, especially in view of the important missile division at Short Brothers?
    Mr. Viggers: We shall, of course, take account of all interests, including the national interest, in considering all the proposals that we have for the acquisition of Short Brothers by the private sector. We shall also, of course, take account of employment interests.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Minister aware that in London today there are representatives of all the work force of Short Brothers in Belfast and that they are unanimous in the view that privatisation of Short Brothers would be to the disadvantage not only of their own jobs but of the company as a whole? Is the Minister further aware that they feel that if the company is sold, either wholly or in parts, that will lead inevitably to closure and to massive job losses? What reassurance can the Minister give to those people in London today and to the work force as a whole?
    Mr. Viggers: The future of Short Brothers is best served, not by continued dependence on public ownership, but by the disciplines and opportunities of the private sector. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in the 17 public sector organisations that have moved to the private sector in Great Britain there are about 655,000 workers, many of whom now find it far more advantageous to be operating within the private sector and very few of whom, I suspect, would want to be transferred back into the public sector.

    Security
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions on 30 June, 11 people have been killed in Northern Ireland. These deaths include the murder of the Hanna family at Killeen, a technical officer and two civilians by the Falls road swimming baths, a taxi driver caught in cross fire in a Provisional IRA attack, and a PIRA member blown up by his own mortar and two others killed in apparent sectarian attacks. I must also inform the House that, sadly, the soldier seriously injured at Cullyhanna yesterday has since died.
    536
    The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield significant results and a number of potentially serious attacks have been prevented. Since the beginning of the year a total of 217 people have been charged with serious offences, including 12 with murder and 15 with attempted murder. A total of 360 weapons, approximately 72,000 rounds of ammunition and 4.000 lb of explosives havc been recovered in Northern Ireland
    I also understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered some 240 weapons, 140,000 rounds of ammunition and 600 lb of commercial explosives.
    Mr. Livingstone: May I join the Secretary of State in expressing shock at the record that he has read out? Does he agree that, for the security forces to be effective, they must be seen to be impartial? Has he any comment to make on the statement of a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), on Channel 4 on 17 July that there was a dirty tricks propaganda unit operating in Northern Ireland? How does he equate that statement with the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in answer to me on 24 March this year, to the effect that if I had any evidence of such a unit I should make it available to him? I assume that the Secretary of State will accepi the word of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, so will he now hold a full public inquiry to lay the issue to rest once and for all?
    Mr. King: I am not aware of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who is one of my predecessors, but I have nothing to add to any previous comments that I have made on this matter.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Further to the previous answer that the Secretary of State gave regarding risks in crossing the frontier, will he seek to convince those public figures who seem to make a habit of crossing the frontier that they have a heavy responsibility, first, to the security forces who protect them and, secondly, to the general public if they run unnecessary risks? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would remind them of the wartime question, "Is your journey really necessary?"
    Mr. King: Until I have a full report, the right hon. Gentleman will understand if [do not follow him in detail on that. He has raised important considerations for everybody in public life and in a position of responsibility in Northern Ireland. It is our desire, and it is certainly the desire of everybody responsible for protection in the security forces, that those wbom they protect should be able to live as normal a life as possible. At the same time, I accept that people have a responsibility to consider the security of those who are appointed and required to protect them.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: Against the background of killings, woundings, and grief that lies behind the list of atrocities that my right hon. Friend has reported to the House, would we not be better occupied, not in arguing the toss, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) just has, but rather in demonstrating our undying support for the police, the security forces and all people on all sides in Northern Ireland as they face a horrendous onslaught on the freedom and democracy for which this House seeks to stand?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clear and forthright way in which he puts his argument. The people of Northern Ireland and the security forces have had to face a challenge, a trial, a time of endurance beyond parallel in the Western world in recent history. It is against that that one judges the efforts of those whose only interest is to dive into the gutter to find any bit of dirt that they can throw at some very brave people.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend say what success he is having in defeating terrorism by attacking the funds of terrorists used to buy the weapons that cause the death and destruction to which he referred—in particular by attacking a protection racket that destroys jobs in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: I am fully persuaded that the removal from terrorists of the resources that fund much of their activity is as important as the direct attack on terrorism itself. I am under no illusion, and I know that many of their resources come not from collections overseas but from racketeering, gangsterism and Mafia-type activity throughout Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. It is interesting that the recent efforts of the Garda Siochana in respect of cross-border smuggling show a clear understanding between our Government and the Government of the Republic of the threat posed by racketeering in all forms.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have the security forces in Northern Ireland—in the widest sense of the Army and the police—at any stage in the past been involved in training people who work for private security firms? As I am not asking a question relating to security, I ask the Secretary of State not to hide behind that as an excuse. The question is to do with the relationship between the private and public sectors.
    Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman said, that matter does not seem to arise under this question.
    Mr. Gow: Do the Chief Constable of the RUC and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland believe that it would assist them in their attempts to defeat terrorism if there were the mandatory introduction of indentity cards for all in the Province?
    Mr. King: No, I have had no such representations.

    Kilroot Power Station
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now give the go-ahead to phase II of the development of the Kilroot power station; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Viggers: I announced on 15 July that the Government had decided to meet the need for new generating capacity in Northern Ireland, which will occur in the mid-1990s, by installing the third and fourth generating sets in the Kilroot power station as dual coal-oil fired units. On the same day I announced plans to examine ways of privatising the entire Northern Ireland electricity system.
    Mr. Meale: Will the Minister explain what effect that will have on the projected time scale for lignite exploitation and on the proposed building of a lignite power station?
    Mr. Viggers: After the completion of the Kilroot power station, the next generating station will probably be
    538
    lignite-powered. The lignite resources in Northern Ireland remain available for development for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. On this occasion it was more advantageous from the national point of view, and for all concerned, that the Kilroot power station should be completed.

    Education
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received recently from educational groups in the Province; and on what subjects.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have in recent months received a large number of representations, written and oral, on a wide range of educational topics. These include representations on the consultation paper on education reform, substitution provisions in schools, school development proposals, the cross-community contact scheme, youth service review and funding for arts, museums, sport and community services.
    Mr. Flynn: Following the decision by the High Court that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland is guilty of sex discrimination in its administration of the 11-plus examination, what is the Government's view of that judgment? What action will the Minister take to ensure that the girls who have been disadvantaged this year will have that disadvantage corrected? What guarantee will the Government give that in future the administration of the 11-plus examination in Northern Ireland will be decided entirely on merit and not on the sex of the participants?
    Dr. Mawhinney: That case remains sub judice and it would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment.

    Harland and Wolff
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected level of Government subsidy to be provided for any potential purchaser of Harland and Wolff shipyards; what is the present level of subsidy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Viggers: The terms of any sale would be a matter of negotiation. Any proposal would be carefully scrutinised to take account of European Community requirements. Harland and Wolff received £58 million of Government funding in 1987–88.
    Mr. Madden: In view of the persistent high unemployment in Northern Ireland and the fragile nature of the economy, why do the Government persistently push their doctrinaire and dogmatic plans for privatisation in an economy and country where those plans are most unwelcome?
    Mr. Viggers: First, the amount of public money that has been spent with Harland and Wolff and with Shorts in recent years has been large. Secondly, those organisations stand to benefit from private sector disciplines and opportunities. On the question of Harland and Wolff, we have had intimations of interest from parties other than Mr. Tikkoo and, as I have previously made clear, we welcome such approaches and will consider carefully any proposals that are put to us.
    Dr. Godman: As the sale of Harland and Wolff has a significance that extends far beyond Northern Ireland, especially if EC shipbuilding intervention fund money is used by the Government on Mr. Tikkoo's plans, will the Minister give an assurance that if that shipbuilding intervention fund money is used, the engines and other major items of equipment will be purchased from British companies and not from companies outwith the European Community?
    Mr. Viggers: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires, although if he wishes to table a specific question I shall, of course, address that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister estimate the proportion of subsidies for Harlands and Shorts which are actually going to subsidise employment in Scotland and England?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is certainly some benefit that flows to parts of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland through those subsidies.
    Mr. McNamara: The disciplines of the private market have generally meant capital reconstruction and large falls in the number of people employed. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no capital reconstruction and no sell-off of Harlands and Shorts on the cheap to the private sector, and a guarantee that whoever buys the companies will maintain present employment levels?
    Mr. Viggers: If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the balance sheets of Harlands and Shorts he would agree that some form of capital reconstruction is required and could be beneficial. It would be for the future owners to decide on future employment levels.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Winnick: What is the most up-to-date excuse that the Prime Minister can offer for the latest appalling trade figures, which show how fragile is the economic recovery of which she constantly boasts? Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the trade figures will merely give further ammunition to her dear and close friend the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in his criticism of the Government, when he is, after all, only trying to help?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated on a previous occasion, the present current account deficit is being readily financed by an inflow of private sector capital. That reflects confidence in the United Kingdom as a place to invest and is helping to finance high investment by the private sector—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that—which will boost future export performance.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of this country's irrevocable commitment to full membership and participation in the European Community, does my right hon. Friend believe that our interests there are really best served by a policy of isolation, however splendid?
    The Prime Minister: No, and nor has this country followed a policy of isolation. Indeed, if I may gently say so, this country has been very practical in making progress in the European Community: first, on budgetary matters; secondly, in sorting out the common agricultural policy; and thirdly, during this country's presidency of the European Community, starting on the single market to be completed by 1992. The single market now actually comes above the common agricultural policy, which seems to be left behind in the objectives of the EEC. I should also point out that, far from being isolationist, it was this Government who got a Channel tunnel started.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall just four months ago telling me that the balance of payments deficit of more than £1 billion for February was a freak? There have now been four such deficits in six months. Were they all freaks—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to allow the right hon. Gentleman to put his question.
    Mr. Kinnock: There have been deficits of more than £1 billion four times in the past six months. Were they all freaks, or were they proof of the Chancellor's brilliance?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had read the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the Institute of Economic Affairs he would have learnr. the answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who rather pre-empted the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked. Yes, there has been a deficit on current account. Part of it is accounted for by very high investment in this country, which the right hon. Gentleman has always wanted. Secondly, there is very high growth and a number of semi-fabricated components coming in. Thirdly, I agree that we must get some of the demand down, and I hope that the measures that we are taking to bring down inflation will also deal with the current account.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister speaks of success. Can she tell us how she arrives at the conclusion that one month's £1 billion deficit is a freak and that four such deficits are a success?
    The Prime Minister: There was a change in the Common Market in the way in which imports and exports are accounted for—[Interruption.] I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to know the facts, but there was that change, which affected us all. On the first quarter of the balance of payments—we now have the second quarter —there was, yes, a deficit. There was also a positive balancing factor, which was greater than the deficit.
    Mr. Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of her early reshuffle is to take away many speculative stories from the press over the summer? The result will be that the press will have to concentrate on the precarious position of the Leader of the Opposition.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that perhaps we might all have an August off.
    Mr. Steel: —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is all a waste of time.
    Mr. Steel: Such enthusiasm is rare. I ask the Prime Minister whether, during the summer recess, she will ponder on the fact that throughout her premiership the Government have enjoyed the unprecedented benefits of the income from North sea oil, yet throughout she has told the country that it must endure higher unemployment, curtailments in health and education and growth in poverty, all to make sacrifices for economic recovery. Is the expected trade deficit of £10 billion by the end of the year evidence of that recovery?
    The Prime Minister: The evidence of the recovery can be seen throughout the country in a higher standard of living, greater enterprise, greater profits and greater export volumes. Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, I can understand why the Liberal party is at last selling off the family steel.
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the launch of the new employment training programme in September and the opposition to it from some of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, from Labour-controlled authorities, such as Liverpool and Bristol, and from the TGWU, NUPE and NALGO. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that, despite the opposition of the shortsighted in denying the long-term unemployed the skills to obtain jobs, she will presss ahead with the employment training programme as a real way of tackling unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the programme succeeds. We shall need a higher proportion of the work force to be skilled, and therefore many more of its members will need training. Moreover, as we enter the 1990s a smaller proportion of the work force will be leaving school. Therefore, training programmes will assume an even greater importance in future.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Prime Minister saying that it does not matter how great the trade deficit becomes?
    The Prime Minister: No. We are not complacent about it in any way. There is a great budget surplus, which means that the trade deficit is not caused by the public sector in any way. Private sector investment and finance for the future is easily being met by the confidence of outside investors in the United Kingdom. I had thought and hoped that the Opposition were in favour of higher investment in industry.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent remarks of Mr. Ed Koch, the mayor of New York, following his visit to Ireland? Does she agree that some of his countrymen, including candidates for the presidency, would do better to make statements following experience rather than engage in blatant political vote-grubbing?
    The Prime Minister: I do, indeed, welcome Mayor Koch's remarks, which I have seen reported in the press, and I admire his forthrightness in making them. I am glad that he took time to come to Northern Ireland to see what is happening, and to do so with an open mind. If more people came with open minds and looked at what is happening on the ground, many others would be making similar remarks, which would be a very good thing for us all.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: All her political life the Prime Minister has used people ruthlessly to get what she wanted for herself. Was it really necessary this week for her to use her junior Ministers and Back Benchers as she did to divert attention from the disgraceful pay-off to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), and also from the scathing attack on her by her right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
    The Prime Minister: I remember the total ruthlessness, wholly supported by the Opposition, during the coal strike. If one wanted ruthlessness, that was it, and most of us will never forget it. That was pure Socialism— intimidating.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) will be an excellent commissioner, both for Europe and in representing this country in Europe and maintaining the British identity.
    Mr. Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend reflect further on the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) about the importance of training as a guard against long-term unemployment? Will she make time, before she goes to Australia tomorrow, to call in the Leader of the Opposition and give him a little instruction, as it is most important to both her interests and those of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman keeps his job?
    The Prime Minister: No, but I think that my right hon. Friend could probably give him a bit of advice.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: If the Prime Minister is so keen on developing the road towards the internal market, why does she want to dismiss the commissioner who has pioneered that work—and, furthermore, dismiss the commissioner for the environment and consumer affairs, who has shown a great grasp of his brief and yet has been thrown aside? Will she explain that?
    The Prime Minister: When the two commissioners were nominated and appointed by the Commission, I made it perfectly clear that I did not think that commissioners should stay there for too long. I believe that the new commissioner whom we have nominated—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks— will take forward the single market. All his experience will

    543
    be appropriate to that end, and he will do the job extremely well. I did not think it right to give Lord Cockfield a further term of four years, although I am the first to admit his splendid services in starting off the single market.
    Mr. Page: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Page: The House knows of the increase in house prices, and with it gazumping and less than ethical behaviour by both sellers and estate agents. In the next Session of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to bring our law more into line with that of Scotland, or a code of practice with the same status in law as the codes of practice for employment and industrial relations?
    The Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with those who find themselves gazumped because of such practices. I understand that a number of the pre-eminent groups of
    544
    estate agents are getting together to try to formulate a code of practice. That is very welcome news and I hope thal they will be sucessful. So far, we have not thought of making it statutory.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister think it fair that a civil servant or journalist can face a two-year gaol sentence for revealing fraud, crime or abuse of official authority, yet there is no defence in law even if he or she can show that the only way of stopping such abuse was to expose it in the public domain?
    The Prime Minister: I would not accept trie hon. Gentleman's last premise. I do not believe that the only way of stopping such abuse is to expose it in the public domain. The way of stopping such abuse is to report it to the proper authority, where it will be taken up.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the half week when we return?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 19 October—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1988 (Cm. 344).
THURSDAY 20 October—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1988 (Cm. 344).
FRIDAY 21 October—There will be a debate on the educational needs of industry on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Dobson: How long is the spillover session before the Queen's Speech likely to last? An enormous queue of Government business seems to be developing. Can the right hon. Gentleman put an end to the rumour that the spillover period is likely to last so long that Her Majesty may be tempted to combine the Queen's Speech with her Christmas day broadcast?
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have health questions and social security questions, now that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has bifurcated the old Department, so that we can question the two Secretaries of State separately? Will he also be arranging during the spillover period for the Chancellor to come to the House to give us the Treasury's latest estimate of the likely annual trade deficit, currently believed privately to be about £10 billion?
Will the Leader of the House take note of the serious criticisms made by the Select Committee on Energy of the Government's plans to sell off the electricity supply industry? Will he assure the House that no legislation will be brought before it before that report has been fully debated here and before the consultations proposed by the Select Committee have been completed?
To return to the subject of strip searching of women at Greenham common, will the Leader of the House recognise that the parliamentary answer given by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), and the two subsequent letters from Defence Ministers to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) are plainly and flatly contradicted by the sworn evidence of a police witness? Therefore, will he arrange in the spillover period for a Minister to come before the House to put the record straight?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot at this stage tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how long the spillover session will be, but it will be a sufficient time to deal with the outstanding matters. Judging by the Session so far, that will not be unduly long.
I can confirm that arrangements have been made for the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health to have separate slots for oral questions. The Department of Health will be top for questions on Tuesday 1 November, and if the House is still sitting the Department of Social Security will be top for questions on Monday 14 November.
546
On the question about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would come to the House if he had anything important to say. I do not believe that he will necessarily accept any instructions or guidance from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), whose judgment in these matters is somewhat faulty.
The report of the Select Committee on Energy which has just been received deals with an important subject to which I am sure the House will wish to return, but perhaps we should wait until there has been a chance to study the report rather than the press reports about it, which do not seem to present the full picture.
With regard to strip searching at Greenham common, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave a very full reply to a parliamentary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) yesterday confirming that his predecessor's answer was correct. I have nothing further to add to that answer.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made in the recess and repeated during the first week we come back on the report of the inspector on the Barlow Clowes scandal that is likely to be produced during the recess? Will he ensure that if, in the recess, the inspector holds the Department of Trade and Industry even vaguely liable, immediate and full compensation will be paid to the distraught savers?
Mr. Wakeham: The House is aware that inspectors have been appointed under the Companies Act 1985 to investigate the affairs and membership of James Ferguson Holdings plc, the parent company of Barlow Clowes. In addition, Sir Godfray Le Quesne expects to complete his report on the DTI's handling of the case before the end of the recess, provided that there is no legal impediment. The report will be published as soon as is practicable. Any statement should await the outcome of those investigations.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Notwithstanding an apology of sorts to Stella Mann-Cairns from the current Minister of State for the Armed Forces yesterday, in which he said:
"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",
following her successful court action against the Ministry earlier this month when strip searching at Greenham common was proved, is the Leader of the House aware that to date no statement of apology either to me or to the House has been given following the denial by the Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), that strip searching had taken place? At least he had the decency to resign from the Government this week, no doubt over this issue.
Is the Leader of the House aware that there is an early-day motion signed by 113 right hon. and hon. Members demanding an apology from the Secretary of State for Defence and from him for the disgraceful, despicable and degrading practices which are taking place at Greenham common? Will he either apologise or resign at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to what I said to the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),

547
except that, first, my right hon. Friend did not resign from the Government on this issue and it is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman, who knows that it is wrong, to say that that is the case; and, secondly, if he is quoting from letters or answers, he should quote in a more balanced way.
The judgment of the Newbury county court did not imply that the lady had been strip searched. In the case of other personal searches conducted at Greenham common at the time, to the best of our knowledge, the practice of the Ministry of Defence police conducting the searches did not include a requirement to remove all clothing.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that business questions are about business for the week that we come back. Any wider issues can possibly be raised in the summer Adjournment debate.
Mr. John Hannam: May we have a debate as soon as we get back on the Select Committee report on electricity privatisation? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the press reports were a grave distortion of the conclusions of the Select Committee, which were generally supportive of privatisation? Is he further aware that most of us fully support the proposals of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, which will create greater diversity of supply and therefore downward pressure on prices?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. I remember the warm welcome given to the announcement by my right hon. Friend of his proposals on 25 February, including that by a number of members of the Select Committee.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time when we return to debate the other report released yesterday by the Select Committee on Energy, which described the costs of relocating the Department of Energy to Buckingham Gate as unjustified and excessive and which suggested that the Department and staff be relocated outside London? In particular, it suggested that the oil division staff should be relocated to Aberdeen, where there are only 21 employees of the Department at present.
Mr. Wakeham: It would be more helpful to the House to rely on our usual practice of the Government first responding to the Select Committee report. Then we can consider any debates that might arise.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before the House reassembles in October it is likely that the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a number of decisions on county structure plans which are of immense importance to various localities? As there will not be an opportunity to question him in the House, will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State to let hon. Members who are concerned know of his decision at least at the same time as he informs the press and media and not afterwards?
Mr. Wakeham: That sounds like a reasonable request. I shall certainly refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the Common Market when we come back, so that the Prime Minister can take part in
548
it? On the Jimmy Young programme yesterday she tried to give the impression to the nation that she had suddenly become an anti-marketeer. Perhaps a debate would give her a chance to explain why, in spite of all the cosmetics that were used yesterday, since 1984 the Prime Minister has presided over the handing over of more than £5 billion net of taxpayers' money to the Common Market, has gone along with the single European market theme, and has allowed and cajoled Britain into becoming embedded in Common Market bureaucracy—even more, some would say, than did the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is supposed to be her right hon. Friend.
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend's leadership in dealing with Common Market matters in recent years has been an example to a great many other people of how these things should be done. I can promise the hon. Gentleman this: we shall return to these issues because we have a matter of unfinished business to deal with. It will be dealt with in the overspill, and when it is the hon. Gentleman can contribute to the debate.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the recess Cleveland county council will be considering its response to the Butler-Sloss report on the child abuse controversy in that county? Will he therefore arrange for a statement on that response to be made to the House when we reconvene, so that Cleveland, which is a Socialist local authority in the hands of the town hall unions, will not be tempted to tackle this matter by means of a media-relations whitewash?
Mr. Wakeham: Certainly we shall refer to these matters and discuss them again in the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will let me wait until after the recess to decide on the form in which it would be most appropriate for those discussions to take place.
Mr. Frank Cook: When considering the petition just made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that much of the damage that surrounded the Cleveland child abuse inquiry came as a result of the same sort of irresponsible accusations as those that have just been made by the hon. Gentleman? Remembering that we are talking about child abuse and the damage that can be done to families, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that inquiries will be allowed to get on with their work of inquiry and to come up with responsible clinical results and recommendations without interference from busybodies like the hon. Member for Stockton, South?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that inquiries should be allowed to get on with their work and that their reports should be considered at the conclusion of the inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman did not put his point in the constructive way that he usually does.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is no need whatsoever to introduce this unconstructive attitude into the Cleveland child abuse case? If my right hon. Friend had listened to me several weeks ago when I asked for a debate on the matter, these exchanges would not have happened and we would not have had to wait for the whitewash by

549
Cleveland county council. The House is superior to that body and should have had an opportunity to express its opinion.
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly listened to my hon. Friend's advice, and I am sorry that I was unable to accept it. My hon. Friend is being optimistic if he thinks that another debate in the House would resolve many of the substantial issues arising from the case; more substantial remedies are required.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there are a number of outstanding matter days yet to be allocated to the Scottish Grand Committee? Is this not an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and will he correct it early in the overspill period? What provision is he making in the overspill period for a debate on the non-formation of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. Wakeham: Both matters must be dealt with and are best discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on questions? Some of us will have learnt with some sorrow of the decision to take social security questions on Mondays. In the past, an average of 300 questions have been tabled for health and social security matters, but only 50 for Scottish Question Time. Some 55 minutes is allowed for Scottish Question Time, yet we will be allowed only 35 minutes for questions to the Department of Social Security. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but Question Time is ordered for the convenience of the House in a way that we think most likely to receive general support. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I do not believe that I can make an early change.
Mr. Bill Michie: Bearing in mind the questions and concern expressed about the balance of payments, will the Leader of the House find time for, and guarantee, a debate on the manufacturing base of this country, which at present is in disarray? We cannot cope with the expansion that the Government claim is happening and therefore cannot control the economy. After 10 years of warnings about what would happen, we need to have a discussion about the manufacturing base of this country so that we can run it properly.
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman has not recognised that the economy is being run substantially better than when his party was in government, he has much to learn. We shall return to issues of the economy in the autumn, when no doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to put his views.
Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend take careful note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said about Barlow Clowes? My hon. Friend's view is supported by many hon. Members. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to return from the Lords, and are the Government contemplating adding an amendment to deal with the possession and sale of crossbows?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot say at this stage what will be dealt with when the Bill returns to the House. We shall deal with Lords amendments when it returns, at which stage there is limited scope for changing a Bill. I recognise the anxiety that has been expressed about Barlow Clowes, but it would not be right for me to add to what I have already said.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the problems of young first-time house buyers that have been created by the constant series of increases in mortgage rates? Young people have been encouraged to buy their own homes, but they have no control over what they must pay because interest rates are being increased to cope with the balance of payments deficit. Is it not time that the Government and the House had some regard to the miseries that these increases are creating for young people who are fortunate enough to be in work?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that under the Government home ownership has increased throughout all sections of the community. I hope that that is welcomed by the hon. and learned Gentleman and every other hon. Member. These matters are debated in the House from time to time, but I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that, if the report on Barlow Clowes is published about the time that the House reassembles, there will be an immediate statement from the Department of Trade and Industry and an early debate?
Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in the light of the separation of the Departments of Health and Social Security, time will be made available to the House to debate whether there should be a separate Select Committee? The present Select Committee would be happy to continue to monitor both Departments.
Mr. Wakeham: On my hon. Friend's second point, I have no plans at present for any change in the basis of Select Committees. However, it is early days yet and I want to take soundings from all parts of the House before any final decision is made.
On the matter of Barlow Clowes, I do not believe that it would be right for me to add anything further. However, I recognise the strong concern in the House and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is aware of it.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House ask his colleague with responsibility for social security to come to the House before we rise tomorrow and make a statement about the changes in the consultation paper on bed and board lodging for women's refuges? The paper contains no suggestion that any change has been considered which would protect women who are the subject of violence and who need urgent support. If the proposed changes are made, the refuges will close.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Lady that there will be a statement in the House, but I will certainly refer her comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask him to write to her, if that would be appropriate.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the most serious problem I have outlined in my early-day motion on cricket in schools?
[That this House recognises the value of cricket as a contribution to the health of school children and to this country's prospects of future success in international cricket; and calls on the Government to establish a national committee to develop criteria for the teaching and assessment of this sport and to issue guidelines to local education authorities to provide adequate funding for both indoor and outdoor cricket pitches, so that in the future more youngsters will take up cricket as a profession.]
In England, we have suffered a series of humiliating defeats and we have also seen behaviour by members of the English cricket team which cannot be approved. Most schools now eompletely ignore cricket. There is a need for the Government and local education authorities to turn sports sections towards our national game.
Mr. Wakeham: The answer I have before me is probably not adequate for the immensity of the problem facing us, but the Education Reform Bill includes provision for physical education to be a foundation subject within the national curriculum. Guidelines will be produced in due course on attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements for physical education. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend thinks that that is a comfort, and I am not sure that I do.
Mr. Allen McKay: May I return the Leader of the House to the recent report by the Select Committee on Energy? I agree that we should look in depth at the report and the Government's response to it. Does he agree with me that it would be wrong, given the conclusions of the report—they do not take a lot of reading—to introduce a Bill to privatise the electricity industry before the House has debated the report and the Government's response to it?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept that. I have said that we will be returning to that matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a substantial number of the recommendations in the report refer to regulatory requirements that will happen post privatisation and on which the Government have not yet made their proposals known. To that extent, the Select Committee's report will be valuable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. David Wilshire: Can my right hon. Friend say when the House will have an opportunity to enable those of us who believe in the fundamental importance of family life to register our total opposition to the proposal to reduce the age at which children can get married without their parents' consent?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an opportunity in the business in the first week after the summer recess, but it is an important matter and there are a number of ways in which my hon. Friend could bring it before the House. I suggest that he takes up one of the opportunities available to him.
Mr. Tony Banks: There is great disappointment on both sides of the House at the failure of the Select Committee on the televising of proceedings of the House to publish a report before the summer recess, which all of us were led to believe would be the case. When
552
may we expect a report? Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he is not dragging his feet—in conjunction with hon. Members on both sides who are still smarting from the decision of the House to allow the experiment to go ahead—to delay the production of a report? When does he expect the cameras to be in the Chamber? To what parliamentary event can we look forward? It will not now be the State opening, but will it be next year's Budget?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by the absence of the big fellow who usually sits beside him—the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—to express his views more freely than he sometimes does. I reject entirely his comments about the progress of the Select Committee. What is more, every member of the Select Committee, of whichever party, will agree that it has made good progress. It will report as soon as it can. It has not delayed consideration of the complex issues, but is considering them properly. I cannot give a date, because that depends on the rest of the Committee agreeing to the report, but we shall announce it as soon as possible.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is bound to be anxiety about the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon which appeared to rule out legislation on gazumping? Will he arrange for the Minister responsible to make a full statement on the negotiations that will take place with estate agents between now and October, and at that stage will the Minister make it plain that if no effective code of practice is in prospect the Government will consiider introducing legislation?
Mr. Wakeham: I can go no further than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went, but I did not hear her comments in the same way as my hon. Friend did. She said that she thought a substantial amount could be achieved by voluntary means. My hon. Friend and I will agree that, if the voluntary approach is possible, it would be the best way of proceeding at this stage.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that there is clear evidence that people in Harvard Securities have been manipulating the price of over-the-counter stock, and it is clear that many investors will lose more money in the coming months—people who invest in OTC stocks sold by Harvard Securities—is it not about time that the Department of Trade and Industry or someone moved in to close that company? Does not the investor protection legislation that has been introduced by the Government during the past few years extend as far as protecting those who, because of bad judgment, persist in wasting their money and throwing it down the drain of the over-the-counter market?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government are as committed as any to stamping out fraud and abuse wherever it occurs, and have taken practical steps to make the job more effective. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to pass any evidence in support of his allegations to the appropriate authority, but I shall refer his comments to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the excellent report published

553
on Monday by the Services Committee on access to the precincts of the House? Is he aware of the considerable anxiety on both sides of the House about the use and abuse of our facilities by lobbyists and researchers? Will he find time for a debate on the matter either during the overspill or early in the new Session?
Mr. Wakeham: It is an excellent report on a very important subject in which many hon. Members take a close interest. The report proposes that its recommenda-tions on photo-identity passes should be implemented at the beginning of the financial year 1989–90. I hope that it will be possible to arrange a debate in time to allow that to happen, should the recommendations be approved by the House.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made when the House returns after the summer recess about the anti-dumping application by the textile industry against the imports of Turkish acrylic yarn? Is he aware that this problem has caused the loss of nearly 600 jobs in the Bradford textile industry which the area and the economy can ill afford? The anti-dumping application should be pursued with vigour by the relevant Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to encourage the EEC commissioners—about whom there has been so much fuss, but who are still in office—to do something about the anti-dumping application instead of the EEC trampling all over us, as it usually does.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, except to agree that this is an important subject. I will see my right hon. Friend and, if a statement is appropriate, one will be made.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread interest and concern on both sides of the House about the provisions of the Democratic Oaths Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and a substantial number of Labour Members, which seeks to abolish oaths of allegiance to the Crown and to substitute democratic oaths? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this Bill in the next Session? It is quite possible that after the Labour party elections we will have a Labour Opposition who are no longer loyal but are opposed and antagonistic to the Crown.
Mr. Wakeham: In all friendliness to my hon. Friend, I must say that I have a list of Bills for which I am not prepared to find time for debate and the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is pretty near the top of the list. If my hon. Friend believes that this is an important matter—as it is—and he wishes to bring it to the attention of the House, may I respectfully suggest that he finds another way of doing it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Leader of the House observed the outbreak of a new illness among Members of Parliament, one of the symptoms of which we saw demonstrated by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker)—increased noisiness and yobbishness? Although the disease has yet to be classified by medical science, it goes under the name of PRT—pre-recess
554
tension. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that in the next Session we will work towards a more rational division of the parliamentary year for briefer Sessions and briefer recesses?
Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the question of absence through illness, it is a fine judgment for others to make about who seems to be suffering most at the present time. However, I realise that the parliamentary year is a serious matter. I like the recesses to be long and the Sessions to be short. I work very hard for that as best I can. If the hon. Gentleman will promise to help me, we may make better progress next year.
Mr. John Bowis: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the acute anxiety felt in the training world, particularly among those dealing with the disadvantaged and the disabled, at the allocation of training places and training supplements for the scheme coming into effect in September. Will he talk to his colleagues at the Department of Employment to ensure that that anxiety is resolved as soon as possible so that when we return in October a satisfactory statement to that effect may be made.?
Mr. Wakeham: That is an important matter. I understand that talks are going on, and I have no reason to believe that they will not be resolved satisfactorily.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May we have a very short debate on the valuable facility provided by Her Majesty's Foreign Office to right hon. and hon. Members about to travel overseas whereby they are briefed on the local circumstances and, particularly where these circumstances could be adverse, are advised how to react in a dignified way? Would it be possible during that debate to discover, although there might be security implications, whether that advice extends to every hon. Member, including even the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Wakeham: Advice to every hon. Member travelling abroad is available from the Foreign Office which, I know from personal experience, is as helpful as it can be in the circumstances. The fact that advice is issued does not mean that it is read or understood. Each hon. Member must decide how best to use the advice.
Mr. James Couchman: In the light of the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which is to take place in the autumn, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early full day debate, perhaps on the Adjournment of the House, on the subject of Northern Ireland? Such a debate would give us the opportunity to discuss the grotesque irresponsibility of Opposition Members, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who has called for troops out. In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told us this afternoon, a more inappropriate call cannot be imagined.
Mr. Wakeham: That is a very important subject and I should like to be able to organise a debate on it, but I do not immediately see the prospect of that in the near future.
Mr. Tony Favell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the current interest in the possible introduction of a British photo-identity card. Eighty-four per cent. of the people taking part in a television poll voted in favour for such cards. As the Home Secretary is now

555
taking soundings among the police, may we expect a statement within the first few weeks of our return after the recess?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said last week that they were not persuaded that a case had been made for a national identity card, but that the matter would obviously be kept under review. In my work as chairman of the committee on the misuse of alcohol, I can tell my hon. Friend that the committee believes that there is a case for a voluntary identity card to try to curb some of the worst excesses of under-age drinking, which is a problem that is causing us much concern.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) for assistance to improve the game of cricket in this country, bearing in mind the serious decline affecting children and their attitude to games and our present lack of success in international cricket. Will my right hon. Friend accept that what is not covered in the Education Reform Bill—for all that he said—is the real need to enshrine in the Bill the fact that cricket should be referred to by name in the Bill and that there should be proper cricket coaching for boys and perhaps girls? Does he believe that the Marylebone Cricket Club needs some assistance in choosing its team to represent the country? Could not the Government do something to assist Graeme Hick to be selected for England?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend tempts me into areas into which I should not stray, particularly as I was at school with Peter May. I had better not deal with his job as I have quite enough to cope with in my own. I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that competitive sport is an important part of a child's upbringing whether he is particularly good, only average or below average—as I was as a cricketer. I was rather better as a scorer than a batsman.

Second Severn Crossing
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. I am now able to announce the next step in the provision of the second crossing of the River Severn.
The Severn bridge is important to Wales and to economic development on both sides of the estuary. That is why in July 1986 we announced that a second crossing would be built at the English Stones, and that preparatory and survey work would proceed with a view to providing that crossing in the mid-1990s if traffic levels showed it was needed by then. The Government have now decided to give the private sector a major opportunity to participate in the provision of this important project.
Essential geotechnical and hydrological surveys are being carried out urgently, and will be completed early next year. As soon as possible after that, I shall be publishing guidelines and inviting bids to build the new bridge. Promoters will be asked to submit proposals on two bases: to design and build the new bridge and to finance and operate it in conjunction with the existing bridge; or to design and build it with the Government responsible for funding and operation. In either case the costs will be recovered through tolls. Promoters will be asked to indicate possible completion dates and the toll levels associated with them. Whichever option is chosen, legislation will be needed to provide, amongst other things, for levying tolls.
We also need to take immediate steps to place the finances of the existing bridge on a sound footing. This is required to meet the objectives laid down when tolls were first introduced in 1966. The accumulated deficit of the bridge is now approaching £100 million. It is therefore proposed that the tolls on the existing bridge should be increased with effect from 1 September 1989 to £1 for cars and £2 for lorries. The present strengthening will have been completed before the new tolls are introduced.
Mr. Robert Hughes: There is only one item of substance in the Minister's statement, which is that the Severn bridge is important to Wales and to economic development on both sides of the estuary. The statement brings forward the completion of the bridge not one iota. There is no starting date, finishing date or target date. There is nothing except a hype for private industry. All the Minister has said is that he intends to ask private industry to submit bids as soon as practicable next year.
Will the Minister tell the House which solution he prefers? Does he prefer the wholly private sector solution? Does his statement mean that the new company, if there were to be one, would take over the running of the existing bridge too, and become an entirely private company, as is the case with the Dartford-Thurrock crossing? Why does he not take the most obvious and direct solution and have the bridge built with public money and by direct public tender, which he has the opportunity to do?
Secondly, is it not the case that his statement is an attempt to dampen down the anger that there will be on either side of the bridge about the doubling of the tolls, and the fact that he has now totally abandoned any possibility of free estuarial crossings? Tolls must be paid by people who need proper investment in their areas, but which they are not getting from the Government.
Mr. Channon: I am a little astonished by the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He speaks about abandoning free estuarial crossings, but it was his party when in office which introduced tolls on the bridge. The history of the Severn crossing is that the Labour party, when in office, has tolls, but when out of office says it will not. That is the standard against which we must judge the hon. Gentleman's remark.
My statement advances the building of a new crossing considerably. We are now asking for designs. We shall give the private sector the opportunity of participating in this important project next year on these two bases. They can come forward with suggestions for funding in the public or in the private sector. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, when he made a statement a few years ago, made it perfectly clear that the public sector would proceed with a view to providing the crossing in the mid-1990s if traffic levels showed that it was needed. One of the potential advantages of the private sector is competition. Private promoters will be asked for a range of opening dates and associated tolls.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about my preference. I have none. I am happy to await the outcome of the competition, but anyone living in Wales or Severnside is likely to prefer the private sector solution.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend will not need me to tell him that the increase in charges will not be warmly welcomed. No matter how much of a saving the Severn bridge represents, there will always be a response of wanting something for nothing. The only appropriate consolation for this increase will be his firmest commitment that the second crossing will be in place by 1996 at the latest, because he will know as well as I that estimates of traffic volume across the Severn bridge have notoriously underestimated the problem.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I fully understand his worry about the existing tolls. However, the present tolls are lower in real terms than they were 20 years ago. Even after the increase, they will be lower than tolls on other estuarial crossings.
From what my hon. Friend said about the desirability of an early start and completion of this crossing, it sounds as though he will be one of the supporters of a private sector solution, because private promoters will be asked for a range of opening dates and, therefore, there may be the prospect of advancing the project much faster.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that his statement will be recognised throughout Wales as nothing more than a sprat to catch a mackerel? Does he appreciate that it is important that our main point in and out of Wales should not be handed over to private speculators? When will he recognise that tolls are nothing more than an abomination, especially when the Treasury is receiving no less than £16 billion from motor taxation, and only £3–6 billion of that is being spent on roads and maintenance?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise the cost of delays in collecting tolls, which is an important commercial consideration? Will he reconsider the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport which called for their abolition? Does he recognise that the basic figures for the existing bridge are a complete farce? The bridge cost £8 million to build, £52 million has been
558
collected in tolls, and there is now a debt of £100 million. Why should there be this additional tax on Wales, an area of such deprivation and mass unemployment?
Mr. Channon: Again, I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should launch a strong attack on tolls across the Severn, when it was his own party that introduced them. It was his party that retained them when it had a second period in office. His party was in office from 1966 to 1970 and from 1974 to 1979, and it did nothing about the tolls, but now that it is out of office it complains. I hope that any reasonably minded person in Wales and Severnside will recognise that my announcement is an opportunity for the bridge to be completed earlier than it otherwise might have been. The promoters will be asked to gjve a range of opening times, and at the end of the day we shall see whether it is a private or public sector bridge.
The hon. Gentleman referred to private speculators. Of course, the private sector will build the bridge whichever solution is chosen, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is talking only about its financing. The private sector might provide a Severn crossing more quickly than would otherwise be the case.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has said anything about access roads to the new crossing, but will he ensure that access roads are so designed as to provide for toll plazas of reasonable width? One of the main problems of the present bridge is its narrowness and the inevitable queues to the toll booth.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has mentioned two extremely important points. Of course, we shall have to provide access roads in time for the completion of the new Severn crossing. That is a matter which is in hand and in which my Department is involved.
It will be important to make sure that the toll plazas do not cause delay. The advances in techniques used at the Dartford bridge have made it a far quicker operation, and I believe that by the time the Severn crossing is open there will be further advances.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not clear that the doubling of the tolls is the price that the people of Wales must pay to make this second bridge construction and financing attractive to the private sector? That is the motive behind the doubling of tolls. Is this not clear proof that, when it comes to the test, the Government will always give priority to privatisation and the ideological obsession of rolling back the frontiers of the state rather than the regional development needs of Wales?
Mr. Channon: No. The tolls were put on in the first place by the party which the hon. Gentleman supports. They have now to be increased, because we have had two reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General saying that the increase was long overdue. I am surprised that Opposition Members should disagree with the Comptroller and Auditor General's desire to see a proper economic situation prevail at this bridge as at other estuarial crossings.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about the second crossing—I am a frequent user of the Severn bridge—but can he explain why those who have to cross estuaries, alone of all people

559
who use trunk roads, have to pay for that privilege? Also, when will there be automatic tolls on the Severn bridge to speed up the crossing?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will know that successive Governments of all political persuasions have taken the view that it is right to charge tolls on certain estuarial crossings. Next week, I shall go to the start of the new Dartford crossing, which will be financed by tolls and provide an extremely important service to travellers and the economy as a whole. The policy has been followed by successive Governments.
The House should realise that tolls on the Severn crossing have increased only twice since the bridge was opened 22 years ago in 1966. The increase that I have announced should be compared with the toll across the Humber, which is £1·50 for cars and £8 for lorries, and an increase is proposed.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Is the right hon. Gentleman's statement made with the full authority and consent of the Secretary of State for Wales? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is here, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Secretary of State for Wales agrees with the main thrust of the statement, which is that the second crossing is to be financed by private funds? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Secretary of State for Wales how the programme for a second crossing fits into an integrated road network for Wales? I am sure that he appreciates that it must be viewed in the wider context of the development of east-west roads and the much needed north-south road.
Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not necessarily decided to build with private financing. We shall have a competition to see whether there should be private sector financing or Government responsibility for funding. We shall see what comes forward and make a decision accordingly. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the provision of roads. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will examine carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, of course, in agreement with the statement and the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales proves it.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be welcome in my constituency and in Northavon as it puts a terminal date on the uncertainty about the southern link road, its route, its grade, and its relationship with the Avonmouth relief road? Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate the cost to the motorist or lorry driver of going around via Gloucester?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I read with interest what he said when a similar statement was made a few years ago. It is difficult to estimate the cost of going around the estuary, but I should have thought that it would be infinitely greater than taking the crossing.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that he has made one statement which he hopes will be eclipsed by another? There is to be an increase in tolls which is unpalatable to all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to eclipse that
560
announcement with his re-announcement of a recommitment made two years and four days ago when the Secretary of State for Wales announced that there was to be a second Severn crossing.
Is it not true that the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales today is proof that Wales and its Secretary of State have received a bloody nose with this decision? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a great change of attitude towards tolls? Does he agree that the increase has nothing to do with the original cost of the bridge, which was £8 million? Tolls have gone up because of the Government's disgraceful neglect and the fact that the bridge has been shaken into premature senility by lorries which could have been controlled five or six years ago. The Government are culpable, and we are paying for their incompetence.
Mr. Channon: I am afraid that I do not agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. I assure him that there is a need in any case to increase tolls on the Severn crossing, for the reasons that I have given. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General criticised the fact that tolls have not been increased. They have been increased only twice in 22 years. They were imposed by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office. If it is so wrong to have tolls, why on earth did the Labour party impose them in the first place?
If the hon. Gentleman reads the statement which was made in 1986, he will see why I have made this statement. The former Secretary of State for Wales said that this is a major piece of infrastructure and that
"The Department of Transport has the technical expertise, which clearly makes it appropriate for it to be the responsible Department."—[Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 612.]
As for giving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales a bloody nose, since I was his Parliamentary Secretary in the early 1970s I have taken the view that it is much better not to fall out with him on anything, and nor have I on this.
Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that rapid completion of the second Severn crossing will be of great importance to Wales and the English side of the Bristol channel, given the rapid growth of the Welsh economy recently and the expectation that that will continue under the present Government? Is he aware that involvement of the private sector in this enterprise is greatly welcomed and may well be the harbinger of private sector involvement in future desirable infrastructure projects?
Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and agree with him.
Mr. Alun Michael: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the failure of the Secretary of State for Wales is reflected in his announcement because the Secretary of State would have had to declare it a "pay more" initiative? It is all initiatives from the Secretary of State for Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that local authorities and industry in Wales have made great efforts to achieve economic recovery and that both have pleaded for the burden of the toll to be lightened because it is a tax on being Welsh, on doing business in Wales and on tourism in Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman think again?
Mr. Channon: I cannot agree. If it is such an awful thing to have tolls on estuarial crossings, perhaps it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman's party had not introduced them.
Mr. James Couchman: I am tempted, in view of today's news that the Severn bridge is to be closed for a couple of weekends soon, to ask whether that is a necessary step for having a second crossing, but that would be frivolous. As one who spent seven weeks serving on the Select Committee which considered the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, may I be assured that my right hon. Friend will do the most exhaustive studies into wind shielding before any Bill is committed to a Select Committee?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I certainly will. We are minded to have wind shielding on the bridge because winds on the Severn are thought to be considerably greater than those on the Thames.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the Secretary of State saying that there is a choice here between further increases in tolls and the quick erection of a new crossing using public funds, and waiting for a long time for a bridge if public funds are to be used? If the answer is yes, provided that the necessary toll increases are reasonable, from my end of the M4, the view is that, the sooner a second crossing is built, the better it will be. I hope that the Secretary of State can tell me whether I have summed up the situation correctly and whether we are likely to have a second crossing in the very near future so that there can be more inward investment in Wales. We must remember that 1992 is looming large.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Member, especially for the constructive way in which he asked his question. He is not quite right. There must be an increase in tolls whatever happens. As I have already said, the Comptroller and Auditor General has severely criticised the present regime. It is clearly necessary to bring tolls up to date. The hon. Gentleman may very well be right when he says that, if there is a private sector solution, that may result in a second Severn crossing being available more quickly.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend tell contractors who are submitting designs to bear in mind the fact that, by the time the new Severn crossing is constructed, approval may well have been given for the Severn barrage which will generate power by using the tides and have a road across the top of it? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the traffic that is likely to travel on that road before finalising designs for the second crossing?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I shall consider it carefully.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department made an in-depth study of the level of toll likely to be necessary on the new bridge if it is to be run by a private company? Does he have a view about what would be an acceptable toll if the bridge were built by a private company? As the new bridge would be in competition with the existing one, would the Government automatically increase their tolls to enable the private operators of the second bridge to make a profit? Does he agree that if the bridge is built entirely with
562
private money there will be no access to money from the European regional development fund? Under the rules of that fund, although the bridge is not in an assisted area, money could be forthcoming as it would assist considerably an assisted area—Wales—which is eligible for funding. Is this not a missed opportunity?
Mr. Channon: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the European Investment Bank, which I am hoping to meet. I shall certainly examine the point in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. We must see what level of tolls is proposed, whether it is acceptable and whether a solution involving that comes from the private sector. [Interruption.] Let us decide that matter when we have more evidence. If there were a private sector solution the odds are that we would run the two crossings together, as is the case with Dartford, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) referred. That seems to have been widely accepted. All those considerations must be taken into account when a decision is finally taken. All that I am saying today is that here is another opportunity which will have to be considered carefully and it may well provide a quicker solution to the problem.
Mr. Gerrard Neale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on accepting the need for a second connection between the south-west and south Wales and on seeking possibilities of encouraging private investment in such a scheme so that it does not impact so much on the rest of his road building programme. Does he accept that it makes the case for extending the principle to non-estuarial crossings and seeking more private investment to accelerate the road building programme? Will he press his colleagues in the Treasury to review what many of us on this side consider to be a somewhat eccentric interpretation of the Ryrie rules, so that this matter will encourage more money and speed up the road building programme?
Mr. Channon: I read with great interest my hon. Friend's article on that very point a few weeks ago. He will not expect me to comment on the Ryrie rules, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he says about them. I am grateful for what he said about the possibilities. We shall have to see what is proposed, and at the end of the day Parliament must decide whether to build the crossing with the normal method of financing or with private finance.
Mr. Frank Cook: In considering the need to attract private capital and to keep toll charges as low as possible for consumers, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the amendment to early-day motion 1425 in the name of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) which proposes
"that consideration be given to the possibility of combining this second Severn Bridge with a hydro electricity generating scheme."?
Will he bear in mind the fact that in drawing the outline for the design of the bridge he can incorporate hydro-electric schemes which would bring in income and reduce the need for higher toll charges, which in turn could reduce both the most adverse, disadvantageous ecological effects that environmentalists dread from the Severn barrage and the need for more nuclear power? Will he take that into account and include it in the design specification?
Mr. Channon: I shall study with care all that the hon. Gentleman has said and all that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has said.
Mr. Michael Jack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time savings that will result from this bridge will be welcome and that the decision to press ahead with the new bridge is wholly justified in the light of the £56 million which has already been spent on maintenance of the existing bridge?
Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I agree in particular with his first point that the time savings will be welcome.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the £1 level will be sufficient to pay the debt, or will we face ever-increasing tolls on the Severn bridge in future? Is there a difference in writing off the debt between the Humber bridge, the Mersey tunnel and the Severn bridge?
Mr. Channon: Each is a different case. As I have explained to the House, we have not yet written off anything. We are considering a proposal to write off a proportion of the Humber debt, which otherwise would be utterly unrealistic. I should like to receive firm proposals on Merseyside, and anything that my hon. Friend can do about that would be appreciated.
There is no doubt that there is a need now to increase the tolls on the Severn bridge. In real terms they are less than they were in 1966. If my hon. Friend is interested, I can give him a list of the tolls on other estuarial crossings, and he will find that some are higher than the Severn crossing toll. If I have not dealt fully with his point, I shall write to him.
Mr. Alan Williams: I am not astonished at the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales. Clearly he has been defeated in Cabinet on the issue of Government funding for the bridge. Will the Secretary of State confirm that today's statement does not commit the Government to one extra, single penny towards the construction of the bridge? He has put up a smokescreen behind which to announce a draconian doubling of the tolls on the bridge. There is no clear statement on dates for the completion of a bridge. Do we understand from his announcement that the decision on dates will be not according to traffic flows, but left to the whim of a private investor? That seems to be what he has been saying.
Will the Secretary of State note that in his statement he talks of
"providing that crossing in the mid-1990s if traffic levels showed it was needed by then",
which is far less specific than the announcement yesterday in the Welsh Select Committee by the Secretary of State for Wales, who said that he expected it to be completed by the mid-1990s on current traffic flows? Who is right? Who is wrong? Does he agree unequivocally with that estimate by the Secretary of State for Wales?
What does the Secretary of State mean by saying that private investors may operate the bridge
"in conjunction with the existing bridge"?
564
Does that mean privatisation of the existing bridge, or handing managerial control of the existing bridge to private operators? In either case, what has happened to the Government's commitment to competition as the best way of achieving results? Is this not the reverse, in that the Government are saying that we need a private monopoly of the two bridges to obtain the funds to build a bridge at an early date? Is it not a fact that, because of the need to make a profit on the second bridge if it is privately constructed and owned, he cannot allow low tariffs or tolls on the existing bridge, even at the levels he has announced today, because that would divert traffic from the new private bridge to the existing bridge?
As the new bridge is crucially needed for Wales, as the Secretary of State said, as part of our regional policy to help Welsh industry develop, and as, by the time the bridge is completed, if it is, the Government will have robbed Wales of £1 billion in regional aid, why will not the Minister undertake to provide Government funds for the bridge and give us some of our money back?
Mr. Channon: I am absolutely astonished at the grudging way that the right hon. Gentleman greets this announcement. I am surprised because, before he slarted to speak on Welsh affairs, he used to be reasonable I do not know what has happened to him in recent months— and, incidentally, nor does his hon. Friend, who is not present.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's irnportant point, my right hon. Friends have made it perfectly clear about public sector financing of this bridge. They will "proceed with a view to providing that crossing in the mid-1990s if traflic levels showcd it was needcd by then." If the bridge goes ahead in the public sector, that was, is and will remain the case. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it will depend on traffic levels. If the bridge goes ahead in the private sector, which it may or may not do depending on whether private sector competition shows that that is the better solution, it will be open to promoters to propose schemes which will provide, conceivably, for an earlier opening of the crossing. I should have thought that that would be welcome to people in Wales and on Severnside. If that is an insuperable objection to involving the private sector, it is someting to be debated at the time. Let us see what comes forward. Running the new bridge in conjunction with the existing crossing seems likely to prove extremely satisfactory for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and I see no reason at this stage why it should not prove satisfactory for the Severn crossing. We are not at that stage yet, so we must wait to see what develops.
The important point is that I have announced today a major opportunity to create the bridge. As soon as the geological and hydrological surveys are completed, we shall have a design and build competition for the new bridge. It makes much more likely the provision of a second Severn crossing in the mid-1990s. That is a substantial step forward, and I am utterly amazed that the Opposition should respond to the announcement in their typically grudging and mean-spirited way.

BILLS PRESENTED
  Hearing aid council 1968 (Amendment)
  Mr. Jack Ashley, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Alfred Morris, Miss Emma Nicholson and Mr. Roger Sims, presented a Bill to amend the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
  CONTROL OF INTERCEPTION
  Mr. Bob Cryer, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ron Brown, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Bill Michie, presented a Bill to further control electronic interceptions, eavesdroppings and telephone interceptions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 19 October and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

  Adjournment (Summer)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 29th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 19th October, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 29th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: It must have been the expectation of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that, in a Session that commenced over 12 months ago, there would have been less unfinished Government business this July than in previous years. The backlog is, of course, a tribute to the Government's critics on both sides of the House and in all parts of another place. Of course, we all know that the last edition of Hansard before the recess will be fat with written replies to ministerially inspired questions, which the Government have been too shy, or too fly, to give while the House is still here to hold them to account.
  The issue that I want briefly to raise, as the Leader of the House may have anticipated, is one of the first importance to millions of disabled people and their families; and at the outset I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is not unfamiliar with some of the more daunting trials of disability.
  My concern in this debate is about information that Ministers have now withheld from Parliament for over two months and which, on present plans, will not be published even tomorrow. By any reckoning, it must be totally unpardonable for the Government to scuttle into the recess without a debate on the long-awaited results— known to have been with Ministers since May—of a new and definitive survey of Britain's disabled population by the Office of Population Censuses, and Surveys. It is, by common consent outside this House, quite disgraceful that we have been unable to debate the OPCS's findings and have not even been told officially what they are.
  Rumours abound that the results fully vindicate the charge, long made by voluntary organisations, that Whitehall has been grossly understating both the number of disabled people and the scale of deprivation among them. Nor is there simply rumour. "Whitehall sources" who have seen the OPCS's findings say that they show there are now more than 6 million people with disabilities in the United Kingdom, large numbers of them pensioners who live in poverty.
  That is double the figure given by the Amelia Harris report, commissioned by the then Labour Government 20 years ago, and Whitehall sources are said to have told parliamentary journalists that the new findings are seen as "disastrous" by Ministers in their implications for public spending.
  "We never truly knew what the numbers were until now",
  one senior journalist has been told,
  "but we do now and there's no going back."
  His source went on:
  "We now know who these people are. We almost know their names."
  The OPCS's report is said to give special emphasis to the problems facing elderly people with severe disabilities,

  567
  who are excluded from the Government's official estimates of losers from this year's social security changes. Many of them suffer multiple deprivation and the Government are said to be delaying publication of the new survey's findings in an attempt to find ways of disguising their significance. They are in no doubt that, if Ministers had published the OPCS's findings when they first became available in May, the public would already have demanded urgent action to relieve the suffering they reveal.
  The Government's only recent initiative to help people with severe disabilities has been to set up the Independent Living Fund at a cost of £5 million. That was done a full two months after the Social Security Act 1986 came into force and two years after the Government had been told unequivocally what its effects would be for severely disabled people, old and young alike, striving to sustain their independence on inadequate incomes. They are people whose claim, and compelling need, was for benefits as of right.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the important point that he is making, it is astonishing that we are almost at the end of the second Session of Parliament after the Royal Assent was given to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act in 1986, yet the Government still do not have proposals for its full implementation? The fact that the Government have dealt so inadequately with the Griffiths report suggests that— alas—these matters are not given the priority that my right hon. Friend would have given them.
  Mr. Morris: I utterly agree. Moreover, I take this opportunity to pay further tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for his work in piloting that important piece of legislation to the statute book. He has support from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is grossly unacceptable that there should still be delay in implementing legislation of such importance to disabled people, their carers and their families.
  The Independent Living Fund is a sticking plaster if ever there was one and, unless there is rapid action to translate the OPCS's data into social security benefits and the report by Sir Roy Griffiths into a coherent policy for community care, more and more disabled people will be consigned to the fringes of society. Sadly the OPCS's findings are already outdated by the punitive effects of the Social Security Act for very large numbers of the most needful disabled people and their families.
  The Amelia Harris survey in the late 1960s, now reported to be extensively revised by the new OPCS report, found that two thirds of all people with an appreciable or severe disability were over pension age. On that basis, of the new figure of 6 million there must now be some 4 million disabled pensioners. Yet the Government's estimate of disabled losers from this year's social security changes left out disabled pensioners, as well as disabled children and people with disabilities who are unemployed. That is why the Government's estimate of 80,000 disabled losers so sharply contrasts with that of around 1 million made by the Disability Alliance, which represents over 100 voluntary organisations of and for disabled people.
  When the Secretary of State for Employment, then the Secretary of State for Social Services, commissioned the OPCS's survey, the impression was given that the incomes
  568
  of disabled people would be protected until its findings became known and a full review of current benefits had taken place. Whenever MPs pressed for improvements in benefits they were told to await the OPCS's findings, while the Government perfected their plans to make some 1 million disabled people worse off last April.
  In a recent letter to the then Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, the Disability Alliance wrote:
  "We believe that the proposed publication of the OPCS's survey in September, in a manner apparently designed to stifle public debate, is demeaning to millions of people with disabilities. We urge you most strongly to make the survey's results available immediately so that they can be fully discussed before Parliament goes into Recess."
  But the Government are packing us off tomorrow having resisted every parliamentary attempt to secure publication of a social document which, if it appears in September, will no doubt do so under the guidance of "news management" specialists of the highest skill.
  That is seen outside the House as an inexcusable case of deliberately avoiding parliamentary scrutiny and debate. Many will think it demeaning and contemptuous not only of disabled people but also of Parliament itself. If the Government still refuse at least to publish the findings they received from the OPCS in May—there is still time to do so before we rise for the summer recess—we must hope that news editors, now forewarned, will prove more than a match for the "news managers" when the OPCS's disturbing revelations finally see the full light of day.
  It is no exaggeration to say that people with disabilities have been thrown into more confusion and despair by the Government's legislative programme for this Session than I can remember for 20 years. In almost every policy area, the Government either ignore them or positively harm them. As the Leader of the House knows from our debate on 20 July, there is deep concern among disabled people about the poll tax. In education, representations in both Houses on behalf of children with special educational needs have been swept aside; in housing, Shelter has reported both that the number of new houses built by local authorities and housing associations has declined and that most of the housing stock suitable for adaptation has been lost to local authorities; in the inner cities programme, the access needs of disabled people are apparently being left to chance.
  Throughout the last Parliament, the Government seemed committed to driving people into residential care by ensuring that the money available from supplementary benefit was vastly greater in private residential homes than for disabled people living in their own homes. So towards the end of 1986, Sir Roy Griffiths was asked to investigate and to recommend a solution.
  At least the Government have published the Griffiths report but, unlike others by the same author, it is gathering dust because its findings and suggestions do not fit in with the prevailing ideology of bashing local authorities. That too is indefensible and we need to know the Government's response to the Griffiths report before the House rises tomorrow.
  The argument about the deeply harmful effects of the Government's legislative programme for disabled people is not only one between Ministers and the Opposition parties in this House. It is an argument, indeed a fierce clash, between the Government and all the major voluntary organisations of and for disabled people. They deserve a definitive response to the concerns they are expressing, before this House rises for the recess tomorrow.
  4.53 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in the subject that he knows so well and on which he speaks with such great authority. However, I am equally concerned about the public scrutiny of decisions of great importance and relevance to public policy. I wish to refer to two in particular which I think we should know more about. I refer first to the decision not to fund in full, or at least on the previous scale, the fast breeder reactor development in the United Kingdom and, secondly, to the decision effectively to cancel the extremely ingenious and promising British technological development known as HOTOL, the spacecraft which will apply new British technology to the conquest of space.
  The relationship between the two projects will interest the House. In a sense, both have been either curtailed or placed on the slow burner for very much the same reason. In the case of the fast breeder reactor, the Government's reason is that they can see no particular requirement for the fast breeder reactor for 30 to 40 years. In the case of HOTOL, the main reason given was that there was no foreseeable market requirement for space launchers well beyond the end of the century. I believe that the phrase was "no foreseeable need".
  Why are those two decisions important? I am raising the question of the fast breeder reactor this afternoon not because I am well known as a pro-nuclear buff, although I believe that the nuclear contribution to our civilisation in the civil sector is of immense importance, that it will grow in importance and that it is indispensable—I am raising this issue for a much more basic reason.
  I refer the House to the international conference which took place in Toronto two or three weeks ago on the crisis of atmospheric pollution in our civilisation. I draw the House's attention to one of the principal conclusions reached by that conference:
  "Humanity is conducting an enormous, unintended, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war."
  The conference warned:
  "without rapid remedial action, the world's temperature will rise by between 1·5 and 4·5 °C before the middle of the next century.… That would devastate coastal areas and islands by flooding, contamination of water supplies by salty waters, loss of farmland, and a dramatic increase in the number of tropical cyclones."
  I will not develop that point further, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to some of the conclusions which the scientific journal Atom has reached on very much the same subject. It has pointed out that there are two consequences of what is happening, one of which is already accepted because we could not possibly stop it—it will probably inevitably take place over 10 to 20 years; the other is possibly within the limits of control, but both have substantial and devastating effects on the atmosphere. The article points out:
  "A warming of 4·9 °C would be comparable to that which occurred between the coldest period of the last ice age 18,000 years ago and the present interglacial—all within the next 100 years! … in a mere 42 years, the world would be warmer, on average, than at any time within the recorded history of mankind … It is therefore crucial that science receives the support it requires to sharpen our understanding of the greenhouse effect"—
  for that is what the phenomenon is—
  "and its potential impacts on environment and society. The longer we wait, the larger will be the climatic change to which we are committed."
  570
  In what way can we contribute to that scientific understanding? As I understand it, the main way is by enlarging the present generation's scientific knowledge of the atmosphere, and of inner and outer space. In what way do we do that? We do it best by increasing our potential for placing scientific instruments in space. How can we best do that? By developing what are known as spacecraft—and the most eligible spacecraft available to the United Kingdom is HOTOL. So, where do we go from there? What judgment has been reached on HOTOL?
  I can do no better—the House can do no better—than refer to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, and to some of its principal conclusions on space, which I believe are of outstanding importance. The Committee took evidence from the director general of the space agency in France, who reached an interesting, if Gallic conclusion, which is nevertheless relevant. For France,
  "man in space … was simply a matter of sovereignty, 'like the sea around the United Kingdom'",
  and therefore seen as a matter of immense and overriding importance.
  British Aerospace, in its evidence to the Select Committee, said:
  "Between now and the end of the century there will be a dramatic acceleration in space exploitation in line with the growing realisation by the civil and military communities of the substantial benefits that it offers".
  The judgment of British Aerospace should not be lightly overridden, however biased or interested it may be. Another example is the recent decision of a major United States firm voluntarily and on its own account to reinstate the Atlas-Centaur production line to produce launch vehicles for commercial availability.
  Other interesting and important conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee include the following from the university of Southampton:
  "Few of the potential benefits from space activities will be fully realised until a routine, low cost, re-usable launcher with simplified logistics is developed."
  The United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee regarded this as an "over-riding priority", and British Aerospace stated:
  "Many people believe that space is the key to national security and economic well-being. But the key to space itself is the launcher."
  Superficial and rather glib comparisons have been made with Concorde, but the university of Bristol makes the following comment:
  "Unlike Concorde, there seems to be every prospect of a genuine economic return because the basic cost of launch is massively reduced."
  The House of Lords Committee itself then makes the interesting statement:
  "Opting out is not an option … The Committee recommend that the United Kingdom play a visible and effective part in the exploration and exploitation of space."
  At this point, the following recommendations fully serve my purpose. The Select Committee states:
  "keeping the space budget fixed at about £112 million, has got the level wrong. This level of spending gets the worst of all worlds—too much for real savings, too little for lasting achievements. If the budget is to stay at this figure, the United Kingdom might as well bow out of space now."
  It concludes:
  "the Committee do not find it reasonable to suggest that it is for private industry to step in where Government itself has declined to act. The Committee have argued repeatedly that British industry should spend substantially more on R & D, especially on D. They have also welcomed the systematic

  571
  efforts now being made to capitalise upon exploitable areas of science. But they do not look to private industry, in space or any other field"—
  and nor, for all my political philosophy, do I in this context, because it is totally unrealistic—
  "to be the major source of funds for activities where the commercial returns, even if they were assured, lie well outside normal commercial timescales."
  The word "timescales" brings me to the essence of what I have to say. I say it with the greatest reluctance, but it seems to me that in both these contexts the Government's policy is unimaginative, short-sighted and dangerous when considered in the fundamental context of the national interest. I ask myself, because I must, why that is so. Why have we spent only three hours in the past year or so debating fundamental scientific policy matters of this kind? Why do highly responsible and senior Ministers, whom I greatly respect in every other sense and who have before them the evidence that I have cited today, reach the decisions that they do? Can it be purely a matter of finance? Is it because they see a figure such as £5 billion and react—understandably, after the long history of uncontrollable subsidy—by saying that we must have no more of this? I entirely agree with that judgment, but there are areas in which the time scale is so long that it is entirely unreasonable to expect the private sector to undertake the risks inevitably involved. That is where a mistaken judgment has been made.
  A sum of £5 billion is the kind of amount that has been bandied about in relation to HOTOL, but it is £5 billion over 10 to 20 years, and thus involves a maximum of £500 million or a minimum of £250 million per annum. Even then, I agree with the House of Lords judgment that this must be shared with Europe as a whole, because it is a project best brought to fruition on a European basis, with a major British contribution, but I cannot see such a contribution being based on the present arrangements or the judgments on which they are founded.
  Those sums should be compared with the £2 billion per annum allocated by the Government for subsidy to the coal industry and other global budgets of that magnitude. In that context, £250 million does not frighten me. We must look critically at the balance of all these matters and if it means a little more stringency elsewhere, I would support such stringency so that resources can be released for major efforts in this direction.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Apart from blindess and apparent ignorance, is not the problem the lack of any forum in this House such as the old Select Committee on Science and Technology whereby my hon. Friend and others with great expertise in these matters can bring that expertise to bear and enlighten and advise Ministers? Does my hon. Friend agree that the HOTOL project required only £4 million to £5 million per annum for the next three or four years until project definition was completed? If that had been successful, more would then have had to be spent for development. Nevertheless, we are talking about tiny sums compared with the £50,000 million per annum that we spend on social security.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both points. This House is enormously indebted to the other place for taking up the gauntlet that we flung down and establishing its own Select Committee on Science and Technology. We have certainly missed the contribution that such a Committee could make. The establishment of
  572
  a parliamentary office for science and technology may in due course make a modest contribution, but it is no substitute for a House of Commons Select Committee.
  To my mind, the situation reflects a fundamental weakness in the organisation of the whole scientific community within the total community of the United Kingdom. When I say that that is a criticism of my party's Government, I hope that the Opposition will not gloat, as they made the same mistake. That failing has been a feature of both major parties throughout all the years that I have been in the House, and it will not be put right until the lack of balance is properly recognised at the very top. So far, it has not been recognised and there is no sign that it will be.
  I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge his colleagues to consider most carefully not just what I have said today but the evidence on which my comments have been based. That evidence is of profound importance, and I have seen no convincing arguments to refute it. Until I hear or read these arguments, I cannot support my right hon Friends in their decision to curtail the development of the fast breeder reactor or to reduce substantially—virtually to abolish—support for HOTOL.
  If the greenhouse effect which I have described proves to be a major environmental phenomenon that successive Governments will have to address towards and beyond the end of the century, and if as a result—this is conceivable, although not yet proven—there has to be a dramatic and major reduction in the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, there will be only one alternative. By "major reduction" I mean thousands of millions of tonnes. All the fashionable alternative energies will not bridge the gap that will be opened when it is ordered that thousands of millions of tonnes of fossil fuels will not be burned. At the most, the fashionable alternative energies will produce 20 per cent. of our energy requirement. There would remain, of course, 80 per cent. If we have to reduce 80 per cent. to 40 per cent., the gap, as it were, of 40 per cent. can be filled only by nuclear power.
  Will the gap have to be filled by nuclear power worldwide? I remind the House that the Chinese are now burning 1 billion tonnes of coal a year. Indeed, they take first place in the worldwide league table of coal burners. If nuclear power has to be generated on such a scale, it can be done with safety for our civilisation over a prolonged period only if we use fast breeder technology, which burns uranium 10 times more efficiently than the pressurised water reactor.
  These are the perspectives that I believe the Government have neglected. If they have not, I should be delighted to know why and how.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is always a pleasure to participate in a debate after the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) have contributed to it. The hon. Member for Havant, in speaking of science and technology, and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, in talking of disability, have raised important and urgent aspects of public policy. They are right to argue that the Government should bend their mind to these considerations before the House rises for the summer recess.

  573
  I crave the indulgence of the House to raise a more human, more urgent and more current issue, which is the conditions that prevail in the prisons of the United Kingdom generally and particularly, because it is the area that I know best, in Scotland. I am not sure of the proprieties, but it occurs to me that I have not yet advised the hon. Member who represents the constituency in which Glenochil prison is to be found——
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I should sit down.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Perhaps it is right that I should do so. If I should have informed the hon. Member concerned —I want to refer to Glenochil—I apologise in advance to whoever it might be.
  There is deep and widespread anxiety in Scotland about what is going on in Glenochil. The general public are perplexed. Trouble is brewing, and I believe that it will continue to brew over the summer months. That belief is shared generally by the public in Scotland. If some of the worst predictions and fears are fulfilled, we may find that during the summer additional damage will be done to the fabric of the prison building. There is the danger that injuries will be sustained by prisoners, prison staff and the officers and wardens who look after the staff. The disturbances could easily get out of hand. There is a potential crisis in Scottish prisons generally, and in Glenochil especially.
  Glenochil has been the subject of great controversy over recent years because of fatalities and other incidents. The prison authorities in Scotland decided to make Glenochil a full-blown prison in its own right earlier this year. A riot started on 4 May, which lasted on and off for nearly five days. Since then there has been what can be described only as a war of attrition between the prison management and the prisoners. My information comes from press reports. It is only through these reports that I and the general public can learn of anything that is going on in the prison.
  Press reports suggest that the riot was caused by a lock-down after an assault on a prison warden. Following that assault, every prisoner was locked up and all visits were cancelled. An open day was allowed, and press reports suggest that it showed a great sense of hopelessness. There were allegations of brutality and of continuing and persistent degradation. The authorities allowed the open day to take place, but when the members of the press asked to cross-examine some of the inmates who were involved in the original fracas which caused the riots, they were told that they were not available. If prisoners are locked up for 23 hours out of every 24, I fail to see how inmates can be described as not available.
  There are more than 400 prisoners, and they have in various ways made allegations. These include having to strip naked before they are fed. It is said that they have to hang from cell bars before they receive their food. The prisoners are locked up for 23 hours of every 24. They have no toilet facilities and none of them has any bedding facilities. If my memory serves me right, a 27 -year-old hanged himself in the prison in June.
  The press reports and the other pieces of information that are available to me are extremely disturbing and worrying. The management say that the trouble has been
  574
  caused by a hard core of difficult and intractable recidivist prisoners who are not responding to reasonable attempts to compromise. It is alleged that they are leading a revolt and are responsible primarily for the trouble.
  I was prompted to raise this issue this afternoon when I read a letter printed in the Glasgow Herald. It caused me a great deal of deep concern. The letter was written by Stephen Small from Her Majesty's prison, Peterhead. He explains in his letter—I think that the Glasgow Herald was right to publish it—that he was a prisoner in Glenochil until recently. He was there until he committed an offence, after which he was taken to Peterhead so that the matter could be investigated.
  In a disturbing letter, he states:
  "There were a few minor incidents between Christmas and May. Then on May 4, at 4.30 pm in D hall, an officer offered a prisoner a 'square go during an argument. The prisoner overcame the officer but was then attacked by another officer. The fuse was lit.
  There was a very heavy Mexican stand-off and everyone was locked up until the police came in to take statements, which they did that night. We were told we would be locked up that night and told the reason.
  There was no trouble that night. The following day everyone was expecting to get back to normal. We didn't. We got no slop-out, no exercise, no visits and late, cold meals. By teatime, people started smashing their cells. We weren't told anything about what was happening. The following day things got worse. Again, no slop-out or exercise or visits or hot food. The whole prison erupted."
  This prisoner argues that there was
  "no small core of hard men. Instead, there were 200 very disgruntled inmates who had up to that time done absolutely nothing wrong."
  His conclusion is:
  "The reason it has continued so long"—
  that is, the riot—
  "is that the Governor … has taken it upon himself to ride roughshod over the regulations contained in the Prison Scotland Act 1952. No less than 25 regulations are being broken … every day."
  That contradicts and refutes the allegation that a small hard core of difficult prisoners is causing the problem.
  I do not blame the warders or the staff, however. I think that the filthy conditions are a direct result of the prisoners' activity. Prison officers can now patrol A hall only in full riot gear, and live in constant fear of being taken hostage. According to the press reports, they are pelted with urine and human excrement every time they enter A hall, and there have been three reported attempts at snatching officers and 12 alleged assaults.
  There has been much talk of prison management breaking prisoners, or trying to bend them to their will. If the press allegations are true—they are the only information available to me; I have not visited the prison, and am not even an expert on the penal system—the management must be held at least partly responsible. I certainly think that there can be little excuse for denying prisoners slop-out rights for so long, and for denying them exercise rights for a total of 432 hours since the problem blew up in May.
  I should like to call for an urgent independent inquiry, into Glenochil in the first instance but also into the general position, taken against the background of the recent difficulties and disturbances in Peterhead, Barlinnie and Perth in Scotland, not to mention Haverigg and Lindholme in England. This is a matter of public concern which requires urgent attention from the Government if we are to avoid trouble over the summer months.

  575
  My constituents, and other people in Scotland, are concerned to see in television sequences drugs being handed from cell to cell by inmates. It is also worrying that warders and staff are taking such long spells of sick leave. That, I believe, is symptomatic of the pressure under which they are working. It is also a disgrace and a scandal that some 5,588 prisoners are locked up in Scotland, which is a much larger proportion per thousand head of population than in any other civilised country on the continent.
  The problem needs both urgent short-term action and longer-term investigation. There are long-term solutions to be found without much difficulty, including better access to parole. Only violent criminals really need to be gaoled. Far too many people are now in prison for defaulting on fines, for instance, and the number on remand—although the problem is worse in England and Wales than in Scotland—is also far too large. I was impressed by the recent report by the Church of Scotland, which advocated a wide range of non-custodial options. A number of other regimes are available to the Government, and could be made available in turn to the courts to accommodate and lessen the problem. The report also mentioned the probation service, which is woefully underdeveloped and under-resourced at present.
  We were expecting a Government White Paper about the prison service with reference to Scotland. It should have been published by now, but the most recent news is that we must wait until September for this important document. Nor has the parole review yet been published which was to examine the Scottish position with a view to bringing the qualifying period for parole in Scotland into line with that in England. That too should be done as a matter of urgency.
  There is a legal fiction in this country that we imprison people not for purposes of retribution, but to try to rehabilitate them. That has been blown out of the water by the disturbances that we see from day to day in our prisons, particularly in Scotland. Of course no hon. Member would or should condone violence or vandalism in prisons. It is a matter for the courts in the first instance to decide how crimes should be punished and dispose sentences. The Government, however, have a responsibility to provide public policy, resources and organisation to meet the needs of the day, and I do not think that that duty is being discharged.
  The Government should immediately close A hall in Glenochil and relocate the prisoners until the problem can be investigated by an independent inquiry. They should then set up a wide-ranging inquiry into the state of the prisons in the United Kingdom. If they do not do that over the summer, I fear that the consequences may be not just more damage to the fabric of our prisons, but injury and loss of life to prison inmates, warders and staff.
  5.25 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall be a good deal briefer than any hon. Member who has spoken so far.
  There is a matter that I would have wished to raise if the House had not been about to disperse, and which may develop rather too swiftly during the recess. The "bed and breakfast" racket has been with us for some time now, but there is an ingredient which, if not new, is becoming increasingly prominent.
  576
  The seaside resort of Rhyl in my constituency is a very pleasant place to be. For a long time now, the advantages of being unemployed in Rhyl rather than in Manchester or Liverpool have been sufficiently manifest to attract to Rhyl people with little chance of finding a proper job there, other than the briefest of seasonal employment at. the most down-market end of the tourist trade. As a consequence, the level of unemployment there appears to be scandalously high for about nine months in the year.
  Now, however, the nuisance is becoming something rather worse. A number of rather dubious firms have begun to realise that a steady and lucrative business can be built up not just by providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for those with no job and nowhere to live, but by attracting people to such accommodation from far afield. What is more, the profits are so substantial and so certain that the firms are now in the market to buy up property for that purpose.
  The profits are substantial because the scale of lodging allowance paid by the DHSS for this so-called hostel accommodation is higher than the level of housing benefit that would be paid by the council—which would, of course, have asked the rent officer to fix a reasonable rent. Such firms are making a fat and assured profit, and they are making it entirely at the taxpayers' expense.
  Recently, the YMCA building in Rhyl came on the market. The council, in pursuance of the Government's intention that it should act as enabler rather than provider of housing, invited the Clwyd Alyn housing association to buy it, and to convert it to sheltered housing as part of the much-needed housing improvement in this rather rundown part of the town. The housing association, however, was easily outbid by a speculator, who then resold the YMCA premises to a company called Bideawhile, which has converted it into what it openly describes as a DHSS hostel.
  Let me quote from a letter that I have received from Rhuddlan council's housing director:
  "If this property was providing for a local need, then, no doubt, we would not have the same concern, but it would appear that the premises are filling up with families who are being encouraged to move here from other areas by press advertisements. The Area Office of the Clwyd Social Service Department is particularly concerned at the increasing workload that is being placed upon them, as already they have been consulted by 13 famities who arrived at the former YMCA building, and have subsequently approached the Social Service Department with their problems, and some of these families are already known to have serious problems. Examples of places from where they have come include Trafford, Salford, Halifax, Winsford, Preston and Blackpool. As a result of contact with Social Service staff in their home towns, it is known that a family from Trafford and a family from Halifax both voluntarily walked out of secure Council housing accommodation in those areas to move to this new accommodation in Rhyl.
  The following example of a press advertisement was spotted in the Manchester Evening News on the 22nd June, 1988 and read as follows:—
  'SINGLE MOTHERS/PARENTS and children. Secure accommodation offered. DHSS welcome. Telephone Rhyl 4201 (Office Hours).'"
  That is the number of the YMCA building in Rhyl.
  The housing director continues:
  "I have had discussion with the Deputy Manager of DHSS in Rhyl who advised that they have no power to prevent this type of situation arising or increasing. He advised that provided his staff were satisfied the claimants were genuinely in residence in this type of accommodation and were not here on holiday, then the claimants were entitled to board and

  577
  lodging payments, up to the maximum set down in DHSS regulations … The only limitation on payments of this nature would be to single persons under the age of 26."
  That process is also damaging the efforts of the council and others to improve the West End of Rhyl, which is a rundown housing area.
  As the housing director puts it:
  "Rhyl West End is considered a stress area by Community Agencies as a result of the high levels of unemployment … anti-social behaviour, drugs and a general high demand being made upon various agencies, particularly Social Services. It has also been our housing stress area … with the high concentration of houses in multiple occupation. In a determined effort to reverse the decline of the Rhyl West End, the Council has adopted a housing strategy involving the declaration of Housing Action Areas, and with the support of the Welsh Office has either completed, or work is in progress on, six Envelope Schemes involving some 250 properties."
  All that good work is liable to be undone if more and more properties in the area are snapped up by unscrupulous operators who will then scour the country for problem families with the promise of seaside accommodation paid for by the DHSS, and pour them into this most unsuitable accommodation, lining their pockets nicely at the taxpayers' expense.
  It is easy to diagnose the problem; it is a lot harder to suggest a solution. There is an obvious racket, and an obvious discrepancy between the money that can be provided by way of housing benefit and what the DHSS can pay for bed and breakfast—and it is usually the sketchiest of breakfasts.
  One thing is clear. This is a problem which calls for the tightest possible co-operation between the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Environment and the local authorities. I am not sure that the present arrangements have resulted from such tight co-operation, and I hope that during the 10 weeks of the recess those Departments and local authorities will put their heads together to good effect.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I want to touch on another housing scandal, which also results directly from the Government's policies and shows the unacceptable face of the so-called enterprise economy. I want to challenge the Government on a matter of vital and urgent importance to millions of people which is given fresh impetus and urgency by the Prime Minister's shocking and uncaring reply in the House this afternoon.
  The Prime Minister was asked about problems with house prices and she said that that should be left to action by the voluntary sector. The Leader of the House said the same. They meant that they do not care and will not act. I warn the Prime Minister and other Ministers that they cannot sweep aside the scandals of gazumping and the house price spiral so easily. Many right hon. and hon. Members have demonstrated that by signing early-day motion 1311 tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) a couple of weeks ago. Many people outside the House applauded its terms. Let me briefly remind the House of what it says.
  The motion suggests that we should regard a decent standard of housing for all as a minimum objective in a civilised society, and notes the appalling effects of the present spiral in house prices, particularly on young couples and other first-time buyers. It deplores the way in
  578
  which gazumping can, at the last minute, snatch security from people who thought that they had reached agreement on a price for a home of their own. It calls on the Government to introduce emergency legislation for England and Wales, including the Scottish system for registering price agreements, at an early stage in order to achieve fairness for buyers and sellers alike, and to curb the excesses created by the pressures of the present over-free housing market. We hoped that that gentle appeal to common sense might receive a response from the Government, or perhaps a promise of emergency legislation, or at least a statement.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any such legislation should also apply to Northern Ireland, because exactly the same thing is happening there?
  Mr. Michael: I hesitate to suggest that something should be introduced for Northern Ireland, but I would happily endorse representations from Northern Ireland Members who sought the same end that I do in respect of England and Wales. There is a clear need for emergency legislation, and if the situation is the same in Northern Ireland I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support my point this afternoon.
  We expected some action from the Government— perhaps a promise of emergency legislation. After all, many hon. Members have illustrated the problem. We expected at least a statement, but at first there was nothing. Then, the weekend before last, it seemed that the Government had decided to respond to our plea and to do something. In a number of television and radio interviews, we saw and heard the then Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs talking of action to end gazumping and the house price spiral.
  What a welcome and refreshing piece of news that was. The Minister specifically mentioned gazumping and the Scottish law, so we were pleased to have some reaction. We were a little perturbed at the suggestion that a voluntary code of practice for estate agents was all that was needed, but at least there seemed to be something on which we could comment; something on which a debate could be founded.
  However, when we asked for details the following week, a mystery seemed to shroud the whole affair. There was no statement in the House of Commons. No consultative document was produced. There was not even a press release, although, as I have said, there was media discussion. When I contacted the Minister's private office, his staff could give no information.
  Therefore, I tabled a series of written questions to Minister's from the Department of Trade and Industry asking for details of the proposals on which they intended to consult. The reaction has been simply to deflect those questions to the Attorney-General, the Secretary of State for the Environment, or whoever they could think of, exposing the fact that there was never any intention to tackle the problem of the house price spiral. There are no proposals. The announcement of consultations was clearly a sham and a piece of media hype. Instead, we have a shoddy case of buck-passing.
  In my string of questions came the honesty of an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. When I asked what proposals he had under consideration to end

  579
  the practice known as gazumping in Wales and to slow house price rises, and what consultations he intended to undertake, he answered:
  "I do not consider that Government intervention in the market for owner-occupation would improve the situation."
  To say that that is an honest answer is to highlight its only virtue. Like the answers given by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House this afternoon, it exposes the Government's callous indifference to a real problem. It exposes the Government's intention to run away from the scandal of house prices. It exposes the cynicism of a Government who want to look as if they are listening when they have in fact closed their minds to all pleas.
  The Attorney-General and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment have also given stonewalling responses which confirm that from the Welsh Office. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) told my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling):
  "House prices are determined by individual buyers and sellers, and the Government do not propose to intervene in private negotiations."—[Official Report,4 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 725.]
  What an appalling and heartless response that is. Anyone—that must include most hon. Members—who has sought a first home or to move house will know that that is a traumatic and difficult process, governed by forces far outside the control of the individual buyer or the individual seller. Those answers expose the narrowness and bigotry of Ministers. The media hype of the Department of Trade and Industry appeared to offer care and humanity for a brief moment, but even that is being snatched away from us. Let me make it clear that, in his non-statement, the Minister was offering us very litfle in the first place. To suggest that a voluntary code for estate agents would solve the problem is manifest nonsense.
  Rather than inaction or a voluntary code, the Government should bring in the best aspects of the Scottish legislation—it does not have to be the complete system—as quickly as possible, so that everyone is protected within a framework of law. There would be no need to bring in all aspects of the Scottish system. All that is needed is that element of certainty by which a price can be agreed and remain certain before all the legal niceties have been worked through.
  At the moment, uncertainty is damaging to everyone. Those of us with homes do not gain, because if we sell our house it will have gone up just as much. Those without a home have the horror of seeing prices escalate beyond their reach. It is the young couples starting out in life and the elderly who want security in their old age who are most damaged by that situation.
  The Government should come clean. If, as the Minister seemed to suggest on radio and television, the Government consult on the matter, they should set out the basis of consultation. Certainly a large number of people have a great deal of experience to recount because they have suffered personal loss in recent weeks and months. Talk of a voluntary code is a diversion. If the Government do nothing, they should say so clearly, and explain to people their reasons for that extraordinary and callous neglect. They should either give us the basis of the negotiation or say that they will do nothing before the recess so that we know where we stand.
  Without an immediate and positive response now, before the recess, the Government must stand exposed by the answers of Ministers, the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister. They must stand guilty of failing to act,
  580
  they must stand guilty of a cover-up, and they must be exposed as guilty of running away from the house price scandal and abandoning millions of ordinary people who need a simple framework of legal protection as they undertake the single most important financial transaction of their lives, to put roofs over their heads.
  5.40 pm
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise three issues before we adjourn for the summer recess.
  In 1984, the Government were so concerned about advances in medical science relating to research projects involving the human embryo that they established a special committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Lady Warnock. That report, which was far from unanimous, was subsequently debated in Parliament and it was clear that there was general opposition to the use of the human embryo for the purposes of research Mr. Enoch Powell, who at that time was a Member of Parliament, chose to use his place in the private Members' ballot to introduce a Bill—the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill—to prevent the use of the human embryo for experimental purposes.
  When that Bill was debated in Parliament, it received an overwhelming majority on Second Reading, but it failed to make progress due to the vagaries of our private Members Bill procedure, which make it possible for a small but determined handful of hon. Members to block progress on any Bill, no matter how great the support it enjoys in the House.
  In the next Session, the Bill was again given a substantial majority when it was reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves). Again, a majority blocked its progress. In the ensuing Session, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) made an unavailing attempt to get the Bill through, and in the current Session, the Bill has been picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
  I should have thought that it was obvious that the House wanted to legislate on that subject. Recognising that, the Government produced a consultation document, and after receiving evidence, last year published a White Paper setting out their plans for legislation which would involve bringing forward a Bill with alternative clauses —one allowing embryo experimentation and one preventing such experimentation. Indeed, during the last general election, they gave a commitment that legislation would be brought forward as soon as practicable.
  Therefore, I hope that the inclusion of such proposals will appear in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. But there are disturbing rumours that the Government have no intention of taking action on that important issue. I do not believe that the House should rise for the summer recess until we have had an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that he accepts that failure to legislate would be greeted with profound disappointment by many hon. Members and by millions of people in the country.
  Similarly, we cannot go into recess with clear consciences until we have reached a decision on abortion law reform. I have raised that issue before, and I make no apology for raising it again.

  581
  It was clear from the repeated majorities in favour of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that the House believes that the time is long overdue for the reform of our too-liberal abortion laws. The Abortion (Amendment) Bill was a limited measure and would have allowed the House to reach a decision on this important issue. However, the Bill was lost because a small but determined group of opponents used the procedures of the House to prevent the necessary votes from being taken. All that was needed was a little extra time. All the arguments had been made and people outside Parliament could not understand why, having debated the issue, Parliament was prevented from expressing its will.
  I hope that, before we rise, we can receive from my right hon. Friend an assurance that in the near future the Government will find some way for the House to reach a conclusion. I warn my right hon. Friend that the problem will not go away. If no action is taken, similar Bills will continue to appear, and the more that opponents of abortion reform do to prevent a decision being reached, the more the House will be brought in disrepute.
  Unless those matters are dealt with before the House rises, many right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to start the recess with easy minds, and we will join that other large group of deeply troubled people—the Barlow Clowes investors, some of whom, through the collapse of the Barlow Clowes companies, have lost their entire life savings. Those people were not greedy, and they were not speculators; they are ordinary retired people, some of whom invested their redundancy payments in that unfortunate venture. They have in common a sense of disbelief and shock at what has happened to them.
  I am always wary of giving publicity to constituents' private problems, and many constituents have told me about their heavy losses over this fiasco. However, a church in Altrincham has been hit by that debacle. A recent article in the Manchester Evening News stated:
  "An Altrincham vicar fears his church has lost £42,500 invested in the crashed £190 million empire of Cheshire tycoon Peter Clowes.
  Building work at St. John the Evangelist, in St. John's Road, Altrincham, has been left unfinished after construction of a parish and community centre in the west end of the Victorian building stopped days after the crash."
  It went on to say:
  "they went ahead with the investment on the advice of 'a practising Christian', Mr. Gordon Pettie. His Poynton-based Gordon Pettie Investment Services was last week suspended by Fimbra, the watchdog for financial intermediaries.
  The money came from the sale of the church hall alongside St. John's, which is a landmark in the Altrincham area."
  Later in the article the vicar stated:
  '"What really sold us on this investment was that the brochure for BCI portfolio 68 implied that all the money would be invested in gilts.'
  In the event, when the liquidators moved in they discovered that out of £138 million invested in the offshore BCI fund only £2 million had been placed in gilts, and there was only a further £24 million in bank accounts."
  I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry set up an urgent inquiry by Sir Godfray Le Quesne, and we can expect a report in mid-October. I went to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on behalf of my constituents. He told me that he had read every letter that had been sent to the Department of Trade and Industry by Barlow Clowes
  582
  investors. He had been saddened and upset by some of the letters; he promised that the report would not be a whitewash and that it would get at the truth.
  However, I was disturbed to read in the Daily Mail on 25 July:
  "A battle between Trade Secretary Lord Young and virtually the entire Tory party is boiling up over the Barlow Clowes financial scandal.
  He has told MPs he will vigorously oppose Whitehall compensation for about 17,000 small investors."
  It continues:
  "But Lord Young, fully backed by the Treasury, is digging in hard. It is not so much the money as the principle. If the Government is found to have been negligent, the Barlow Clowes affair could become the benchmark for other cash claims on Whitehall when other firms crash on the Stock Exchange."
  That is not good enough. If the report proves that there were faults in the Department of Trade and Industry, then some compensation must be paid.
  Many of my constituents have told me that they invested in Barlow Clowes because it had the stamp of approval from the Department of Trade and Industry. Many investors feel that they should have been alerted long before the crash.
  Therefore, before the House rises, there should be a statement that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not set his face against compensation, if it is proved that there is culpability at the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that justice will be done for the 18,000 unfortunate investors.
  I hope that we can have a statement on those three important subjects—the protection of the human embryo against experimentation, abortion law reform and the need to reassure the Barlow Clowes investors—before the House rises for the summer Adjournment.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: I want to follow the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), although I hasten to add that there was no collusion between us.
  Before the House rises, I wanted to consider the stress that is caused by the shortage of affordable housing to rent and to buy, which is at its worst in East Anglia, and worst of all in my constituency. The problem is reaching crisis proportions, and is a result of Government policies, high mortgage rates, uncontrolled house prices and a virtual end to house building by local authorities.
  I shall exemplify what I have to say by showing the extent of stress caused by these factors in my constituency. In Norwich, a small terraced house costs about £45,000 —although it may have gone up while I am speaking. It is not unusual for the price of a house like that to rise by £1,000 overnight. Gazumping is rife. Many of my constituents have complained to me that they wish that the Government would follow through an ostensible promise made by a Minister last week to do something about gazumping, if only by moving to an approximation of the Scottish system.
  Norwich has the highest rate of house price increases in the country. Last year, house prices in the city rose by 40 per cent., and in the last quarter by 25 per cent. I do not know whether the changes in the Finance (No. 2) Bill will make any difference from the end of this month, but at the

  583
  moment it looks as if house prices are rising geometrically, with about 50 per cent. increases every half year, as against 40 per cent. in the whole of last year.
  East Anglia in general, and Norwich in particular, have traditionally been low-wage areas. Many people there work in occupations with an average wage of £6,000 a year. So even if a building society or insurance company is willing to offer a multiple of three times a person's income, the cheapest house is still out of reach. If a person and his partner can raise between them three times the former's income and one and half times the latter's, the smallest terraced house will still be out of their reach.
  The council's waiting list contains 5,000 applicants— the highest number ever—of whom 3,500 are now in shared accommodation. Five hundred elderly or disabled people are on the waiting list for sheltered accommodation, of which the city has 170 units. The waiting list for such accommodation can be imagined. A typical elderly person waiting for transfer to more suitable accommodation—typically from a house on an estate into a ground-floor flat, sheltered accommodation or a bungalow —has a wait of four and a half to five and a half years. Many of them die while on the waiting list.
  A single person's average wait on the list is five years or more, so many single people end up sharing accommodation in houses in multiple occupation. The number of such houses in the city has risen dramatically in recent years. Many of them are overcrowded and unsatisfactory, with poor facilities and inadequate fire safety standards. The council's programme of inspection has been put under pressure by the sheer number of properties to be visited, and it is not even known for certain how many there are.
  Many families with children in upper flats are in desperate need of suitable accommodation. There are 1,700 such people on the waiting list with 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. priority. Not one of my surgeries goes by without a couple or a single parent being reduced to tears by the fact that they are stuck in an upper flat with no prospects for years to come of moving themselves and their children into a more appropriate property with a garden and a space to play in which the children can be supervised.
  Norwich city council used to have one of the finest housing records in the country, with 25,000 council houses under its control. Ten years ago it built 528 in one year; in 1988 the prospect is that it will build 76, of which 20 or 30 will be sheltered accommodation. It will take 20 years to clear the backlog of private house owners who are waiting for home improvement grants under present Government allocations.
  The city of Norwich housing committee's annual report shows the financial contribution that the city can make to decent housing. Like any other district, it draws up an annual housing investment programme for new housebuilding, improvements and modernisations. This year's bid was for £22 million, part of which would be met by borrowing. However, borrowing for housing investment by local authorities must be approved by the Government, who have consistently refused to allow Norwich to invest in local housing. The amount approved was £5 million. As a result of being able to keep 20 per cent. of the funds realised from the sale of council houses, the final outturn was £12 million. Local freedom to set a realistic and responsible budget for housing investment has all but disappeared.
  584
  To summarise: extraordinary market forces in the private sector have driven owner-occupation beyond the means of many local people—particularly young people setting out on an independent life, and newly married people. These forces have created a shortage of rented accommodation too. Government policies on housing investment mean that the council is trying to meet the need for affordable rented property without adequate resources, which are continually refused by the Government. As a result, housing waiting lists are longer and longer, there are new levels of homelessness and more people are being forced to live in overcrowded and unsatisfactory conditions.
  As I said before, Norwich has an exceptional record for good housing. I am pleased to say that it has been under Labour control for 55 years. It now has the largest Labour majority in its history and I have no doubt that it will be under Labour control for the rest of my lifetime.
  Given the opportunity, the council could provide the decent housing for which it was famed until the onset of this Government. Government policies have forced all this housing stress on my constituents, and that is a matter that should be drawn to the Government's attention before the House rises.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me, as the first non-knight to speak from the Conservative Benches in the debate.
  I agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about Barlow Clowes. I raised this subject with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in business questions this afternoon: it is a matter of the greatest importance. If, when the report appears during the recess—as presumably it will—it blames the Department of Trade and Industry directly or indirectly, many hon. Members will expect immediate action to be taken to compensate those who have been left in a distraught state.
  There is no point in shirking this. We must ask ourselves, in the event that the DTI is blamed, who takes the responsibility? If nothing happens and we go on as before, we shall have to conclude that ministerial responsibility no longer counts for anything in this country. I shall expect something to be done immediately if blame is apportioned to the DTI—and so will my constituents who have been affected. I cannot say this too strongly to my right hon. Friend.
  A few days ago, a disturbing report appeared recommending that the Government should consider abandoning the formula of the resource allocation working party—the so-called RAWP formula—which was first put in place by the last Labour Government, specifically by the then Minister of State responsible for the Health Service, Roland Moyle.
  I first entered the House as a Member representing Leicestershire in 1974. At that time the Leicestershire health authority—or its predecessor, the area health authority—received only 75 per cent of average National Health Service funding. Largely as a result of the RAWP formula, it is now up to 96 per cent., but I stress that we are still 4 per cent. below the average. The RAWP formula should not be taken away from Leicestershire. Further, it should not be taken away from the whole Trent region,

  585
  which, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) knows only too well, is poorly funded. It is essential to the Trent region and Leicestershire district health authority. I entirely understand why Ministers want to help London hospitals, but they must not do so by messing around with the RAWP.
  We must give more attention—I know that we had a debate on this subject on Tuesday—to the state of our roads, especially our motorways and the need for more bypasses. The M1 and M25 are an absolute scandal. It is disgraceful that deplorable forecasts were made years ago, yet we are still building new roads that will be over capacity before they are even opened.
  When Ministers bring forward the transport policy programme allocations to local authorities later this year, money should be found for essential bypasses. Traffic is fast grinding to a halt in Oakham in my constituency. We must have a bypass, but it appears that it could be 10 years or more before anything is done. As a modern industrial country, we should be ashamed of the state of the M25 and M1 and of the delay and inconvenience that they are causing motorists and lorries taking essential exports abroad.
  Please will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency when we return after the recess, arrange for the annual debate on the reports of the Public Accounts Committee? There is an essential wealth of material to be brought to the attention of the House about gross waste of money by one Department after another, especially the Ministry of Defence. We need to hear how Ministers will respond to the reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Apart from my constituency work, I regard serving on the Public Accounts Committee as the most important and constructive work that I do in the House.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a problem about which I feel as strongly as hon. Members do about the problems in their constituencies—the Government's privatisation proposals for Northern Ireland.
  It has already been said that the Northern Ireland electricity service will be privatised. An announcement has been made about Harland and Wolff, and, to top it all, Short Brothers plc is to be privatised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will address these problems later, but I express my views in the hope that the Government will respond positively to our joint appeals.
  Today, a group of responsible trade unionists from Belfast came to London to express to hon. Members their concerns about the disasters that they perceive of massive job losses and irreparable damage being done to the Northern Ireland economy at a time when we need evidence of continuing good will and support. I sincerely hope that the Government will not try to provoke confrontation and industrial conflict, because it can and should be avoided at all costs.
  Ulster Unionist Members do not dogmatically support nationalisation or privatisation. We recognise the merits of privately managed industry, and, in certain circumstances,
  586
  further privatisation of industry in Northern lreland may gain acceptance and support, but the time and circumstances are not right for wholesale privatisation. It is being done for the worst possible reason—to gain the Prime Minister's approval by implementing her policies regardless of the consequences for Northern Ireland. To some, that would seem the only possible reason for the lemming-like rush to privatisation.
  The Shorts sell-off will be regarded as sounding the death knell for Ulster industry. Following the proposals for Harland and Wolff and the Northern Ireland electricity service, it shatters confidence in our fragile economy and will produce uncertainty across our weak manufacturing base.
  As elected representatives, we cannot condone complacency or inefficiency. Evidence of industrial co-operation between trade unions and management has shown a commitment to higher productivity, greater efficiency and a desire to give value for money. Our recent experience is a catalogue of collapse among major industries. Private sector companies such as ICI, Courtaulds, Klingers, British Enkalon and Careeras in Carrickfergus—which for several years received Queen's awards for exports—have all closed down, despite their efficiency and productivity. Confidence is therefore not inspired by claims that private sector industry will secure long-term employment.
  Jobs at Shorts can be sustained until it is profitable. Jobs in all sectors could be secured if assistance were given through public funding. The current spate of privatisation proposals do nothing to give hope to young graduates, school leavers, the long-term unemployed, those undergoing retraining or those whose jobs are threatened.
  Privatisation could result in more damage to our industrial base than the sustained terrorist campaign of the past 20 years. If there is a withdrawal of support for large industries, terrorists will claim success and say that they have had a further victory in their "Brits Out" campaign.
  Hundreds of companies take sub-contract work from large firms, thus providing employment throughout the Province, in which people from all sectors can share. The whole industrial community, because of the position at Shorts, feel threatened. Managers employed in the public sector foresee an opportunity for greater reward in private industry. Their interest in, and judgment of, privatisation is coloured by the salary increases that have occurred after denationalisation.
  As elected representatives, my colleagues and I continue to support the public funding of industries in Northern Ireland. Since direct rule was imposed, the policies pursued by successive Governments have not produced peace, security or prosperity. We are tempted to ask whether privatisation is the final sabotage. When will the Government listen and respond positively to Northern Ireland's representatives?
  Shorts is recognised internationally, and operates at the frontier of modern technology. We want it to remain a single entity. We accept responsibility for the allocation of necessary funding from the Northern Ireland block grant to sustain existing industries until there are other employment alternatives for our people. The credibility gap between the ordinary people of Northern Ireland and the Government is growing and becoming more difficult to bridge.

  587
  We appeal to the Government to recognise the special difficulties of Northern Ireland, such as high unemployment, which at current job-creation rates, will not be significantly reduced for nearly 20 years. There are more people unemployed than there are employed in our wealth-creating manufacturing sector. We have still to benefit from the boom in British business that is so often referred to. Government support for our large industries is needed to maintain progress, to maintain the confidence of existing investors and to encourage potential overseas investment in Northern Ireland.
  I am tempted to ask whether there is a deliberate policy to secure equal unemployment for everyone in Northern Ireland. The privatisation proposals could achieve just that. We ask for an opportunity to get Northern Ireland manufacturing industry on a sound base before any decision on privatisation is taken. Her Majesty's Government could prove that there is no economic withdrawal by withdrawing the proposals to privatise Shorts.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers to undertake to support the management and trade unions at Shorts with an imaginative investment policy, to modernise facilities and machinery and support development projects that will ensure the continuation of Shorts as a design/engineering aircraft manufacturer. That is a much better option than a sell-off, with all its dangers for future employment. I hope that there will be a positive response before the House adjourns.
  6.11 pm
  Sir Dudley Smith: As I said yesterday in the debate on immigration, in global terms we are a small island with a large population. It is vital that we should consider in detail the structural and physical development of our country so that sensible, enlightened and protective systems are in place at the beginning of the next century.
  With some glaring exceptions, our record on planning and protection has been fairly good, particularly when compared with continental countries. It has been better than large city reconstruction, where architects and builders have effectively ruined so many city centres. The pressures for expansive further development appear to be irresistible—some of them have been mentioned today by Opposition Members—and it is essential that we should adopt a fresh and refined approach.
  For years I have been saying that we must guard against the ultimate concrete jungle running from the Trent all the way to Brighton. However, every generation and every decade brings with it more building and a worrying diminution of the countryside. There are new pressures, for a variety of reasons. The chief reason is the need for less land for agricultural purposes, and there is the question of what use should now be made of it. More and more people want to live in the south-east—in London, the home counties and the southern part of the west midlands.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Dudley Smith: Usually I would willingly give way, but I wish to be brief because many colleagues want to take part in the debate. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will understand.
  588
  My concern has been stimulated by developments in my immediate area. The probable opening of the M40 motorway next autumn has turned mid-Warwickshire into a gold-rush area. Everything is booming. The value of many houses has doubled in a short time. With the coming of the motorway, people, companies and national organisations are discovering that mid-Warwickshire is the heart of England and that it has excellent communications, is pleasant and desirable, with a good infrastructure and atmosphere. The result is escalating house prices, almost on a par with London, and the inevitable pressures for much more building.
  The extraordinary thing is that our population has increased far less than was anticipated 30 years ago and will show only modest increases for the foreseeable future; yet we have a vast concentration of population in the south-east and it is now beginning to spill over into the west midlands. The penalties are over-priced property, traffic snarl-ups of horrendous proportions, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), and a general environment that is far less attractive than it used to be.
  It is opportune that this week the Countryside Commission produced a discussion paper entitled "Planning for change: Development in a green country-side". That should be debated in the House and I hope that we will have an opportunity to do that when we return in the autumn. After reading the excellent report, which is still in its draft discussion stage, and listening to the debate in my area on the intensifying pressures, I am convinced that we need to embark on some essential courses.
  We must maintain the integrity of the green belt and the continued separation of urban and rural areas. There must be a much more determined bid to convert derelict, vacant and available land in towns and cities into housing areas. I know that there are already rules on that, but they do not appear to be effective enough. We need a latter-day Domesday Book survey, a veritable crusade by the Department of the Environment, to achieve an impact. We must retain the integrity of attractive and well-developed communities, such as those in mid-Warwickshire, despite the calls for considerable expansion due to population pressures.
  We need new villages, attractively and imaginatively developed on suitable sites, with housing of an expensive and modest type, which is compatible with a village atmosphere and which does not look as if it had been transported from an urban housing estate. We need to revise our planning laws, particularly the appeals procedures, which at present enable many developers to press and press until finally they overthrow the decisions of elected councillors and the wishes of the local residents.
  Those are vital and substantial matters for the future. They certainly need to be discussed, and I commend a reading of the report to all hon. Members who are interested in the future of our country. It is our responsibility, and we must discharge it properly.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The motion we are discussing says:
  "the House shall not adjourn on Friday 29th July until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses."
  I do not know whether there are any outstanding Acts or whether the poll tax Bill has yet returned for its Royal

  589
  Assent. If it has not, I would gladly see it lost until the next general election rather than put such a constitutional and democratic monstrosity on the statute book.
  We are about to move into recess for almost three months. That harms considerably our constituents' interests. Hon. Members have no parliamentary avenues for the redress of grievances on behalf of constituents. There are no parliamentary questions, written or oral, no petitions can be presented, no early-day motions can be presented for Departments to read, no Adjournment debates and no interventions or contributions in debate. There is one value in Parliament going into recess for three months, and that is that no fresh legislation can be put on the statute book in that time.
  The position for constituents is serious. The only avenues that remain open to hon. Members are to write letters to Ministers, many of which take a considerable time to be answered during the recess, or engaging in publicity. The chances for publicity are greater for some hon. Members than for others. As an honest tradesman and a new Member, I am wedged between my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Their avenues for publicity may be somewhat greater than mine, However, if the House is sitting, I can follow parliamentary avenues.
  I grant that it has been a long slog since Christmas and that the House has examined a vast amount of legislation. Hon. Members are ready for a meaningful break. I suggest that we develop different working patterns, and I am glad that the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) are present to hear my suggestion. I believe that we should operate in three or four-week cycles and then have a week off from parliamentary duties so that we can concentrate on constituency work and catch up on correspondence. We could then limit ourselves to a six-week summer break which would be concentrated more clearly on holiday periods and party conferences. In that way, our constituents would not lose their avenues of redress. Our constituents' interests dictate the introduction of such a working pattern, and it would allow constituency and parliamentary matters to be dealt with fully and properly.
  A delegation from Derbyshire county council has just visited the Department of Trade and Industry. The council wants intermediate status to be given to the Chesterfield travel-to-work area. To make the sort of speech that I should make about the proposal will mean a wait of three months, but perhaps I may mention it briefly today. The criteria for determining the map of assisted areas were set out by the former Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—when the review of regional policy was presented to the House on 28 November 1984. He said:
  "The map has been drawn on the basis of objective criteria, and unemployment, long-term unemployment, job oppor-tunities, industrial structure and peripherality, have all been taken into account."
  Earlier, he said:
  "In redrawing the map we considered the present and future employment patterns of each area, along with other factors, including the risk of distortions where non-assisted areas are adjacent to assisted areas."—[Official Report, 28 November 1984; Vol. 68, c.936–42.]
  590
  If I had time, I would establish why those criteria mean that the Chesterfield travel-to-work area, which covers Chesterfield constituency, sections of Bolsover con-stituency and the great bulk of my constituency, should be considered for intermediate status. The area has suffered tremendously from cuts in the coal industry and its future is unsure. It requires Government assistance, and certainly intermediate status.
  An area that retains an element of coal mining and coal dependency will have tremendous problems when electricity is privatised, with all that that entails for the competitiveness of coal. The ports Bills that are proceeding through the House—my district council has laid objections to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—will allow cheap coal from overseas to flood into Britain, and we know that South African and Colombian coal is produced in circumstances of great exploitation. A map given to me by the Opencast Executive of British Coal shows its interests in the constituency. Opencast developments would turn the area into a dustbowl. They will produce some jobs, but they will not be permanent and they will not replace the jobs lost in the deep mines.
  Another problem in the area is the non-development of the east midlands railway line. The east coast line is being electrified, and the danger facing Derbyshire is that places such as Sheffield will be linked to the east coast line, so that passenger and goods development will be maintained in the north while the east midlands will be unable to compete. It could lead to a decline in goods services in the east midlands. In that context, there is a clear case for granting intermediate status, as one method of Government assistance, to the Chesterfield travel-to-work area.
  Much more could be said about that, and I hope to do so in the House in the future. If we had more sensible working practices, that opportunity would come sooner rather than later.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I hope that the House will not rise for the recess until the Government have made a statement on the reasons why they decided not to support further the HOTOL project. It would have been even better if the Government had allowed parliamentary time to debate an issue of such magnitude. It was an abuse of the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in a written answer that the Government would withhold further funding for the project.
  There is no project of comparable significance for the future of space development in Britain, and experts much wiser than I have commented that the project offered immense hope for the future. Conventional launchers, such as Ariane, the Atlas Centaur and the shuttle, will prove far too costly in the future, and when horizontally launched reusable space vehicles become available, projects such as HOTOL will become the norm because they will be infinitely cheaper than conventional systems for putting payloads into space.
  In November last year the Government were in a minority of one in dissociating themselves from the European Space Agency's long-term space programme. The Government decided not to support the optional

  591
  programme, Ariane 5—a man-rated heavy launch vehicle —secondly, not to support Hermes—a re-usable minishuttle—and, thirdly, probably not to support Columbus —a manned module—although they withheld their decision on this. I am glad to learn that the United Kingdom will participate in a platform associated with Columbus, which is of the greatest importance because it is Europe's contribution to the international space station project that is being led by the United States.
  Space stations are the building blocks for future space activities. The Soviets know it well and have concentrated on ambitious programmes. For example, they are developing a very heavy launcher—Energiya—which will form the basis of a shuttle system. They have a somewhat less powerful launcher, the HL16, which will carry a space plane rather like Hermes. They have had Salyut and Mir space stations in orbit for protracted periods. They intend to send probes to Phobos, and eventually they will send their space vehicles to Mars and beyond.
  In short, what is at stake is of the greatest strategic, as well as commercial and technical, importance, yet my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster thought it appropriate to fob off Parliament with a curt written answer.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have found me repetitious and boring in the past, because for week after week and month after month before the ESA ministerial Council meeting last November I suggested that the Government should find time to debate space policy. It seems to have been impossible for them to do so, so it is not surprising that they were at odds with expert opinion. In that sense, in this country we are somewhat poorly provided in Parliament. In the United States, in Congress there are Senators Glenn of Ohio and Jake Garn of Utah and a former senator of New Mexico, all of whom have been astronauts. Congressman Nelson, the chairman of the present House of Representatives space committee is also an astronaut. In the United States, space is a normal activity. It is a totally everyday activity whose commercial potential and strategic significance are understood.
  In this country, we believe that space is weird and wonderful, out and beyond and fantastically expensive. Are we to suggest that our people in future will not be able to play a part in space activities commensurate with their technical competence and their undoubted innovative genius? The Government have been woefully shortsighted.
  My emotions have alternated between fury and sorrow. To be candid, sorrow has predominated. I do not particularly blame my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He does not have experience of international collaboration. My right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster similarly lacks such experience. Collaboration is the name of the game. Space is a totally international business. We have had a meaningful, worthwhile space programme in Europe because we have collaborated and worked together with partner nations.
  By opting out of the European space plan in November, the Government have put themselves at a disadvantage. If we hope to attract partners for HOTOL, it would have helped if we had supported other programmes in the European Space Agency's overall strategic programme. International collaboration is a game of quid pro quo. We enter some programmes which do not appear to have
  592
  short-term national interest to us and support programmes which may be of benefit to other partners. Overall, however, the benefit to all partners is indubitable and must be recognised.
  I know that the Government judge these matters by short-term commercial criteria. We opted out of the launcher business deliberately when we allowed the Blue Streak launcher, which became Europa I, to be cancelled. Fortunately, the French pursued the Ariane series of rockets. Arianespace, the commercial launch company, is now making extremely good profits. It has a large order book and with the temporary failure of the shuttle programme it offers great potential for the future. Had the French not shown their strategic vision, Europe would be out of the space business in any significant sense.
  The Government said that the European Space Agency was an expensive club. They said so out of sheer prejudice and blind ignorance. With its Ariane series of launchers, the Spacelab, the meteosat series of remote-sensing satellites and with ERS1 in the future and other new programmes, not to mention scientific programmes like Giotto and others, ESA has shown that Europe, for a relatively small investment, can offer a capability fully comparable with the United States of America and the Soviet Union, although on a smaller scale.
  I do not want to see this country relegated to the third eleven. It is not worthy of the United Kingdom. In the technical area within Europe, we should be playing a leading role. We have the capacity to do so. When Ministers and others say that we cannot afford it, I ask, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd): if we can somehow find £50,000 million per annum for social security, why cannot Ministers find £4 million in the next four years to continue the project definition of HOTOL? Ministers' statements are not true. They do not make sense and the Government are shortsighted. I am very sad and particularly regret that the Government did not act in the proper parliamentary way and allow us a debate or at least make a statement to the House so that we could question Ministers on what appears to be a quite extraordinary decision.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: We should have at least two debates before we adjourn. The first should be on the Committee stage of the European Communities Finance Bill whereby the House is asked to vote £800 million extra to the European Community. We understand that that may be paid before Royal Assent. Although that may be just legal, it is dodgy.
  The second debate that we should have is even more important, not in procedural terms, but in current terms. We should debate the appointment of commissioners to the European Economic Community. There have been acres of space and comment in the press and commentary in the news media on that subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised questions germane to that matter relating to the Westland affair. The new appointments risk weakening our interests in Europe.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Spearing: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, time is of the essence and I want to make as brief a speech as possible.

  593
  One of those to be appointed as a commissioner has a questionable track record and we do not know the other. The latter will be a novice and less experienced than the former Member of this House, Mr. Clinton Davis. Lord Cockfield did his job too well. He spilt the beans and said what it was all about. It is wrong, therefore, for the Prime Minister to attach M. Delors. Anyone who knows anything about European legislation and the speed with which it is now coming out of Brussels will be aware that 80 per cent. of the legislation will come from Brussels in a few years time is a very reasonable estimate from M. Delors and reflects the degree to which the House will lose power.
  We should not expect any of our commissioners to do anything about that. They take a treaty oath and one of the major objectives of the treaty of Rome is European union. Two rookie novice commissioners can at best only affect the speed and possible terms of the movement; they cannot question the principles.
  Recently the Prime Minister covered up the embarrassment of the appointment with her reshuffle and by banging the nationalist drum. I agree with the objectives of that in terms of her approach to the EEC, but she does that on entirely the wrong basis. She does it from a basis of certain ignorance. That ignorance was also shown by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about 14 years ago. He said that the powers of the Queen would not be affected. He did not realise that this legislation reaches the citizens of this country direct without requiring Royal Assent or Her Majesty's signature.
  I want to raise the question of ignorance by referring to what the Prime Minister said in an article in the Sunday Express last Sunday. She was talking about power and Parliaments and said:
  "When Europeans start talking about European union and this, that, and the other, I always say: 'What do you really mean? I can't see any of you going home and saying to your Parliaments: 'Look, I've taken away all your rights to do anything about what happens in this country; it's all going to Europe.'
  They are not going to do it, however much they talk. I wouldn't be prepared to do it anyway."
  The Prime Minister has done that. However, I must be careful. She used that little word "all". That is the way the Prime Minister goes about her work. She will include a little word which qualifies quite a lot.
  We have given that power away. The Prime Minister has done that perhaps unwillingly. We have the Single European Act, which neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary signed. In fact, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office was sent off to sign it before she was a Privy Councillor.
  That Act is still not properly printed in this country in terms of the new treaty of Rome. That says:
  "Resolved to implement this European Union."
  Note the capital E and the capital U. That is not economic and monetary union, because the last line of the preamble to the single European Treaty says:
  "approved the objective of the progressive realization of Economic and Monetary Union."
  There are two different things. The European Union is in the treaty of Rome to which the Government have given their assent.
  Article 8A of the Single European Act provides:
  594
  "The Community shall adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31 December 1992".
  It says "expiring" and not "starting".
  Article 100A, which is important, says:
  "The following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 8A. The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission in co-operation with the European Parliament".
  In other words, anything to do with the realisation of that market in 1992 can be achieved by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers, even against the will of the Government and possibly against the will of the House.
  Yet the Prime Minister says that she has not given power away. She implies that she has by the use of that misleading word "all". When talking on the Jimmy Young show she gave the impression that in future she will be able to hold the line, but that is not true because the Single European Act was put through the House in the summer of 1986. However, the small print was not understood by Conservative Members.
  The Prime Minister wants the fruits of European union, or at least economic and monetary union, but the means by which it will be achieved are, of course, ill based. It is not a co-operative organisation, such as GATT or the European Free Trade Association or any of those things that hon. Members think it may be. The EEC is coercive and autocratic. The power is in Brussels. It is arbitrary political power, and we are told that it can be controlled in one of two ways: by the House taking power to control what our Ministers do there—and if the Prime Minister is concerned about parliamentary power, that is something to which she would agree and which she would implement —or by all the power going to Strasbourg and there being some sort of European Parliament, which would be a united states of Europe without the states, because there is no power for national assemblies in the treaty of Rome. The Prime Minister cannot bluster and fluster, because it is in the treaty and she has done what she told Jimmy Young she would never do.
  I turn briefly to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), because they are important and they have not been properly answered. We must remember that terrible weekend when there was the official leak of the letter of the Solicitor-General, which was clearly solicited with a view to it being leaked before 4 pm on Monday 13 December 1986. It was only by getting it out at that time that the views of the then Secretary of State for Defence could be put into question with the imprimatur of the Solicitor-General. That letter contained many qualifications that were not part of the leak, so it was clear what was intended. It is a matter of evidence that the Prime Minister not only knew of it, but she condoned it; indeed, some people believe that she may have suggested it.
  In paragraph 183 of its fourth report 1985–86, HC 519, the Select Committee on Defence said:
  "In replying to a supplementary question after her statement in the House on 23 January the Prime Minister said of the extract from the Solicitor-General's letter: 'It was to get that accurate information to the public domain that I gave my consent'. In her statement the Prime Minister had said that her office did not seek her agreement, and later in answer to supplementary questions she said 'I have said that I was not consulted at the time' and 'I say again that I was not consulted'. In confirmation of this Sir Robert Armstrong told us that he asked both Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell whether they sought clearance from the Prime Minister and they told him they did not. Sir Robert understood from the Prime Minister that her words in column 455 of 23 January, quoted

  595
  above, were a slip of the tongue. When questioned on the point on 27 January the Prime Minister explained that she had given her consent to an inquiry but did not give her consent to the disclosure."
  It continues in bold print:
  "The evidence is that the action of the Prime Minister's office on 6 January in relation to the disclosure was without her direct authority. She has stated that she had no knowledge on 6 January of what was taking place. We accept this."
  The Prime Minister may not have had any knowledge on 6 January. She said that she was not consulted at the time, but she may have been consulted before.
  On 23 January 1986, the Prime Minister said:
  "In so far as what my office said to the Department of Trade and Industry was based on the belief that I should have taken that view, had I been consulted, it was right."
  In other words, she said that they had acted in line with what she would have done had she been consulted. However, they would not have done that without knowledge of what was in her mind.
  On the same occasion, the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked the right hon. Lady a friendly question and she hit out from the boundary. She walked down the crease. She said, "We must get this into the public domain." She further said:
  "It was to get that accurate information to the public domain that I gave my consent."—[Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 450 and 455.]
  That was quoted by the Select Committee.
  How did she get out of it? That could not have been the consent to the inquiry, because the question of the right hon. Member for Woking was not about that. The Select Committee took up that matter and asked questions of that economist of the truth, Sir Robert Armstrong. It was followed up in questions 1251 and 1252.
  "1252. You have not taken any opportunity to clear that up yourself in the post facto of your inquiry? (Sir Robert Armstrong.) I gather from the Prime Minister it was a slip of the tongue."
  A slip of the tongue, which we all sometimes make, is when we say something that is not true. I suggest that this was not one of those at all. It was something that was only too true and something that the Prime Minister wished she had not said, which was consistent with the slip of the tongue phrase.
  It also explains that enigmatic point that she made in a television interview. The interviewer asked:
  "But why on that date, though, January the 27th, were you so down that you said, 'I may not be Prime Minister by six o'clock tonight' after the Westland debate?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "You suddenly come out with these things."
  I suggest that she said it for the reasons stated in the Select Committee report and Hansard, which I have quoted. The Prime Minister was being quite honest—"Yes, I did give my consent." Of course, it could have been given some time before that weekend.
  The Select Committee then made some remarks about the behaviour of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). It said at paragraph 177:
  "Although those involved must carry blame for what occurred, what seems especially reprehensible is a manner of doing business where the direct and honourable course does not present itself to the exclusion of all else."
  It continues at paragraph 179:
  "This was an outrageous way in which to treat a Law Officer of the Crown".
  They solicited an opinion, which was immediate and conditional, and then used it for purposes of civil war inside the Government.
  596
  Having studied the texts that I have quoted, I suggest that the culpability for that unfortunate incident in which the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks —now the commissioner-elect—was involved is to be shared in equal measure by the Prime Minister. If by any chance she did not know that it was going on, what sort of Government are they and what sort of Prime Minister is she? What sort of political integrity is it that allows a Government to be run on that basis? She cannot have it both ways. She either knew or, if she did not, she was running a Government which had run amok through civil war.
  We should have a debate on this matter before we adjourn. I shall briefly put to the House the questions which the Prime Minister should answer, and they are the questions which should be debated.
  First, is it not a fact that the Government resisted the drafting and method of introduction of the Single European Act but nevertheless introduced it to the House against the initial desires of the Government?
  Secondly, does not majority voting deny the Government and Parliament power over large areas of legislation, and is that not contrary to the spirit of what the Prime Minister declared on the Jimmy Young show she would never do?
  Thirdly, was not the Prime Minister's slip of the tongue on 23 January 1986 in fact a correct statement and the "slip" arose only because she said something true which she would have preferred not to have said?
  Fourthly, as all the evidence and what the Prime Minister said about her wishes shows that she approved the principle of disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter, should she not share the strictures of the Defence Select Committee? Should she not appoint the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks to the Commission of the EEC? Should she not share to some extent the fate that befell that right hon. and learned Member, and should she not consider whether she should remain as Prime Minister?
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. There is very little time left and several hon. Members still wish to speak.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has chosen to speak at some length, thus taking up precious time available before the House rises for the summer recess, on a subject which has already been debated many times.
  There are many reasons why we should not adjourn tomorrow and there are many subjects which we ought to discuss, but there is one which I venture to suggest we must debate before the House rises as it involves a matter which will have to be adjudicated on by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury before we resume in the autumn. I refer to the entitlement of colonial service pensioners to war service being counted towards their pension entitlement.
  Do you realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all public servants in Britain are entitled to count war scrvice—either the whole of it or half of it, depending on whether their pension is contributory or non-contributory—towards

  597
  their pension, but that that is not true for those whose service was overseas? This is a curious anomaly which affects a branch of the public service which has rendered signal, loyal and devoted service to the country in tropical climes, often in adverse, primitive and distressing circumstances.
  About 4,500 people are involved, and they are retired and mostly in their seventies. The number is therefore diminishing yearly. Why are they not entitled to count their war service towards their pensions? The answer is that, although they are all British citizens who, apart from their service abroad, have always been resident in Britain, they were employed and paid by the colonial Governments they served. That is despite the fact that the Secretary of State recruited and trained them and sent them out to our colonial empire to do service for the Crown.
  Because these people were not employed by the British Government, they were told that they could not count their pre-appointment war service towards their pension entitlement. Teachers, local government officers, policemen and other civil servants are entitled to count such service. Colonial service officers are the only exception.
  This is a great injustice, and it ought to be remedied. Not many people are involved, and not much money is involved. I must say that I would be a beneficiary if any such claim were granted, but it is such a stark injustice that I feel obliged to draw attention to it. I understand that, in the next few days, presumably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will again consider what claims to make by way of its estimates for the coming year.
  If the Treasury does not agree to a Department's claim, after negotiation, the matter is referred to a thing called the Court of Star Chamber. At one time, I understood from reading the newspapers—I know that I should not have done it—that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be chairman of the Court of Star Chamber. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has been appointed to that function. That is a pity, because I have been asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about this matter for weeks in the hope that he would remember it when he came to help adjudicate on this small claim on public expenditure.
  I have just discovered that if the Department concerned does not include a claim in its preliminary Estimates, the claim gets nowhere. How, therefore, am I to ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office puts this entirely just, overdue and well-merited claim to the Treasury in the first place? There is provision for superannuation payments to overseas service officers, but how do I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will include this extra item so that it might be considered by the Treasury? I am sure that the Treasury would agree to the claim if it considered the merits of the case, but if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not put it forward, the claim can get nowhere.
  I am therefore forced to raise the matter now. There is overwhelming support in the House for the claim to be met. Early in this Session I tabled an early-day motion commending the claim to the Government. No fewer than 260 hon. Members signed it in its original form. Another 88 signed an amendment suggesting that the claim should
  598
  be met immediately. That means that some 348 hon. Members support the claim. That is an absolute majority in the House.
  What more does one have to say to persuade the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to put the claim before the Treasury, for the Treasury, having considered it on its merits, is bound to grant it? We are talking about a budget of thousands of millions of pounds. There must be an order of priorities. No doubt there are other considerations which must be taken into account, but an exception or anomaly which is an injustice, and which involves a debt of honour which should be paid, should be put at the top of that list of priorities.
  The claim should be met before other and more substantial new claims are met. I hope that, as a result of my raising the matter today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will include the claim in its draft estimates which are to be put to the Treasury in the next few weeks, and that the Treasury will see the merit of the case. If it does, it will at last have brought some justice justice to a small and dwindling group of people who have devoted their entire lives to the service of this country abroad. They deserve to have this injustice remedied. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, in so far as he has influence in the matter, support it.
  6.59 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The House should not rise for the recess until we have thoroughly discussed the Government's claims that savings released through competitive tendering for hospital services have in any way contributed to improved patient care. I challenge that claim with the full backing of the victims of this policy, who include patients, workers and users of the Health Service. When the savings—£106 million at the last DHSS estimate—are claimed, they do not account for the full costs of abandoning workers to the dole queue and of further reducing low-paid workers' wages. They certainly do not take account of the reduced services to patients and the increased stress on other workers left to pick up the burden of extra work.
  I worked for many years in the National Health Service and later as a member of my local health authority. I voted and campaigned against the privatisation of the local laundry and domestic services. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that, because of the way in which the Government have packed district health authorities with their supporters, I lost the vote. In my authority, 250 workers, most of whom were women, lost their jobs when Mediclean gained the contract. By any standards that has been a failure. Initially, the contractors thought that only half the hours needed to clean our hospitals was necessary. Those who stayed to work for Mediclean lost their bonus, holiday pay, sickness benefit and holiday entitlements, and were expected to work twice as hard as previously. After 12 months there had been a 100 per cent. staff turnover and a report from the local infection control committee which warned that unhygienic conditions were prevailing. That pattern has been repeated across the country. Since then, complaint after complaint has been ignored and if people visit my local hospitals they will see that they are dirtier than previously.
  Many low-paid workers lost their jobs and many remain unemployed, but unemployment statistics do not show that. It is well known that part-time women workers

  599
  often do not have any entitlement to benefit in their own right. Mediclean has failed on six of the 37 contracts that it is known to have held since 1983, which is a failure rate of 15 per cent. But in my book it has failed the NHS, because the in-house staff offered a much better service.
  When staff are sacked to make way for private operators, redundancy costs are not systematically accounted for in the savings figures, but the financial and human costs are undoubtedly high. Health authorities are expected to recoup redundancy costs against savings over the period of the contract, but if a contractor is sacked or pulls out, as often happens, the authority must carry the whole cost itself and that is not accounted for.
  I challenge head on the claim that savings have been made for taxpayers. Ninety-two thousand ancillary workers have lost their jobs, which is 30 per cent. of all ancillary staff in the NHS, since contracting out began. When people are thrown on to the dole or forced to claim other benefits, it is at a great cost to taxpayers. Moreover, it is immoral to throw people out of work just to save money. Many of those jobs provided secure and regular work for thousands of people and even if we thought that they were low paid—for many years I was a shop steward working on their behalf—they at least had a secure income. We have lost national insurance contributions and taxes to the public purse because of this policy. If I had more time, I would detail exactly how much we have lost.
  Even the National Audit Office, which does not normally side with low-paid workers, has admitted that savings from privatisation have arisen from less favourable conditions for workers. These people take home only £70 a week. We are witnessing an increased casualised work force replacing a stable established one. As wages and conditions deteriorate, so do standards in the Health Service.
  I dispute for other reasons the Government's claims about savings from competitive tendering. The exercise has never been properly examined. Staff time, preparing timetables, specifications, evaluating bids and monitoring contracts involve enormous costs which are not easily measured. The Government have not taken them into account. They have never tried to quantify that aspect of this costly experiment, in which public money, standards and livelihoods are at stake. nor have many district health authorities, although individual managers have recently said that 80 per cent. of their time is spent on competitive tendering.
  I cannot conclude without talking about my experience of the laundry services in Halifax. The new Secretary of State for Health was the Minister for Health when we were forced to privatise our laundry services. Although we twice won the in-house tender—the second time by a margin of £250,000—after the 1983 election we were instructed to go out to tender and we are now putting out our laundry services. I shall invite the Secretary of State to come and see the disaster that he has created for us in Calderdale. We have no new linen for new babies, surgeons are complaining that there is no linen in the theatre and elderly patients are having to sit without underwear. That is disgraceful.
  Privatisation in the Health Service has meant selling NHS workers' jobs to the lowest bidder. The only real savings come from job losses, cuts in wages and service standards, and poorer working conditions. One central point which is all too often passed over in debates about Health Service funding needs to be reinforced. It is that as
  600
  the largest employer in western Europe there is nothing outdated or imprudent about the NHS recognising its responsibilities to its work force. A civilised society has a duty to care not only for its sick and elderly, but for its carers. A system which sacrifices people to the demands and dictates of a market which has nothing to do with quality or caring and everything to do with shortchanging the workforce and patients on jobs and services is not only inhuman but inefficient, as the limited experience of introducing competition into the Health Service has shown. It is vital that we have a statement from the Government before the House goes into recess.
  7.6 pm
  Sir Charles Morrison: I welcome the arrival of the recess, because it gives Ministers time to relax and ponder objectively what they have done, what they have not done, what they intend to do and what they should do. If they do all that, they should have a full and mentally exciting recess.
  Foremost in the matters that Ministers should consider, particularly in the Treasury, the Department of Education and Science and the various Departments directly concerned, is the state of British scientific research and the research councils. It is extremely worrying that I should have read in an article in The Independent recently:
  "Britain is shutting down its science".
  It is worrying to learn that already proposed cuts amount to almost £20 million for arable, horticultural and poultry research. It is worrying to learn that the Institute for Marine Biochemistry at Aberdeen faces outright closure and that the Institute for Oceanographic Sciences and Terrestrial Ecology may lose a quarter of its scientific staff. Those examples cover only a small area of science. There are many other research councils and establishments which are also facing considerable cuts.
  The achievements of British scientists are remarkable, but if investment in research is cut, their ability and chances of maintaining that record of achievement in future will be enormously reduced. I understand that total expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product has remained at its 1964 level in Britain, while in other countries, such as France, Germany, Japan and the United States, there has been a steady increase to the extent that the United Kingdom has now been overtaken.
  Naturally, industry has a part to play, but industry-sponsored research is likely to be mostly market-orientated. In a science-based world, the Government have a growing responsibility to finance fundamental research. That may be relatively remote from the market and may not always produce results, but the benefits of fundamental research today will provide the basis for market-orientated research tomorrow and a new product for consumers the day after.
  In his Dimbleby lecture this year, the president of the Royal Society, Sir George Porter, said:
  "There are no obvious limits to the advancement of knowledge or to the practical application of this knowledge to improving our health. wealth and happiness. In health, medical research has still much to do to reduce the suffering still with us. In wealth, rich as most of us are in material things compared with our ancestors, we have seen only the beginning of what will be available to us."
  It is my sincere hope that a high proportion of what will be available will have been British-researched, British-developed and British-made. If it is so produced,

  601
  we shall be able to take pride in it. It will be good for exports, it will save imports and it will be good for the balance of payments. My brief plea to the Government tonight is that they should make available more money for research. The Government now claim that Britain is a rich country and becoming even richer. Our investment in science is a measure by which to judge that claim.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: A number of interesting and important matters have been raised in the debate. I shall confine my remarks to three of them and, briefly, to the matter to which the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) referred—the Government's lack of investment in research.
  Britain used to be renowned for inventing things that British industry was then extremely poor at developing. It appears that the Government have applied some Right-wing think tank to the task of eliminating that embarrassment and that its answer is not to do more to develop inventions but to cut research and thereby to stop the inventions occurring in the first place. That does not seem to be the most sensible way of developing a modern economy.
  My second topic, housing, was referred to by Conservative and Opposition Members. The housing situation in this country is quite deplorable. We should remember one or two basic facts. In 1979, the year the Government came to power, 240,000 new homes were completed. Last year, only 202,000 new homes were completed. In the public sector—that is, council housing and housing association housing—104,000 homes were completed in 1979, compared to just 30,000 last year. It comes as no surprise to anybody with sense that one of the results of that has been a massive increase in homelessness. The figure was a little more than 50,000; it is now 112,000.
  It is a sobering thought for all of us tonight that within a mile or two of the House more than 7,000 parents are trying to settle their children down for the night in bed-and-breakfast hotels, where all the members of a family are expected to live, wash, cook and eat in one room. It is a disgrace and a shame on all of us that that is happening. It is a shame on the Government, who produced a White Paper about the future of homelessness that did not even mention the word "homeless" or "homelessness".
  All over the country tens of thousands of people are living in ever more crowded conditions because they cannot move out of their parental homes. Many newly married couples have to live with their parents and couples with children have to bring them up in their parents' homes. That is not a sound way to begin married life or to try to bring up children.
  All over the country—I emphasise that—people who are not well-off are finding it more and more difficult to find somewhere to live at a price that they can afford. That is not a characteristic that is confined to the inner cities. Some of the greatest difficulties are to be found in rural areas, where massive house price increases combined with the sale of council housing are causing many villages— particularly attractive villages—to become no-go areas for
  602
  farm workers, for people who deliver the milk, for people who deliver the post, for the local bobby and for the local primary school teacher.
  All over rural Britain, large numbers of people who are absolutely vital to the continuing organisation of the local community are finding it impossible to get anywhere to live because places to rent have disappeared and places for sale are priced far beyond their reach. Nowhere is that more true than in East Anglia, where there have been staggering increases in house prices. Under this Government, house prices have doubled in the country as a whole, and in East Anglia, London and the south-east they have more than trebled. While that remains the case, large numbers of the less well-off will find it more and more difficult to find somewhere to live.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) that our people have a right to the benefits of science and space, but they have rights more basic than that. They have a right to a decent home, and we should meet that basic need before we even start talking about science and space.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the appointment and dismissal of British members of the European Commission. The Prime Minister, who originally chose Lord Cockfield, has decided to dump him. In view of his opinions, I cannot say that I blame her, although it causes me to have doubts about her judgment in appointing him in the first place.
  However, I unreservedly deplore the right hon. Lady's decision to dump Stanley Clinton Davis, the Labour nominee, who has served the country and the Community well since he was appointed three and a half years ago. He was fit to be appointed originally, and he is fit to continue in office. He has been caught between the upper millstone of the Prime Minister's spite against anyone who is not a member of the Tory party and the nether millstone of her desire to appoint her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) as the senior British commissioner.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if my amendment had been selected, we could have had a statement from the Prime Minister explaining the criteria on which she has based her decision to hand this soft job, involving loyalty to the Common Market and not to this place, to her crony the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) at a salary of £90,000 a year and probably double that in expenses?
  Mr. Dobson: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. Anything that would get the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to explain what went on and why she made the appointments would be a step forward. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks as "an excellent nomination". After paeans of praise that beggared belief, she challenged the Labour party
  "to put up names that are as distinguished."—[Official Report, 26 July 1988; Vol.138, c. 251.]
  The word "distinguished" has several meanings. It can be used to describe something of conspicuous excellence but it can also be used to describe something that is differentiated from others by character. I can only believe that the Prime Minister was referring to the latter meaning.
  In the light of the character and record of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, no one could

  603
  justify his appointment. He resigned from the Cabinet in disgrace during the Westland scandal. The actions for which he was responsible were described as "outrageous" and "reprehensible" by the Select Committee on Defence, on which the Conservative majority believed its duty to Parliament and the people to be above its duty to its party.
  The Select Committee's report said:
  "The disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter without his permission was an improper act."
  That was a charge of impropriety. The report said:
  "Mr. Brittan, a Queen's Counsel, would have been aware of the … confidentiality of Law Officers' advice".
  That was a charge of unprofessional conduct.
  The Select Committee said:
  "Only by releasing the information unattributably could the disclosure be limited to those parts of the letter that damaged Mr. Heseltine."
  That was a charge, it would appear, of deception.
  When asked by the Select Committee about all those things, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks refused to answer. The Committee was referring to the partial disclosure of information of the same degree of security confidentiality as that released by Mr. Clive Ponting. For that, Mr. Ponting fetched up at the Old Bailey. It now appears that for the same action the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks has fetched up in Brussels on £95,000 per year. There seems some difference in the treatment given to those people.
  Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend remember that Mr. Ponting sent his piece of paper to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who then passed it on to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—it did not go outside those circles—whereas the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) was responsible for authorising his press secretary to ring the Press Association?
  Mr. Dobson: As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) behaved as we all should, honourably.
  If the Prime Minister challenges the Labour party to produce someone with that sort of record as the Labour nominee, I am afraid that we will be unable to meet her challenge. We do not have anyone with such a scandalous record in public office. We do not have anyone on our side who has been so comprehensively described, one might almost say blackguarded, by a Select Committee.
  However, the members of the Select Committee were decent and careful people, and stated in the last paragraph of their report:
  "As far as individuals are concerned, we have made our best judgments on the evidence before us. If anyone feels himself or herself to have been traduced by our findings, we are prepared at any stage to take oral or written evidence, in public or in private, from anyone involved in the events we have examined. If that evidence leads us to modify our conclusions, we will of course make a further report to the House."
  I understand from the Clerk to the Select Committee on Defence that no person asked to be heard further or asked that further evidence should be considered either in public or in private. Presumably the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks accepts as reasonable the charges levelled against him by the Select Committee.
  There are those who say that it was not the fault of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks and that in a sense he was behaving decently because he was, in the American phrase, "taking the rap". But who was he
  604
  taking the rap for? If one reads the Select Committee's report, the answer appears to be, for the person in charge of the Prime Minister's office. I know that some of my hon. Friends have suggested that that is Mr. Bernard Ingham, but I do not think that he is that important. I think that the Prime Minister is in charge of the Prime Minister's office.
  The fact is that the Prime Minister was responsible for all the wrongdoing listed in that report and that she remains personally responsible. That is why many people is this country, a large number of Opposition Members in public and a substantial number of Conservative Members in private will say that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks is getting his money and has got his appointment because he agreed to pay, and has paid, the price of covering up the Prime Minister's involvement in all those disgraceful events.
  In those circumstances, what can we say? One thing that we can say is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is either the fall guy or that he is wicked because what is outlined in the report is wickedness in public life by any standards. We do not think that somebody who can reasonably be described a wicked and who has not disputed that should be appointed; nor do we think that somebody who has been a fall guy for the Prime Minister should be appointed.
  Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that before he made that personal attack on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) who is a Back Bencher, and called him "wicked", he gave him notice that he was going to do so?
  Mr. Dobson: I put a note on the board this morning.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Just before this speech.
  Mr. Dobson: No, I did not do that just before my speech. I put a note on the board this morning in Norman Shaw north.
  Mr. Deputy Speakcr: I have been reflecting carefully on the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If he is saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is wicked, that is an expression which Mr. Speaker would not accept. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw it and think carefully of an alternative form of words.
  Mr. Dobson: If "wicked" is out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, behaviour which is "outrageous" and "re-prehensible"—that is a quotation from the Select Committee on Defence—must be in order, because I am entitled to quote from the Select Committee on Defence. I will stick by that. Either the behaviour was "outrageous" and "reprehensible" and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks should not be appointed, or he was covering up for the Prime Minister and she should not stay in office.
  If we are to have a reputable Parliament, we must have people who report and explain themselves to this Parliament. Perhaps the best development that could come out of this whole affair would be for us to adopt the procedures and attitudes of the American Congress and ensure that any further nominees for important public office would have to appear before Select Committees of this House at which both the Government and they themselves would have to justify their appointment.
  7.25 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Having added up, I find that I am the 18th speaker in this relatively short debate. We have had many speeches and nobody seems to be very much against the idea of a holiday, although one or two do. I think that we have earned a holiday and I wish everybody in the House a good holiday when we rise.
  I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised, but I must deal with each one briefly and I must go at a pretty fast pace if I am to do so.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who courteously sent me a note because he thought that he might not be back—I am delighted to see him in his place—is a great and internationally recognised expert on disabled people. I think that he would be the first to admit that the Government's record of increasing assistance to disabled people by over 80 per cent. in real terms is a pretty good record by any standards.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the disability study carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I have checked, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that study was sent to the printers as soon as it was ready. It will be published in early September. There has been no unnecessary delay on it.
  We are making good progress in the staged implementation of the Disabled Services, Consultation and Representation Act 1986, and have already implemented sections 4, 5, 6, 8(1), 9 and 10 and are currently addressing section 7.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) all raised in their different ways the Government's commitment to research. I shall make some general remarks about that, but will deal first with the fast breeder reactor and the HOTOL project. I recognise the considerable knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant in these matters. It is greater than mine. In the relatively short time when I was junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry and took part in some of the decisions on our research projects, I found them some of the most difficult decisions because in the end they are always decisions about priorities and about choosing between one thing and another. From my experience, it is sometimes very difficult to make that choice.
  The Governmnt's decision to cut the funding for the fast breeder reactor programme was based on the fact that the commercial requirement for fast reactors in the United Kingdom is likely to be some decades way. The Government's aim was to obtain a position in that technology for this country, but at an economic cost.
  The Government have concluded that any further development of HOTOL must take place on the basis of international collaboration. We will support efforts by United Kingdom companies to find suitable collaborators, but will not provide further financial support in the foreseeable future. A memorandum has been sent to their Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology in response to its report on United Kingdom space policy. Copies of that memorandum have been placed in the Library today.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: I cannot possibly give way to anyone, as I have only just enough time to finish.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) rightly raised the subject of prisons, especially Glenochil. It is regrettable that a small number of inmates continue to behave in a disruptive manner in a modern establishment with good facilities. The governor is moving fast towards normalising the regime for the large majority of inmates, but control must remain firmly in the hands of the governor and staff. There are 600 new prison places in Scotland and more staff have been and continue to be recruited. The White Paper, "Custody and Care", published in March, highlights the importance of security and control as well as the positive opportunities for inmates, and points the way forward to improvements in the running of Scottish penal establishments for the benefit of both staff and inmates. Nevertheless, I recognise that this is a matter of great concern.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to abuses of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Rhyl. The Government are especially worried about the excessive and increasing cost of the use of such accommodation. We recognise the problems of seaside resorts where accommodation is used by non-local people, and we shall consider that aspect as part of the review of legislation on homelessness.
  The hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) both referred to gazumping, an important problem which causes great concern but which it less easy of solution than the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth suggested. All the expert bodies that have examined the matter—the Law Commission in 1975, the Conveyancing Committee in 1985 and the Conveyancing Standing Committee in recent reports—have agreed that legislation is not the answer. The answer lies in changes in practices and attitudes.
  The Conveyancing Standing Committee has suggested ways in which practices could be changed so as to lessen or eliminate the risk of gazumping. The Government hope that buyers and sellers of houses and those advising them will give careful consideration to the suggestion made by the standing committee. That is why we believe that a voluntary approach is best, certainly in present circumstances. As the Member for Norwich, South pointed out, the practice in Scotland could be adopted on a voluntary basis in England and Wales and would make the problem less difficult than it otherwise might be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) raised a number of issues. The Government's proposals for legislation in relation to artificial reproduction and the use of human embryos are set out in the White Paper published last November, which was fully debated in both Houses earlier this year. We have made clear our intention to legislate in this Parliament, although my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, so I cannot say any more than that.
  I said something about the Barlow Clowes affair during business questions. We are determined that the matter should be examined fully and as quickly as is consistent with thoroughness. The Government are fully aware of the distress and hardship caused, and have great sympathy with those who have suffered. While so many issues are

  607
  unresolved, however, I must emphasise that the Government do not take it for granted that they will have to accept any liability to investors.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South also referred to the shortage of housing in Norwich and East Anglia. The Government fully share the concern for the homeless, and have made an extra £74 million available since last November, targeted on authorities bearing the brunt of the problem. Our concern is compounded by the number of empty properties. Authorities have more than 112,000 empty properties, 28,000, or 25 per cent., of which have been unoccupied for more than a year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) raised some important questions about the Barlow Clowes affair, to which I have already referred. He also spoke of the roads programme. I appreciate the frustration of being stuck in a traffic jam and assuming that it is all the fault of the Government. Nevertheless, we have some 350 schemes in the present programme with a total value of more than £5 billion and the roads vote provision is more than than £1 billion for the first time. For new construction, our aim is to start within the year all the planned schemes that are now ready. We hope to keep motorway delays to a minimum by careful planning, the use of lane rental contracts and mobile lane closures.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the aim of the RAWP formula is to allocate resources in such a way as to ensure, over time, equal opportunity of access to health care for people in equal need by reducing historical disparities and responding to population changes. The National Health Service Management Board has explored the scope for improving the way in which the current formula measures relative need across the country. The Government will consider the resulting recommendations in the context of the wider review of the National Health Service. I assure my hon. Friend that his comments will be drawn to the attention of the Minister, as I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) was courteous enough to tell me that he had to leave for Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman and the leader of his party will know, the debate following this one will deal in more detail with industry in Northern Ireland, so I shall not say anything further at this stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), in a commendably brief speech which was nevertheless important and worthy of consideration by an audience wider than that in the House today, described problems of development in and around his constituency. The Government fully recognise the difficulties to which he referred. He was wise to raise the subject of the green belt. The Government are determined to keep the green belt, so there is no change of policy in that regard. Government policy is to encourage development wherever possible in the inner cities and on recycled land, which is an increasing part of the development pattern in this country, although there are still difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was among those who were not keen to have a long recess. I appreciate his view and I assure him that Ministers do not have anything like the whole period in recess.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Nor do Back Benchers.
  Mr. Wakeham: I fully recognise that, although I see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) sitting on the Opposition Front Bench in a very relaxed manner and wish him a happy holiday.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to practices in the House. I can only say that the current practices seem generally acceptable, although not entirely so. The Select Committee on Procedure could consider the matter again if necessary.
  The decision to electrify the east midlands line is a commercial one for British Rail. Electrification would not make the service faster, but British Rail is continuing to improve the high-speed diesel service on that line.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised a number of issues, originally with a European flavour but going on to wider matters. The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for getting on with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill makes me somewhat cautious and leads me to believe that I was right to put that into the programme for the overspill Session, although I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be ingenious enough to find ways to raise most of the issues that he wishes to explore.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South and others talked about the European commissioners and asked whether there would be a debate on the subject. There is plenty of time for such a debate. If the Opposition want to debate the matter, various courses are available to them. The new commissioners will not take office until 1 January 1989.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South referred also to matters of significance and importance at the beginning of 1986. He knows perfectly well what I am about to say. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, she gave a full account of the events surrounding the disclosure of the then Solicitor-General's letter on 6 January 1986, in her statement on 23 January and in her speech on 27 January. We have nothing to add to that except to deplore in the strongest terms the unwarranted attacks on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and on civil servants who cannot reply. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised during the recess to read the statements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to come better informed to debates on the next occasion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 29th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 19th October.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c).
  HOUSING
  That the draft Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) (No. 2) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 8th July 1988, be approved.
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 11th July 1988, be approved.
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 11th July 1988, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Corneal Tissue (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th June 1988, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

  Northern Ireland (Economy)
  7.42 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: First, I note with appreciation the presence on the Treasury Bench of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has responsibilities for economic development. Their attendance shows that they realise that the future of the two major engineering industries are crucial to Northern Ireland in terms of jobs. They are important to the employees of the two undertakings and to those who are employed in factories in Great Britain. I trust that the presence of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State means that they are willing to listen, and having done so perhaps to grant a stay of execution.
  It can be said that there is widespread recognition of the facts of life in this context by those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench, and by others elsewhere in the House. Up to that point in our consideration, there is common ground. Unfortunately, from then on there is divergence. Earlier today at Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State asserted that privatisation had been good for 17 major undertakings in Great Britain. It might have been an underestimate. My research suggests that about 28 undertakings have been privatised, but I shall not quarrel with the Minister about that.
  I am sure that it will be accepted that the majority on the list could be classified as coming within what we might call the service sector. These undertakings have an advantage because they have, in effect, a captive market. Included in this category are Associated British Ports, the British Airports Authority, British Airways, British Gas and British Petroleum. These undertakings have a multitude of customers, but by the nature of their products Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff have lists of potential customers that reach single figures only.
  Of the other privatised companies to which I have not referred, some may fail. If they do so, their skilled employees will be mopped up by other industries. Unfortunately, that could not and would not happen in Northern Ireland. If I might borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, there is no alternative. That is why the Government must be ultra-careful in making their decisions.
  Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), who is my party's spokesman on trade and industry, told the House that we in the Ulster Unionist

  611
  party have no particular hang-ups in the arguments over the merits of privatisation. We have always preferred to judge each case on its merits. Perhaps I have already implied that in service industries great benefits probably accrue from a reduction in bureaucracy. There is much to be said for making a service-type industry more responsive to its customers.
  A geographically isolated shipyard and aircraft factory do not fall into that category. In Belfast, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers plc provide the main industrial base. The stark fact is that there is no substitute or replacement to be found for either or both in Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that the Labour Government of the 1970s recognised that. For that reason they resisted all pressures to include Harland and Wolff in British Shipbuilders and Short Brothers in British Aerospace. The then Government's fear was that, when order books became slim, the two Belfast limbs would be the first to get the chop.
  The memoirs of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) recount the discussions on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that, if Shorts had then been included in British Aerospace, the Belfast works would probably have been closed years ago. The right hon. Gentleman's successor, who is now Lord Mason, took a similarly robust view of the shipyard and the aircraft factory. They were both ably and strongly supported by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who had direct responsibilities and who withstood all the pressures throughout the controversy, many of which were coming from his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  I do not suggest or imply that the present Secretary of State is any less robust than his predecessors. I hope that he will be equally realistic. Ten or 12 years later, who can say that the Ministers of the 1970s were mistaken? In the interval, we have seen free enterprise multinationals such as ICI, Courtaulds and British Enkalon amputate their Northern Ireland limbs when confronted with a shrinkage in world markets. In those years there was an ugly and sinister tendency on the part of national and multinational companies to close down their Ulster factory. They did so because it was in competition with other of their factories nearer to their central base and not because it was unprofitable. It would be less than truthful to suggest that such sharp practices have been snuffed out or discontinued. Like it or not, they will recur.
  In the light of the bitter experience of the past 12 years, how could the Under-Secretary of State say:
  "there is no future for a company that is supported by Government. The future lies in the private sector, where there is enterprise and the opportunity of growth."—[Official Report,21 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1304.]
  If the Government's approach to Shorts is based on that philosophy, there can only be disaster ahead. If Shorts is to be expected to stand on its own feet, it is being singled out for the chop.
  At Question Time today, when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) asked whether it was not true that all other aircraft manufacturers in the world were dependent on Government subsidies in one form or another, the Minister—perhaps misunderstanding the question—was unable to give a very convincing answer. I have a clear duty to repeat my hon. Friend's question to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team: do they know of any major aeroplane maker anywhere in the world that is not propped up by the state in which it is
  612
  situated? Do they know, for that matter, of any aircraft that has made a profit for its makers? I make an earnest plea to the Secretary of State and his colleagues to rid themselves of the notion that Shorts alone in the world, unlike all its rivals, can stand up to state-subsidised competition elsewhere.
  Common sense dictates that such an experiment will fail, simply because the whole judgment is flawed. I cannot believe that the present Secretary of State would knowingly put his hand to an instrument of economic destruction that will undoubtedly bring ruin and misery to an entire community.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. John Hume: The three industries under discussion—Shorts, Harland and Wolff and the Northern Ireland electricity service—have not endeared themselves to my constituents by their employment practices. But we are not interested in the doctrine of "an eye for an eye", because that leaves everyone blind. The skills and technology that those three industries represent are essential to the future of all the people of Northern Ireland, and I wish to support and protect the maintenance and development of that technology and those skills.
  The Government have repeatedly sought to achieve agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland, and I support them in that endeavour: this is one issue on which we are entirely agreed. I therefore ask the Government to encourage such agreement by rewarding it.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to suport what has already been said by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and to echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Londonderry——
  Mr. Hume: Foyle.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Not Strangford.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Yes, I recall that Mr. Speaker mistook the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) during Question Time.
  I wish briefly to urge the Government to abandon their plan to privatise Shorts. This company has contributed enormously to technology in Northern Ireland, and if the plan goes ahead to sell it, in whole or in part, it will imperil the company's future. When the sale was announced last week, it was clear that if it went ahead the industrial vultures would descend on this company that has contributed so much, pick the bones bare and then depart. The Government say that they will protect the company because they will sell it if possible to a single buyer, but we have experience of such speculators in other parts of the United Kingdom. A buyer will come along, but he will sell what is not profitable and keep what is. I fear that, at the end of the day, despite the Government's grand words, the company and the work force will suffer.
  Shorts employs 7,500 people. That is a colossal number of jobs, vital to Northern Ireland. To those jobs can be added the jobs of all those working in other companies directly linked to Shorts. There are also the jobs of people who work in shops that supply goods to the families of Shorts' workers, and there are the families themselves.

  613
  It was nauseating to hear the unctuous words of the Minister when he made the announcement, pretending that the firm and its large work force would benefit from privatisation. I cannot see how all that work force will be maintained by a speculator who will come along to make a quick profit. As a consequence, Northern Ireland will lose the high technology that Shorts generates. Its excellent design team will be at risk. The Ulster economy, as we all know—it has been repeated often enough in the Chamber —is fragile, and such a blow will have lasting unfortunate consequences for our part of the United Kingdom.
  Those unfortunate consequences, however, will not be confined to Northern Ireland. Hon. Members from Great Britain should remember that Shorts provides benefits for this part of the United Kingdom as well. The reduction in the size of the company and its work force will affect engineering firms in England that are engaged on contract for Shorts.
  It has been argued that privatisation has been a success in England. That may be so, and I would not argue otherwise, but there is no comparison between the economic position in Britain—certainly in the south-east of England, where all the wealth seems to accumulate— and that in Ulster. I am not a slave to ideology, and I have no political objection to privatisation. My argument is against the privatisation of Shorts at this time and in the foreseeable future, especially in view of the vile campaign of terror being waged by the IRA.
  For 20 years the IRA has sought to destroy the Northern Ireland economy, just as it sought to destroy lives and to mutilate members of the population. It has undoubtedly frightened away many potential investors, and perhaps, I regret to say, some of those who formerly provided employment in the Province. In my constituency, a building contractor—part of a worldwide concern, with its headquarters in Great Britain—abandoned work on which it was engaged in Palace barracks, Holywood, as a result of IRA threats.
  I fear that the Government's announcement will appear to be a capitulation to the IRA campaign. It certainly helps the propaganda campaign—I want to emphasise that— which has been skilfully and persistently waged by the IRA and its sympathisers, particularly in the United States, against Shorts and other companies in Northern Ireland. They would love to see Northern Ireland's economy undermined, because they would then be well on their way to the destruction of that part of the United Kingdom.
  Bearing in mind the courage, fortitude and restraint of the hard-working and conscientious people of Northern Ireland, the Government should have told them that they will stand shoulder to shoulder with them; that, no matter what they say and do politically in the rest of the United Kingdom, they will make sure that they in no way endanger Northern Ireland's economy and put at risk everything that has been done to build up and maintain that fragile economy. Sadly, the Government prefer to force on the people of Northern Ireland, at a bad and dangerous time, their privatisation policy, which will unfortunately have bitter consequences.
  The propaganda campaign waged by the IRA against Shorts has also been waged against the Belfast shipyard. I and my colleagues in the House have paid tribute to the work force. It is composed of hard-working and dedicated
  614
  people. It is my duty, and that of my colleagues, to fight for them, their jobs and the rights of their families. It is tragic that the Government also wish to privatise Harland and Wolff now.
  I want to make a plea to the Government—although I am sad to say that it will probably be rejected out of hand by Ministers whose commitment is not to Northern Ireland jobs, as it should be. I plead with them to ensure that Shorts and Harland and Wolff, two great and major firms, remain within the public sector. I know that in making that plea I have the support of all people in Northern Ireland, regardless of religion and political beliefs.
  The hon. Member for Foyle, referred to the work force in those two companies. I have already said that I and my colleagues are prepared to go to the United States with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to fight for jobs, not just for Shorts, and not just in Loyalist but in Nationalist areas. Our concern is to ensure that prosperity is restored to Northern Ireland and that the terrorists do not succeed in their vile and obscene campaign.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: There are times when the rights of the people must take precedence over all other considerations. The time has now arrived when the Government must take stock of their privatisation policy in Northern Ireland and examine the social consequences of such policies on the small regional economy of the Province.
  It is highly irresponsible at this time for the Government to announce privatisation plans for Shorts and Harland and Wolff. Such announcements are perceived by the population as further evidence of the Government's intention to withdraw from Northern Ireland, which can do nothing for political and economic stability and will only fuel the fires of insurrection. In addition, such decisions would be disastrous from a social and humanitarian point of view.
  It is a matter of record and public disquiet that such expansion as has occurred recently has been confined to the south-east of England. But, as every hon. Member knows, there has been little sign of any significant improvement elsewhere within the United Kingdom. The recent depressing trade figures point to the folly of following policies which favour one part of the kingdom at the expense of the others.
  The Government cannot stand aloof and opt out of their responsibilities to Northern Ireland, which is considered to be one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom.
  In taking my stand tonight specifically in defence of Shorts, I ask the Government to re-examine, logically and objectively, their decision to privatise that most dynamic company in the aircraft construction and allied industries.
  Shorts contributed greatly to the defeat of Nazi Germany by its superhuman efforts in the production of battle line aircraft which were renowned throughout the world for their performance and reliability in destroying strategic targets in enemy territory.
  The contribution of Shorts to the commercial side of the aviation industry is also exemplary, going as far back as 1909, when a Short biplane won the Daily Mail award for the first British aircraft to fly a circular mile. The big flying boats produced for Imperial Airways opened up the

  615
  air routes to Australia and the far east. Today we have the renowned Skyvan and the 360, which has been adopted by more than 30 carriers worldwide.
  Selling that most valuable public asset will be seen as a betrayal of the skill and innovation of the aerospace and engineering industry in Northern Ireland. The effects on the engineering industry and the local economy will be catastrophic. It will also affect many parts of the United Kingdom where engineering companies engage in contract work for Shorts.
  The Government say that they wish to privatise Shorts because of financial losses, but the level of loss is not as great as the Government are making out. Last year there was a loss of £47 million, but £25 million of that was simply the repayment of loans. Because of those debts the interest charges will inevitably increase each year, and that will be exacerbated by the higher interest rates charged by outside agencies compared with the cost of Government grants or low interest loans.
  It must also be appreciated that substantial losses were in part due to underfunding and cuts in Ministry of Defence expenditure. I would respectfully point out to the Government that most aircraft manufacturers throughout the world are in receipt of visible or invisible Government subsidies. It is generally recognised that high technology products require high investment to make them profitable. That is borne out by the Dutch Government supporting Fokker and America supporting Boeing.
  What is needed now is a commitment from the Government to Shorts, since there is no way in which investment from within or outside the Province could compensate for the large-scale reduction in employment that would occur if the company were privatised.
  We particularly need a commitment to the aircraft manufacturing sector and support for the new FJX aircraft as a worthy replacement for the SD3. It is absolutely essential that that project is fully supported if Shorts is to continue as a design/engineering aircraft manufacturer, particularly as the company has the highest concentration of research and design skills in Northern Ireland and has trained the largest number of skilled apprentices.
  Contract work has provided thousands of additional jobs in other parts of the United Kingdom and other unemployment blackspots in the Province. Privatisation would deal a blow to the equal opportunities programme which Shorts has embarked upon. Such a programme cannot be successful if jobs are at a premium under privatisation.
  I contend that privatisation is totally unsuitable to a small, deprived economy such as that in Northern Ireland, which is already suffering from perhaps the worst unemployment in the United Kingdom. No amount of small, transnational operations on green field sites can replace Shorts at the heart of the engineering industry. The survival of Shorts is essential to the survival of the Northern Ireland economy. Without it, we shall become an industrial wasteland, and any small, modest recovery already achieved will be wiped out and reversed.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Government are convinced of the correctness of their policies and believe that they should press ahead with them despite our opposition, but they must accept that their
  616
  policies are divisive. They may think that in the end they will be able to overcome that, and people will see the good that they believe they are doing. But their policies are hated by working-class people in my constituency. Applying those policies to Northern Ireland, which has a divided society and sectarian battles and clashes, is an utter disgrace. The Government should respond to the market in which they seek to operate their policies. If there is a case for sticking with or returning to some past consensus or moving towards some improvement, that case is within Northern Ireland.
  Different policies need to be directed to the Irish question than to England, Wales and Scotland. Although I oppose them in a more traditional battle, the only good that can result from the Government's policies of privatising electricity, Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff is that it will bind together some of the different factions in Northern Ireland. As I have said, they may be able to produce some unity among the different parties and individuals who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, and the political parties not represented in the House. People are being directed to fighting class politics in which working-class interests are dominant.
  I recall a delegation that came over from Strabane and included representatives of Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists, Independents and others. They were here because of the flood damage in Strabane and they wanted the Government to provide funds to deal with it. Problems of that nature overcome the sectarian divide because key economic and social questions have to be faced. I ask the Government to back off from the policies they are using and to do something about uniting Northern Ireland.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on drawing first place in the ballot for debates on the Consolidated Fund. I am sure that we all agree that it is the best position in the list. I thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for being present on the Government Front Bench to reply to this short debate. It shows that he considers of paramount importance the economy of Ireland and the possible privatisation of the three industries that have been discussed. If he is to solve his other problems in the Province, the economy and the growth in the economy in Northern Ireland must be tackled successfully.
  It is significant that, despite the geographical differences between my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, they are at one on the need to maintain Shorts within the public sector and on the need to protect jobs. Perhaps that is the first sign of the agreement between party leaders that the Secretary of State has been trying to achieve during the past few years. Perhaps he should seize the first small fruit of consent and build upon it so that that agreement can be used to build agreement in other aspects of political and economic life in Northern Ireland.
  The official Opposition, together with other Opposition parties, met representatives of the work force of Short Brothers who made absolutely clear their opposition to privatisation. They will fight the proposals to privatise the company and they feel that if the company is privatised, rather than providing the guarantees of job security, to which the Under-Secretary of State referred on previous

  617
  occasions, privatisation will be the thin end of the wedge and the Government will shed responsibility not only for the companies but for the economy of the Province, and closure and redundancy will inevitably result. They are strongly opposed to privatisation and certainly the Opposition have pledged their wholehearted support to them in their opposition to privatisation.
  It would be churlish of me not to have due regard to the comparative improvement in the economy of Northern Ireland during the past 18 months or two years. As the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have told us on previous occasions, during 1987–88 unemployment fell, and it continues to fall. Congratulations are due to them for that. I also give due respect and credit to the enterprise schemes which are being operated in Northern Ireland and the encouragement which the Government continue to give to inward investment in the Province. We all agree that there is a desperate need not only to sustain existing jobs, but to attract new jobs into Northern Ireland. We welcome without hesitation those improvements.
  As I have said on previous occasions, it is as well to remember that industrial productivity in Northern Ireland is still substantially below what it was in the early 1980s. The number of people unemployed is substantially higher than it was in 1978. We should remember that the number of new jobs created last year fell far below the reduction in unemployment. Thus, the fall in unemployment was produced not by job creation but by the creation of new aid schemes, migration from the Province and the fall in the number of school leavers. As I have said, it must be borne in mind that industrial production is static and is still at or below the level it was in 1981.
  Industrial production in Northern Ireland has remained static, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom it has grown by 12 per cent. since 1981. It is as well to remember that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is dominated by two giants—Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. Of 90,000 manufacturing jobs, 11,000 are directly associated with Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff and perhaps a third—30,000 manufacturing jobs —are directly or indirectly related to those two giants. If they were threatened with closure, that would have a dramatic effect on unemployment in the Province. If, by some disaster, they closed, 20,000 or 30,000 jobs in Northern Ireland could be lost. Furthermore, subcontracting jobs in Great Britain would be at risk.
  We would all agree that Harland and Wolff has made great strides in improving efficiency and productivity over the past few years, and that it has been innovative in using the latest computer-designed techniques for designing ships. The company can now compete, expecially in the high technology sector of shipbuilding, with any other in the world. Management and workers have worked together in a way that can serve as an example to any other company in the United Kingdom. Together they have improved productivity and agreed on a common goal for the company—to ensure its survival and to make it as competitive as possible. As a consequence they have managed to reduce losses per man—unfortunately, they are not profits per man—to one third of the United Kingdom shipbuilding average, and losses per man at the
  618
  company are now comparable with those of any other shipbuilding yard in the world. These are great steps forward by Harland and Wolff.
  A few months ago there was a great sense of anticipation that the company, having made sacrifices and lost jobs in recent years, would achieve continuity into the early 1990s with the advent of Ravi Tikkoo. It was anticipated that the yard could be kept going and that jobs in it could be held at around 3,000. We all thought that if Mr. Tikkoo's concept of the Ultimate Dream was viable and the vessel could be built at Harland and Wolff, it should be.
  Some questions must be answered. First, can Harland and Wolff build the ship? The company says that it can. Secondly, can there be an agreement on its price? Again, it appears that Harland and Wolff and Mr. Tikkoo can agree on that. So those two questions have been answered by the company, but the next two must be answered by the Government—we desperately want these answers. Can Mr. Tikkoo's company be assured that normal export credit guarantees will be available in this case? We need a yes or no answer to that, not prevarication. Next, if a contract were signed, would it receive support under the sixth directive of the EEC? Again, that needs answering with a yes or no, not with prevarication.
  Instead of providing direct answers, the Government have tried to concentrate on the ownership of the yard. We now face the charade of the potential customer, Ravi Tikkoo, turning into a potential buyer, purely because the Government see this as an opportunity of ridding themselves of a loss-making shipyard. The Government should stop playing this game and answer the two questions I have asked.
  I have other questions for the Secretary of State about the Ultimate Dream order. Why are discussions about the Ultimate Dream order and about the sale of the yard now so inextricably linked? What is the current state of those discussions? When will the Government come clean about them, and about their results?
  Short Brothers has been the main topic of this debate. As we all know, a "For Sale" notice has just been slapped on it, which is not too surprising in the light of the Government's privatisation proposals for the rest of the United Kingdom, or of the track record of the new chairman of Short Brothers, Mr. Rodney Lund. He has the unique distinction in the aerospace industry of knowing nothing about it. That seems unfair to Short Brothers, as most aerospace companies throughout the world like to have people in charge, and in charge of their negotiations, who have vision and who know something about the industry over which they exercise control.
  Short Brothers, which is in the forefront of the aerospace industry, now has a chairman who knows little about it. What he does have is a track record of privatisation. We are driven inescapably to the conclusion that he has been appointed for his skills in that direction and for his familiarity with the City. Privatisation and the possible break-up of the yard seems to have been in the forefront of the minds of the people who appointed this gentleman to his present position——
  Mr. Kevin McNamara; Yard? We are talking about Short Brothers now.
  Mr. Marshall: I apologise if I gave the impression that I was referring to Harland and Wolff. The chairman and

  619
  managing director of Harland and Wolff have our confidence. I wish we could say the same of the higher management of Short Brothers.
  We have noted the Minister's repeated assertion that, if the company is privatised, the Government want it to remain as a whole. In our view, which is shared by the shop stewards, that position is untenable. If the company is privatised as a whole, we are convinced that the buyer will be interested in only one part of it—the missiles section. The future of the other two sections—aircraft and aero-structures—would be insecure. If the company is sold, we should like a guarantee that the buyer will keep it as a whole and that jobs will be guaranteed for perhaps five or six years.
  Ministers appear to have misunderstood what Harland and Wolff and Shorts symbolise to the people of Northern Ireland. They are regarded as symbols of the Government's continued commitment to the economy of the north of Ireland. Rightly or wrongly, the recently announced decisions to privatise the companies are regarded by a substantial number of people as the Government's intention to withdraw, perhaps not fully, from the economy of Northern Ireland and as a shot across the bows to show that the level of support given in the past cannot continue indefinitely.
  The debate gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to nail those allegations as lies and to say that the Government will continue to support the economy of Northern Ireland and Harland and Wolff and Shorts. The best way of showing that determination and giving those guarantees is to do away with the nonsense of privatisation, accept that Harland and Wolff and Shorts should remain in the public sector and offer continued hope of prosperity to Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole.
  8.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northem Ireland (Mr. Tom King): The subject for the debate chosen by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is the economy of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the future of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. The House will therefore understand if I begin by discussing the economy of Northern Ireland.
  I have two rather contrary messages to deliver. First, I enormously welcome the debate. Thank goodness hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have expressed interest in economic issues. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley—there is no point in being churlish because it would be rather like a vicar berating the congregation for being too small—on his initiative in launching the debate.
  I appreciate very much the comments by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and others. They correctly identified my presence as being not only symbolic but a sign of the close personal interest that I have taken—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)—in the economy of the Province. We were delighted to be joined by other hon. Members, who showed their interest in the subject.
  Secondly, having made those tolerably friendly remarks, I have found this the most appallingly depressing debate. I do not think that I have ever listened to so many speeches with which I profoundly disagreed. In certain
  620
  respects I resented them, and in others they were an insult to the skills, ability and industry of the people of Northern Ireland, who have shown their abilities to triumph over all the problems of the Province. They have not come pleading with begging bowls, saying, "We have not a hope of competing in world markets unless we receive special assistance and twice as much subsidy as anyone else."
  Anyone who pays a visit to Northern Ireland will see its abilities and achievements. Its people do not moan about the disadvantages they face. They are succeeding and earning a worldwide reputation because of their hard work, determination and skill. I have the deepest admiration—it is often defined as the work ethnic that exists in many parts of the Province—for the inventive-ness, scientific skills, education achievements and qualifications of many people in Northern Ireland, which is why its economy has recently moved forward in so many respects.
  The economy in Northern Ireland has suffered from high unemployment. When l heard the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) say that there was little sign of improvement, I thought that he was selling Northern Ireland short. I have recently received the review of the Trustee Savings bank for Northern Ireland. It is appropriate to quote from its document because it was in the public sector but is now in the private sector. I hope that its review will not immediately be regarded by hon. Members as discredited. It mentions the present position rather differently from the miserable language that we heard in the debate.
  The review says that the steady growth of the United Kingdom economy—which has out-performed other European countries and, in many respects, the United States and Japan—has, although it has taken longer to arrive, had an impact on Northern Ireland. It further says:
  "Evidence from the most recent CBI Business Surveys, however, indicates a degree of optimism."
  It says that there is
  "Considerable business confidence … Capacity utilisation remains good and there is little evidence of capacity constraints despite growing local, national export demand … Both CBI and PA Management surveys of investment intentions indicate that strong capital investment is taking place and is likely to continue over the coming year … The CBI report positive investment plans across manufacturing and service industries and PA attribute the healthy manufacturing investment outlook to buoyant demand, increased order books and the success of past capital investment."
  Listening to hon. Members, I wondered whether they had recently visited the Province or whether they were aware of what is going on there.
  Although the figures given by the hon. Member for Leicester, South were correct, I genuinely believe that the continuing falls in unemployment are being reflected in an increase in employment. After the debate, I shall show the hon. Gentleman an interesting graph in the Trustee Savings bank review, which tends to confirm the unemployment decline. In September 1986, unemployment reached 135,000. As a previous Secretary of State for Employment in England and Wales, I came to the Province determined to do my best to help employment in Northern Ireland. As we stand here now, unemployment is down to 115,000. That is last month's figure. It is confirmation not of a continuing decline but of the improvement that every hon. Member welcomes.
  I see the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) present. I am sure that he will accept that there is a spirit of greater

  621
  confidence in what he would call Derry. There is greater confidence in the Province in future economic prospects and employment. In addressing the real problems, we should not sell the Province short. We should not underrate the real achievements of many people who in the past year have been recruiting, investing, scoring export successes and expanding their businesses. In that improvement lies one of the best hopes for the Province.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I wish to make it clear that I resent the arrogant words of the Secretary of State, who queried whether Unionist Members—I assume he also included the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—ever visit the Province. We live there and are committed to it. My speech was restricted to the two giant industries—Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. I referred to the fragile economy of Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State saying that the economy is not fragile? Did he meet the workers at Shorts? Did he speak to those workers, or did he speak only to the management? Apparently he thinks that he is speaking for everyone in Northern Ireland. We live there and meet the people every weekend when we go home. The Secretary of State should understand that people in Northern Ireland resent anyone who expects the Ulster people to shout "bwana" to the Secretary of State in his cantonment at Stormont castle.
  Mr. King: The point I was making is that my perception and that of many visitors and customers in Northern Ireland is different from the presentation that the hon. Gentleman gave. To try to describe Northern Ireland as a Province without hope, prospects, skills or abilities——
  Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not say that the Province——
  The Lord Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. David Lightbown): That is not a point of order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is for the Chair to decide whether it is a point of order.
  Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your protection, because the Secretary of State is saying that I said that Northern Ireland was a country without hope or skills. I did not say that, and I resent——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a debating Chamber and that is not a matter for the Chair. The debate must continue.
  Mr. King: I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) may not have heard my opening remarks. He may have addressed his remarks solely to the two companies concerned, but I have made it clear—the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley knows this—that the topic for debate is the economy of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to those two companies. Therefore, I am addressing those issues.
  The Northern Ireland economy faces challenges and starts from a more difficult position. However, it has achieved more and made more progress in the past year than it has in other recent years. That should be
  622
  recognised. I say to the hon. Member for North Down that the two companies concerned can be sustained, not by Government subvention, but by orders, which may in certain circumstances require Government assistance.
  There would be no order in Harland and Wolff after the present SWOPS order were it not for the fact that a Ministry of Defence order is about to be constructed. That order makes it possible for the yard to consider taking further orders. It is no great secret in the House that I did what I could to ensure that the order went, in fair and successful competition, to Harland and Wolff. There are a number of orders in Shorts now which are there because of the skills of the company, the quality of its products, the commitment of the Government and whatever part I could play in helping to support export orders. The hon. Member for Belfast, North said that Ministers have stood aloof from the problems and have not sought to support employment. He said that Ministers are strangers to Northern Ireland and have not made a commitment to it. The hon. Gentleman will have to stand by his own conscience and judgment in those remarks.
  Having dealt with the comments about the general state of the economy, I want to turn to the central issue, which is the fear that has echoed round the Chamber. Hon. Members seem to equate privatisation with liquidation. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley inadvertently, or perhaps deliberately, pleaded for a stay of execution. That is what many people in Northern Ireland think is about to happen.
  Mr. Molyneaux: In a legal sense.
  Mr. King: I understand that, but people are talking about the concept of privatisation as if it is the greatest threat that the companies have ever faced. I wonder what Mr. Harland and Mr. Wolff would have said as they embarked on their career. If somebody had said, "You should be part of a Government Department. You think that you can build ships, but you would be much better off if you had civil servants advising you at every step," I think I know what Mr. Harland and Mr. Wolff, who built a company with a name that echoes famously around the world, would have said to that suggestion.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I do not resent the slap on the wrist that the Secretary of State administered earlier. However, I do not think that we were as guilty as he suggested. I agree that Mr. Harland and Mr. Wolff would have been horrified if they had been told that they could build ships and sell them only with a Government subsidy. At that time, their competitors were not benefiting from Government subsidies. That is the central problem.
  With respect, I should like the Secretary of State to address his mind to the question that was put to him by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). Can the Secretary of State point to an aircraft manufacturer anywhere in the world that is not being propped up by subsidies? The problem for the future is that if the two industries are privatised they will not be put out into a world where there will be fair competition. They will be meeting unfair competition. That is the central theme of our argument.
  Mr. King: I took careful note of the direct question that the right hon. Gentleman asked, and I intend to answer it.
  I wish to analyse the arguments that have been advanced in the debates as to why the idea of moving from

  623
  public to private ownership is bound to be disastrous for companies in Northern Ireland. One of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments was that the shipyard has a limited range of customers, unlike many of the industries that have been privatised in the service sector. Let us consider what happened with the Rolls-Royce aero engine company. It has a pretty limited range of customers—only people who manufacture or buy aircraft. That company was not in the service sector.
  What about the Royal Ordnance factories? I had some personal experience of their privatisation, because there was one in my constituency. They had a limited range of customers, and there was a great fear whether, in private ownership, they could succeed outside the umbrella of the Ministry of Defence. There has since been a much more effective sales and marketing effort, and there is a much better prospect of long-term security of employment in that industry.
  The most obvious illustration is British Shipbuilders. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the disadvantages of Harland and Wolff being geographically isolated. At that point, I said to my hon. Friend the Minister, "Can you think of any industry where it matters least if it is geographically isolated?" A shipyard would be the most obvious example. No one has ever told the Koreans that they are geographically isolated, yet they dominate the shipbuilding market and are considered fully competitive. No one seriously suggests that the future of the Govan shipyard would be secured by its continuing to be part of a loss-making nationalised industry that attracted orders at such a rate of public subsidy that, in the end, every order was a crisis and every month or year of survival was a bonus. Now owned by Kvaerner, a specialist company that has identified a market for its products, the prospect of long-term employment in the Govan yard is much better than it would have been in a general purpose nationalised industry.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that we cannot keep companies in Northern Ireland unless they are publicly owned, and he cited the companies that have been there and left. I understand the problems that affected the synthetic fibre industry, such as the Courtaulds clothing plant and British Enkalon, but it is also worth remembering Du Pont. It is making its third consecutive investment in Northern Ireland in recent years. It is a successful company whose presence in Northern Ireland is based not on massive Government subsidy—certainly not on public ownership—but increasingly on the performance of the plant and the quality of the work force. It is a tribute to the skills of the engineering work force at Du Pont that when the company carries out chemical engineering work at its other plants in Europe, the engineers from Maydown are asked to do it.
  In addition to public ownership, Shorts and Harland and Wolff have benefited from a substantial network of public finance of one sort or another. In shipbuilding, some finance comes through the intervention fund. The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked whether intervention fund assistance would still be available. We shall try to ensure that it is maintained, although it is discretionary. We recognise the need to make it possible for Harland and Wolff to compete against other yards within the terms of the European directive.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me to name any aircraft company that operated either without subsidy or without some involvement in defence. Shorts produces
  624
  Tucano aircraft, and it has won the Starstreak missile order—the largest missile order ever placed by the Ministry of Defence—for a sum in excess of £200 million. The company is a valued and respected Ministry of Defence contractor, and its products command markets and continued support.
  Against that background, I can see how Shorts will play its part. Other aerospace companies that have defence contracts—they may be development contracts, such as the one for the Starstreak missile—won those orders by virtue of their capabilities and their products in competition with others. I expect that to continue.
  The fear that has been expressed in the debate has been a feature of other privatisations. I understand why, when the first companies were privatised, there were serious fears about the risks to employment, but, to use the hackneyed phrase, there is no need for us to look in the crystal ball when we can read the book. Very few Jaguar employees are saying, "Please let us return to the benefits of public ownership." Not too many people are saying, "I do not care for Associated Ports. I much preferred the British Transport Docks Board." Few of the employee shareholders of the National Freight Corporation say, "Bring back the good old days of British Road Services." Privatisation may be new to Northern Ireland, but it is not an English phenomenon. Privatisation has taken place in England, Scotland and Wales and the logical economic benefits have been felt everywhere.
  I believe that our proposals must be accompanied by a consideration to secure employment, and that was the only part of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for North Down with which I agreed. We are concerned about that, as our record shows. It is essential that we achieve a good understanding of the intentions of anyone who might acquire the companies. We shall look very carefully at. any proposals that come forward, not simply at the price or financial arrangements, but in the widest possible sense at the implications for the Northern Ireland economy.
  I stand by the record that I spelt out at the beginning of my speech. I made my commitment on the steps of Stormont castle, when I made it clear that I would do all that I could to help the economic progress of the Province. I have explained that unemployment has fallen by 20,000 since its high point in September 1986. I intend to do all that I can to ensure that that fall continues.
  I want to see maximum employment and the best possible prospects in Harland and Wolff and in Shorts. I passionately believe that through private ownership and by the private sector approach there is a better prospect. of a brighter future than will ever come through a continuing and dead dependence on public support and subsidy, which tends only to enfeeble and enervate companies. The evidence of the improvements that can come from a private sector approach is all too apparent.
  Both the companies are operating in the most difficult market conditions facing any product that is manufactured in the world at the moment. That is especially true of shipbuilding. The aircraft industry is also extremely difficult. If we cannot obtain orders, that will be a very serious problem. There can be no guarantee that orders will be obtained. The Government will do all that they can to support genuine efforts to sustain employment on a viable basis for both companies. I say that against a background in which Harland and Wolff has faced major problems. It has a proud name, but its future will determine whether there are to be jobs and orders. I note

  625
  that the company has major assets. It has excellent facilities and very good equipment, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South said. It has had major capital investment to its advantage, and it has considerable skills.
  We embark on the challenge with those assets to our advantage. I note also for those who are concerned about the recent financial progress of Shorts that it has excellent products, not least in its missiles. I believe that it holds what is known as the "Pride in Excellence" award, which was awarded yet again to the company by Boeing for the quality of its manufacturing for Boeing to the very highest standards. It has real achievements.
  Both companies have assets, real achievements and potential. The challenge that we face is to see how most effectively they can make a valuable contribution to the economy of Northern Ireland. We believe that our proposals are the right way to proceed. They have brought great benefits to companies and employees in Great Britain. We want to see those benefits in the rest of the United Kingdom and applied in Northern Ireland as well.

  Bophuthatswana
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am sure that the House will be very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for coming to the House to participate in this short debate on the Government's policy towards the republic of Bophuthatswana.
  I do not profess to be an all-purpose expert on the affairs of South Africa. I became intrigued by the situation in Bophuthatswana as a consequence of considering southern Africa after my son went to work there. I became more and more intrigued the more I considered it. As my right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, I took advantage of an invitation to visit the republic of Bophuthatswana at Easter. I thank my hosts for the thoroughness with which they took me and others in the party around and made it possible for me to talk to those on the meeting list, those in official agencies and Government Departments, and also people who were not on the list. I was pleased to be able to seize the opportunity to talk to the man in the street whenever I could. I am pleased to say that that was quite often. I was impressed by the general atmosphere of freedom, of life, and of the relaxed air and confidence of the people. In one respect that was amazing, because it was not very long after the wretched and disfiguring coup, which was without doubt a sore point with everyone that we came across.
  Among the people to whom I spoke were university students, who were especially refreshing and interesting. Once we had broken down the initial reserve and had become relaxed in our conversations, time and time again the remark made by one student after another of all disciplines was that they felt free in Bophuthatswana. Unibo does not just have a catchment area of Mmabatho, but goes far wider. Part of its attraction is its mix, with freedom of expression, action and thought, and freedom from oppression. I report that as something that was told to me and which I have no reason to doubt.
  All in all, I found a fascinating conundrum. I found a multiracial, free enterprise, Christian, open, gay—I hate the misuse of that word—and friendly society. It was one that all the world would want for the whole of southern Africa. The paradox of it is that they are pariahed and condemned for being a product of apartheid. I hope it goes without saying, but I hold no brief for apartheid—hence the paradox. On the one hand, I do not like what it does and, on the other, when I go to what it has done, I find the very thing that we are trying to create in southern Africa as a whole.
  The easy way out for those who wish to resolve that dilemma is to condemn the republic of Bophuthatswana as a puppet state. They say that it is not in charge of its own defence. It has a treaty with South Africa, which it initiated and negotiated when it secured its independence in 1977. It was only right that that treaty should be invoked by South Africa as a consequence of the coup. I am delighted that it did so and restored the democratically elected Government.
  As for the officers in its army, it may be that the force of 3,400 men has in it two non-Bophuthatswanans—a brigadier and a lieutenant colonel—but the remainder, including the commissioner and the major general, are Bophuthatswanan. It is said that the Civil Service is

  627
  administered by South Africans on secondment. However, the figures show that 246 South Africans have been seconded, out of a total of 28,140 Civil Service employees, which is not the biggest percentage that there ever was. People say that the South Africans are perhaps in key positions. I cannot agree with that, because when I looked through the list I found that the South Africans there have been seconded for training and instructional purposes. I cannot help but commend the sentiments of President Lucas Mangope, when he said "My objective, as soon as we have people trained, is to have Bophuthatswanan citizens in charge of the Civil Service, but I cannot do that until I have achieved the instruction." The conditions that are used to run down Bophuthatswana's image are perfectly natural in the transition towards the self-educated state that it wishes to be.
  We even have the prison service slung at us. It is run by a secondee, but I like a country that is not too proud to go to outside sources for advice when it feels that there is expertise to be had there and it wishes to learn, on the clear understanding between instructor and learner what the eventual outcome will be.
  The economy is used as evidence with which to run down the independence of Bophuthatswana. It is said that 20 per cent. of its budget is funded by South Africa by way of grants, which amount to 403 million rand out of a total of 1,745 million rand. If a country is developing and trying to better itself and has infrastructural and development needs but is not recognised and therefore cannot go to other sources of aid, the only place to which it can go is its sponsor from whom it achieved independence and say, "Please help."
  Mr. Michael Colvin: This is an important point. Is there not also some inconsistency among front-line states? Bophuthatswana has no one to whom it can turn, but the front-line states are not slow to trade with South Africa. I dare say that their economies can also be said to be 20 per cent. dependent on the Republic of South Africa.
  Mr. Shepherd: I went to South Africa with open eyes and, I hope, an open mind and no prejudice. I recognised that a substantial amount of trade was going on. I was about to say before my hon. Friend intervened that front-line states that gained their independence from Britain do not hesitate to come to us when development aid is required. That is perfectly natural.
  I had considerable sympathy for the Economics Minister of Bophuthatswana, Mr. Kiekelame, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in May 1987. He said that if his country was recognised by other countries he would have access to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and would probably be able to avoid the mistakes that were made by Zambia. Such wisdom and the desire not to try to reinvent the wheel and not to make every mistake in the book is to be encouraged. It saddens me that the country's economics are used to bludgeon it into the ground. Who else is there to turn to but South Africa?
  If we look for parallels, not far away, from South Africa's point of view, there are Swaziland and Lesotho, which were fortunate enough to be part of the British empire before being given their independence. They are geographically similar to Bophuthatswana in that they are islands in a sea of South Africa. They, too, have
  628
  development problems. They have had greater difficulties with finance than does Bophuthatswana. It is not surprising that that country looks somewhat bewildered at the outside world, which refuses to recognise its plight.
  I came to the conclusion that this is not an economic problem, but a political one. When I looked through the speech that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made to the Commonwealth Institute on 17 May, I saw that he reminded us of what Harold Macmillan said as Prime Minister in his famous "wind of change" speech. He declared the British Government's commitment to
  "a society which respects the rights of individuals, a society in which men are given the opportunity to grow to their full stature … a society in which individual merit alone is the criterion for a man's advancement, whether political or economic."
  That rang a bell with me, because that is what I saw when I visited Bophuthatswana.
  In so far as Bhophuthatswana has a right to be recognised on a wider basis than just South Africa, we have always placed great importance on the will of the people. So far as I can make out, the people want the present status of independence to continue. In 1987 the Select Committee asked hypothetical questions, such as if there were a whole different set of circumstances in South Africa, what would the case be, but as nobody has a crystal ball, or the least awareness of what the nature of the circumstances might be, it is perfectly reasonable for the country to say, "We like what we have and we want to stay as we are."
  That was manifest by the election results of 1987. The two main political parties, the BDP and the PPP, secured 72 seats—the whole of the elected part of the Parliament. The BDP won 66 and the PPP six. The third party, which wanted independence on a different basis, secured no seats. The manifestation of the people is that they want the independence that they enjoy at present. They have reaffirmed that both by their vote and, paradoxically, by their non-vote. If they did not vote, it must be considered a vote for the status quo.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: My hon. Friend may wish to reflect on the fact that the third political party, which was opposed to the present status of Bhophuthatswana, could not field a candidate in the Odi-Moretele district to the east of the country, where, arguably, support for the status quo is at its weakest.
  Mr. Shepherd: That is a good point and worth taking into account.
  We have said to our friends in the Falkland Islands and elsewhere, "If you wish to leave, you may go." It could easily be said, "We have nothing to do with southern Africa and the republic in the middle of South Africa, which is a creature of South Africa, so we have no view on this matter." We say that we have no view about whether parts of Armenia go to Azerbaijan, or whether the Kurds go to Pakistan, Iran or Iraq. I do not accept that, because the British people have a responsibility in this sector.
  We set up the boundaries around the Union of South Africa. We took southern Bechuanaland into the Cape colony, despite the representations of the chiefs and elders in 1885 that we should not do so. Therefore, we who have set up the present circumstances cannot absolve ourselves from them. The people of what used to be southern Bechuanaland, who were given their lands by virtue of

  629
  British Acts of Parliament in 1913 and 1936, ask why they should be abandoned by the British. Moreover, it would be in Britain's interests to tap that enormous source of support in that part of southern Africa, for the benefit of both Britain and southern Africa.
  That leads me to my last point. There is an interest for Britain in this argument. We all agree that the future of South Africa is highly uncertain, but in Bophuthatswana there is an oasis of potential stability, if it can be given outside recognition. There is an opportunity for industrial investment in a strategically located and friendly country, with implications for north-south trade within the African continent. If that opportunity is being spotted by countries such as Taiwan, we should be spotting it too and securing investment there.
  It must be in Britain's interest to secure the sources of platinum that we require. We no longer have platinum refining capacity in this country. The old days when sub-refined platinum came to this country to be refined are gone. The new refining capacity to be opened soon in Bophuthatswana will give that country added value, but will leave us more vulnerable. It makes sense for us to secure our sources of supply in the future.
  In seeking to raise this matter tonight I was reminded of the speech, "South Africa: No Easy Answers", that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the message that it gave. He said:
  "there is another message common to both black and white in South Africa. Avoid intellectual or political straitjackets. Be ready to think the unthinkable."
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, as nicely as I can, to think the unthinkable. I was disappointed by the resolute stance that she took in May at Question Time, but I hope that if we set out the arguments again she will see them through fresh eyes and be induced to accept an invitation to visit southern Africa—not as Minister of State, with all the panoply of power—and to include in her visit the territory of Bophuthatswana. Perhaps she will encourage further contacts at an unofficial level so that a greater understanding can be achieved of the real contribution that that country can make.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)— with more than a degree of envy—on introducing the debate. Like him, I derive no particular pleasure from the opportunity. It is a sad fact that the Government, whom I staunchly support in every other respect—not least with regard to their policy towards South Africa—are deeply and profoundly mistaken in their interpretation of the situation in Bophuthatswana and in their policy towards that country.
  Without doubt, this debate will not attract attention in the headlines of the national media tomorrow. It will, however, have a far wider audience. In time, reports of the debate will be read by the southern Batswana, the people of Bophuthatswana; and they will see the debate as another small landmark in their relentless and unceasing bid for justice. It is their argument—an argument that, with consideration of the evidence, I have come to accept —that the southern Batswana have been wronged by the policies of successive British Governments. That seems, alas, to be the case. British foreign policy seeks to deny the
  630
  people of Bophuthatswana their past, to ridicule their present and to condemn their future. I shall elaborate briefly on those three points.
  On 8 February, I tabled a written question asking the Foreign Secretary
  "on what interpretation of the relationship between the territory of modern Bophuthatswana and the native reserves established for the Southern Botswana by British Governments is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Bophuthatswana based."
  I received the reply:
  "Our policy is based on the fact that Bophuthatswana was created out of the Republic of South Africa, as a key element in the policy of separate development".—[Official Report, 8 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 56.]
  It was not. That is a gross misinterpretation of the past. It is a rewriting of history which I and many of my hon. Friends will not accept. The territory which is now called Bophuthatswana is the historical and traditional territory of five Batswana tribes: the Barolong, the Bathlapiry, the Bathlaro, the Bakwena, and the Bafokeng. Those were the southern Batswana tribes which existed in that territory for nigh on 700 years. They were awarded independence in 1872 when, through the spokesman of the governor of Natal, the British Government said, "I order, adjudge and adjudicate that from henceforth this will be their territory." That future was very short. It lasted only a few years.
  In 1885 the British Government divided the Batswana people. The north became the protectorate of Bechuanaland and in due course the independent republic of Bophuthatswana. Good luck to it. It is a magnificent country. The southern Batswana were, against their will, assigned to the Crown colony of the Cape. British Governments promised that that would not be the case, but it became the case. Then there was the rape and pillage of their land. The native reservations and native locations were established. The Land Act 1913 robbed from the southern Batswana even more of their land. It was marginally restored in 1936 and more greatly restored in the 1950s.
  It simply is not the case that the southern Batswana, with their territory of Bophuthatswana, are the creation of apartheid. They existed hundreds of years before a Nationalist party was conceived and before the word "apartheid" was acknowledged. It is greatly to the discredit of any rational person to assume that this traditional and historic land of the southern Batswana was created in 1948, or whenever, by a Nationalist Government in South Africa.
  Not only do we deny the past of the southern Batswana; we malign, either through ignorance or—I hope not—through malice, their present. I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary on 4 May 1988, asking
  "if he will take steps to ensure that the British embassy in Pretoria obtains more accurate information about the situation in Bophuthatswana."
  I received the reply:
  "Her Majesty's embassy in South Africa already provides full and accurate information on all relevant aspects of the South African scene, including developments in Bophuthatswana."—[Official Report,4 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 465.]
  That was a most unfortunate reply. It came a fortnight after I and half a dozen of my hon. Friends had had the opportunity to speak to our embassy staff in Pretoria. Not only did they demonstrate their lack of knowledge; they specifically confessed it. More than that, they said they did not know why they should have any reason to talk about

  631
  Bophuthatswana. That led me to write a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which I listed nine points—nine howlers of omission and commission. I readily accept the fact that the embassy staff in Pretoria are now looking closely at events in Bophuthatswana.
  Last week my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) addressed a meeting of the British Bophuthatswana all-party group and, in good faith —I have no quarrel whatsoever with her on that-—she made a number of observations which compounded our worry. My right hon. Friend spoke—I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford referred to this—
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are wont to refer to all-party groups on Bophuthatswana, Namibia and South Africa. Will he tell the House whether there are any Labour Members in the group to which he refers?
  Mr. Hunter: To date, no Labour Member has chosen to apply for membership, although we have members from the Opposition Benches. It is a matter of great regret not least that the hon. Gentleman himself will not join our meetings, and I extend a warm invitation to him to do so on any future occasion.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Who pays for the trips?
  Mr. Hunter: Ignorance and lack of information do not constitute a sound basis for foreign policy. I give just one illustration. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the police force of Bophuthatswana. She spoke in good faith, having been informed that the police force was under the control of South Africa. The police force has an establishment of 3,500 and is under the command of the magnificent General Seleke. I have not had the privilege of meeting a pleasanter man in any walk of life and a bigger, blacker Batswana I cannot imagine. The mind boggles at the proposition that he is a white South African—the disguise is certainly remarkable.
  My central point is that British foreign policy towards Bophuthatswana is based on a lack of factual information. That cannot be a sound basis for any policy.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Bophuthatswana had been Marxist and militant rather than Christian and good, overseas aid would have been pouring out of the Foreign Office to that country years ago?
  Mr. Hunter: Once again, my hon. Friend not only anticipates my next point but makes it with greater clarity than I could have achieved. One can indeed speculate on the irony of the fact that Oliver Tambo and Lucas Mangope were contemporaries at the same school. Oliver Tambo chose the route to command an organisation which flirts with Marxism and murder. Lucas Mangope follows a road which seeks to implement democracy and capitalism, to encourage free enterprise and to enshrine human rights. I deeply regret that it was Oliver Tambo, and not Lucas Mangope, who had the opportunity to speak to the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunter: I will give way in due course.
  The third point, and perhaps the heart of the matter, is the relationship between the republic of South Africa and
  632
  Bophuthatswana. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said, we must dismiss irrelevance and double standards in argument. Dependence on South Africa by other southern African countries is regarded as a matter for regret and steps are taken to relieve it, but Bophuthatswana is rejected for it. As Lucas Mangope has said on more than one occasion, to a large extent the wealth of South Africa was built on the efforts, the labour and the land of his people, and he will bleed Pretoria for every last rand. I entirely endorse those sentiments.
  What are the intentions of the republic of South Africa towards Bophuthatswana? It is my belief that there has been a subtle change in thinking on this score. About 18 or 20 months ago, when we last debated Bophuthatswana, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly said that South Africa wished the world to give credence to its policy of grand apartheid. When the subject was raised again in May of this year, my right hon. Friend offered an alternative interpretation. It was that South Africa wished to retain control of Bophuthatswana. I concede that I find myself in agreement with her. I have talked many times and on many occasions to politicians, diplomats and civil servants of the Republic of South Africa. I have heard their protestations on international recognition for Bophuthatswana, but it is not my belief yet that the evidence substantiates that point of view. The thesis that I put to my right hon. Friend is simple. It is that international recognition of Bophuthatswana would arguably defeat rather than further the purposes of Pretoria.
  I shall conclude with three observations. First, there is the essential truth and justice of the historical cause of the southern Batswana. Secondly, our foreign policy is founded on a lack of accurate information and analysis. Thirdly, ultimately something has started that will not be stopped. It invokes the wrath and ridicule of Labour Members; so let that be. The southern Botswana have their historical cause and case. They seek to regain their independence. As the years pass, they obtain more and more friends. The other day Vice-President and Foreign Minister Rathebe said, "It is a long, long walk for the southern Batswana. They will walk every mile of it." They will not walk alone.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Bearing in mind some of the comments that have been made by Labour Members, I shall start by declaring an interest. I have had trips to South Africa that have been paid for by the South African Government. I have had trips to Bophuthatswana that have been paid for by the Bophuthatswanan Administration, probably with funding from the South African Government. I have had trips to Namibia that have been paid for by the interim Administration, probably helped also by the South African Government. I have been to other places in the world, and my trips have been paid for by the Governments of those other places.
  I maintain that after these funded trips I can be my own self and have my own thoughts along with my own mind. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House can maintain their independence in spite of trips of this sort. I do not think that I would have a point of view developed to the happiness of some of my hon. Friends and to the frustration of others if I had not made such trips.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Rathbone: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me.
  Mr. PawseyI shall indeed agree with you. If I may, I shall help with your argument. The fact that you have visited such countries gives you a much——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.
  Mr. Pawsey: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), because of his visits to other states, has a much better understanding of the systems that must exist in those countries. Therefore, he is better equipped to speak on these issues. That is one of the reasons why we are listening to him so intently.
  Mr. Rathbone: I thank my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Colvin: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is a pity that Opposition Members do not sometimes take up some of the invitations that are extended to them. If they were to do so, perhaps their understanding of the situation in southern Africa would be a great deal better than it is.
  Mr. Rathbone: I shall try to move on from my background and that of other people to the subject of the debate. I should add, however, that I have friends in all the countries I have visited and in many others as well.
  I fear that I must start by disagreeing in principle with what my honourable and very real Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has just said in his analysis of the past, the present and the future. I believe that from Bophuthatswana, as from many parts of the world that used to be painted red in our atlases, we must ask a good deal of foregiveness for the past. We must protect as far as we can good sense in southern Africa against the overpowering forces that oppose it. We must work for the establishment of the values of freedom—and most particularly total emancipation in that part of that continent—that we hold so dear in our country, and in others in the developing world.
  Having said all that, let me add that I consider it right of my hon. Friends to draw attention to some of the events, attitudes, values and habits in Bophuthatswana that are in stark contrast with those in the rest of the republic of South Africa. On the basis of one extremely short visit and one rather longer one, I believe that a real elimination of apartheid is taking place—electorally, socially, culturally and economically. It is marked by the economic vitality of many parts of Bophuthatswana, especially those that are quite near to Johannesburg. Bophuthatswana has a multiracial administration and press freedom, again in stark contrast with the rest of the republic. It was marked even then—and I am sure it is marked even more now—by the blocking of broadcasting by Bophuthatswana television and radio so that it could not reach the rest of South Africa.
  But there is also the downside. There are real doubts about political freedom in Bophuthatswana—probably no more than in many other black African countries, but there is certainly a smell of suppression of opposition parties and opposition thought. I cannot say more, because it is difficult to be precise.
  634
  As has already been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), Bophuthatswana depends terrifically on the republic of South Africa, despite the camouflage of the quasi-arm's-length attitude of South Africa towards Bophuthatswana and the creation of a pseudo-diplomatic relationship. For example, there is the pretence that the airport in Bophuthatswana is solely for the encouragement of tourism, when it is umpteen times larger than would be necessary for that and is part of the South African Government's total defence programme against the front-line states.
  Bophuthatswana also depends on the republic for police support—in intelligence if in nothing else, but I think that it must be in other respects as well. It depends on the republic for border policing, particularly along the border with Bophuthatswana. The republic accepts that this is a channel, a route for the ANC from the front-line states into South Africa, and is openly concerned. It makes no bones about it, so let us make no bones about it here.
  Mr. John Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: No. I shall progress, if I may. [Hon. Members: "Give way".] Unfortunately, my hon. Friends who were so kind as to say that they would listen intently because of my depth of knowledge—[Interruption.]——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We often hear opinions in the House with which we disagree. We should listen to the hon. Member with respect.
  Mr. Rathbone: I could not be more grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your arrival in the Chair and the respect that you show for a mere Back Bencher.
  There is also dependence on South Africa, not just for trade—trade between South Africa and the front-line states has been mentioned—but for fundamental economic support and hard cash.
  In addition, there is the Bophuthatswana Administration's attitude to the Swana who live elsewhere in the republic of South Africa. Are they part of Bophuthatswana? Are they part of the heritage, which has just been referred to? Are they not to be embraced in the collegiate total of this slowly emerging independent state? If it is an independent state, it should embrace them more than I understood to be the case when I visited Bophuthatswana not so very long ago.
  Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: I shall proceed, if I may. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to make his own points.
  There is also the question that has already been identified about what the republic of South Africa thinks is its relationship with Bophuthatswana. I honestly believe that it looks upon it as one of the homelands that one can see so clearly established. As soon as one drives across the so-called border between Bophuthatswana and the republic of South Africa one comes from and poor farmland into extremely well-tilled, good farmland. One can see the invidious nature of South Africa's homelands policy, under which I fear Bophuthatswana still suffers.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: I shall proceed, if I may. I want to give all my hon. Friends more time than would be the case if I were to give way to everybody now.
  Mr. Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way to me?
  Mr. Rathbone: I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Carlisle rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time.
  Mr. Rathbone: Never has there been on the Conservative Benches a greater mutual appreciation of the views of my hon. Friend and myself. I am sure that he will understand that I want to proceed.
  Therefore, there are two fundamental approaches to Bophuthatswana. Is it an independent state? I do not believe that it is. I believe that the Administration in Bophuthatswana are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to seek international recognition and, at the same time, trying to draw considerable cultural, economic and social support from the republic of South Africa.
  Secondly, is Bophuthatswana really trying to throw off the republic of South Africa's homelands policy? I do not think that it is. It is not ready to embrace all the people that it wants to, and should, embrace—the Swana people who live elsewhere in the republic of South Africa.
  Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: No, I shall not give way.
  However, I would urge one extra point upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for consideration. If we do not recognise Bophuthatswana as an independent state, we must be even-handed about that region of the republic of South Africa and treat it as part of the republic of South Africa. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke illustrated that well in the points that he made about the lack of knowledge about Bophuthatswana which he found in our embassy in the republic of South Africa.
  I clearly remember an absolutely fascinating and excellent nursery teacher training school in Mafeking, where a woman was doing a most marvellous job teaching nursery teachers. She was not able to apply to our embassy for the overseas development grants which were available to similar schools within the republic of South Africa because Bophuthatswana was considered separate from the rest of South Africa. If we are to regard it as part of South Africa, as I believe we should, those people should be able to draw upon or at least to apply for the funds that we make available.
  Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend said that he wanted to be even-handed. I accept much of what he has said this evening in his description of the country of Bophuthatswana. Does he agree that his description of that country, and its dependence on South Africa, is mirrored by so many states in that region, as was outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)? In those circumstances, in his anxiety to be even-handed, how can he say that Bophuthatswana should be treated differently from those other states?
  Mr. Rathbone: I am sorry that I gave way, not because my hon. Friend did not make a point, but because I had covered that point earlier. I drew the difference between
  636
  Bophuthatswana and the front-line states, to which my hon. Friend was probably referring, which of course have trading relationships across the border. Given the economic power that exists in the southern tip of Africa, it would be impossible for that to be otherwise. That is a pity, but in the area of Bophuthatswana it is not just a question of trade. It involves the magnificent and egalitarian factories which exist in the eastern island which make up Bophuthatswana and the underpinning by hard cash grants from the republic of South Africa. So it is not really a comparable point.
  Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friend has spoken for nearly 20 minutes.
  Mr. Rathbone: I have spoken for this time only because other hon. Members have intervened and I shall continue to make my points. It was churlish of my hon. Friend to say that.
  The Foreign Office and the Minister should bear in mind whether recognition will further the all-important fight against apartheid and bring sense to the continuing senseless attitudes of the South African Government and lead them to embrace reform. I fear that movement towards recognition would not do anything to further reform in the republic of South Africa but might inhibit it. The Minister should be wary about espousing political action on the basis of protecting economic interests. It is not sufficient for this country to recognise the existence of another country purely on the basis that we have economic interests in that area.
  Contrary to the inclinations of my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and for Basingstoke, and I fear other hon. Friends, it is premature at best to start taking steps towards recognition of Bophuthatswana as an independent state. At worst, that could be interpreted as support for the South African homelands policy and the South African Government's policy of maintaining the core and essence of apartheid which we all loathe.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. George Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on having the courage to go and look at Bophuthatswana for himself a couple of years ago and for acknowledging some of the merits of that country. It is sad that his visit there was so short. Had it not been, he might have reached rather different conclusions. Perhaps he will rectify that in future. Unfortunately, he probably prepared most of his speech before hearing the speech of our hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who answered many of his points before he made them.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the opportunity to debate this emerging subject. He spoke of a paradox, and so it is. If most of us were asked what we would regard as the ideal political accommodation in southern Africa, we should say that we wanted a country or state in which apartheid had been swept away, where there were full political rights for the different races and where black and whites worked together in a Government who exploited the free market economy for the benefit of their citizens. In Bophuthatswana we find a country that has won its independence and created a state in which all these features are present, but its people are treated as if they were pariahs in southern Africa.

  637
  Foreign Office Ministers have described Bophuthatswana as a child of apartheid. That is a gross insult to the people who live there. Certainly their independence came about as a result of the black homelands policy of the South African Government of the day, but there was a convergence of interests. The policy of the white Government gave black Swanas the opportunities for which they had yearned since the days when a British Government drew an artificial line on the map in the last century and sold out those on one side of it to the Crown colony of the Cape. These people saw the homelands policy as at least a chance to regain their independence, and took it.
  Ethnic groupings across Europe seized their chance when the first world war caused the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Those were, perhaps, more enlightened times than now, for then we gave those European nations our blessing, but there is no such luck now for the Swana people. The Foreign Office regards their country as a child of apartheid and it is therefore barred from recognition for ever.
  People who go to Bophuthatswana, as several of my hon. Friends have done, and speak to its citizens do not find that they regard themselves as children of apartheid. They see themselves as running their own territory according to their wishes. I am puzzled about what my right hon. Friend the Minister would say if she met some leaders from that country—that is, after they had managed to get past the "no entry for the children of apartheid here" signs outside her office. What would she urge them to do? Would she urge them to renounce their independence and return to the jurisdiction of the South African Government, who as yet include no black members? Would she urge them to subject themselves to the Group Areas Act? Of course not. I have far more understanding of and sympathy with my right hon. Friend than to imagine that she would. But what could she say to them? The question illustrates the blind inhumanity of the Foreign Office position, which would be revealed in any such conversation.
  Not many hon. Members would expect my right hon. Friend to recognise Bophuthatswana as independent. It is our historical duty to help other Western countries to recognise what the Swana people have achieved. If my right hon. Friend consults her European colleagues, she will find that Dr. Strauss had something to say about this matter not very long ago. Those of us who have visited Bophuthatswana and met politicians from Germany, France and Italy know that they are taking an interest in its development and, probably out of the corner of their eyes, considering commercial possibilities.
  The debate has shown that the movements to recognise Bophuthatswana are under way and that it is well and truly on the political agenda here as well as in other European countries. I say to my right hon. Friend, in a spirit of friendliness, that, whatever old prejudices still lurk in the Foreign Office, the subject will not go away.
  10 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: We are living in exciting times of movement in foreign affairs. Following the super-power summit in May, we have seen signs that the Iran-Iraq war is coming to an end, Vietnamese troops
  638
  withdrawing from Kampuchea, Soviet troops withdraw-ing from Afghanistan and the possible extension of the anti-ballistic missiles treaty.
  There has been movement all around the globe, yet in the debate, in parliamentary questions and in a number of Adjournment debates, Conservative Members have shown interest in six land-locked enclaves within the republic of South Africa. Somebody is bound to ask about that sense of priorities. What provides Conservative Members with such an obsessive interest in those six land-locked enclaves in South Africa?
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Anderson: Not yet; let me get under way.
  I accept the nice tones in which the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) introduced the debate, and all Conservative Members are honourable gentlemen. They have been brought up well. They were probably taught at their mother's knee that if one receives gifts one must say "Thank you." This is their way of saying "Thank you." We know that there is a well-financed lobby——
  Mr. Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Anderson: I exclude the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) from any lobby—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I did not hear the word "hypocrite."
  Mr. Anderson: It is a sad fact of political life that there is a well-financed lobby. I say, in all helpfulness, to Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate that their strong advocacy——
  Mr. Hunter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that Conservative Members have been bribed and that as a result their judgment has been influenced?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that allegation. It certainly would not be in order for such an allegation to be made.
  Mr. Anderson: I said, in all charity, that Conservative Members, as honourable gentleman, must pay, in some form, for the rather pleasant trips that they have had. Their advocacy of Bophuthatswana would be immeasurably strengthened if, from time to time, even a word of criticism of the South African regime were to escape from their mouths. If, for example, any Conservative Member were to criticise the bloody incursions of South Africa into Botswana——
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Anderson: No.
  Their advocacy would be strengthened if there were one word of criticism of the detention without trial of many progressive black leaders in South Africa. The fact that there is no such criticism gives some indication of those who form part of the Bophuthatswana lobby.
  There is a Bophuthatswana tendency in the House which must be of considerable embarrassment to the Minister of State. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Lewes sprang gallantly to her defence. If he had not, her back would have been exposed. The Minister was brave to go into the meeting of the so-called all-party Bophuthatswana group, which may have an Ulster Unionist Member but it certainly has no Labour Member on it. I confess that I feared for her safety at one stage.

  639
  However, we know that she can look after herself. The group was hoping to roast her, but the lady was not for burning.
  There is what, in South African terms, would be called the Bitterendes or the Verkrampte tendency among Conservative Members.
  Mr. Gardiner rose——
  Mr. Anderson: At least on this issue the perception of Opposition Front Bench Members does not differ markedly from that of the Government.
  We see the origin of Bophuthatswana as part of the Verwoerd strategy to create Bantustans. That is shown graphically on page 23 of the report by the Eminent Persons Group. I recommend that Conservative Members read that report—[Interruption.]I will not exchange insults with the star on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
  The motive of the Bantustan policy was to deprive black South African citizens of their citizenship. In 1977 the Status of Bophuthatswana Act was passed and all residents were deprived of South African citizenship. How well founded is the claim to independence? On 7 July 1988, The Weekly Mail in South Africa pointed out that the number of personnel from South Africa seconded to key posts within the Bophuthatswana Administration was 299. It gave the amount of financial assistance to the four Bantustan so-called independent states. It said that the South African Government have guaranteed bank loans of 1·3 million rand to cover the budget deficits in the four independent homelands over the past two financial years. Pik Botha told the Parliament that the total estimated overdraft facilities taken by the four independent homelands was 1·081 billion rand.
  Mr. Watts rose——
  Mr. Anderson: There was clearly a substantial financial dependence. In terms of jobs, two thirds of the labour force commutes daily to South Africa and 56 per cent. of the gross domestic product derives from migrant workers. Militarily, we know the position of Brigadier Hennie Riekert, the former South African Defence Force officer. Politically South Africa is the only friend in the world of Bophuthatswana and it seeks, by bullying neighbouring states, to coerce them into accepting the independence of Bophuthatswana.
  The examples that one can give are of the so-called BLS states—Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland—which, when they tried to renegotiate the South African customs union, were told by South Africa that, first, they had to accept the recognition of Bophuthatswana. With the trains to Botswana through Bophuthatswana, South Africa tried to insist on the acceptance of documentation that would have meant acceptance of the recognition of Bophuthatswana. On other occasions, Botswana has criticised the poaching of industries to the heavily subsidised part of Bophuthatswana.
  The claim to independence is placed in question by the events surrounding the abortive coup in February this year. The New Nation of 11 February described the debate between the Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, and the finance ministries about whether South Africa should have intervened earlier to deal with the corruption of Mr. Mangope. It quoted Professor Keenan of Wits university, and said:
  640
  "According to Keenan foreign affairs valued Mangope's strong links and good relations with right-wing elements in Germany and other West European countries. Mangope's value to foreign affairs is said to have outweighed any embarrassment that could have been caused to Pretoria by his involvement in alleged corruption."
  Of course, Right-wing Ultra groups in West Germany and Britain form part of the lobby in favour of Bophuthatswana.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Name them.
  Mr. Anderson: Some of them have named themselves.
  Mr. Mangope had just been re-elected before the abortive coup in February—in a democratic election with a poll of 0·6 per cent. ——
  Mr. Hunter: That is absolutely incorrect.
  Mr. Anderson: The Weekly Mail of 12 February quoted President Botha, after the coup, as saying:
  "We are tonight back in full control"—
  a very Pavlovian slip. He thought that he had better alter that, and he said:
  "The President of Bophuthatswana is in full control."
  What would be the effect if Britain recognised those six enclaves in South Africa? First, it would be a mark of approval for South Africa in general, and its Bantustan policy in particular—too much for even our Prime Minister. Secondly, it would run counter to the views of all our allies in the Commonwealth and the European Community. Thirdly, it would be a giant step away from out declared aim of a united, democratic and non-racial South Africa, to which the Government are committed.
  The Government realise that they are going against the tide and are in real danger of being even further isolated in the world as a result of their South African policy. I think not only of the recent decisions of Prime Minister Rocard, but of developments in the United States, which are causing considerable concern to the Government because of their clear message that the British Administration will be isolated. The Prime Minister is prepared to meet Mr. Buthelezi; she is not prepared too meet Mr. Tambo. That sends its own message.
  The Opposition congratulate those sportsmen and musicians who reject the wages of "Sin City". We praise musicians such as Jim Keer of the group Simple Minds, and the group Dire Straits. We are pleased to note in The Independent today that Seve Ballesteros, the British Open golf champion, has said in terms that he will never visit Bophuthatswana to compete in the £1 million challenge golf cup in Sun City. It was won last year by Ian Woosnam, who I hope will see the error of his ways.
  Finally, the Opposition stand by the members of the front-line states, especially Bostwana, which has refused to yield to the economic pressures forced on it by South Africa, which wants international recognition of that part of its territory for its own purposes as part of its greater apartheid policy.
  10.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Offlce (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I have listened with interest to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). Let me make no bones about it: we are very much aware of the deep interest that many hon. Members have in Bophuthatswana and the well-being of the people in Bophuthatswana whom, in all sincerity, they wish to help.

  641
  There is not sometimes so much dividing us on this issue as some of my hon. Friends would have made out tonight. However, there is undoubtedly one central question, as we have heard during the debate, which divides us. Some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, believe that the Government should recognise Bophuthatswana as an independent state. I listened very carefully to what my hon. Friends have said this evening. I hope that they will hear me out because I say this in all sincerity. I should like to see a way to change the position which is plainly seen by my hon. Friends to be unsatisfactory for the people of Bophuthatswana. However, I must recognise what lies in international law and realise what has happened through history.
  History causes this Government to describe Bophuthatswana as having developed from the policy of grand apartheid initiated by Dr. Verwoerd. It was created as a key element in that policy of separate development. All the homelands in South Africa were born out of apartheid. By that they live together within their areas as if they were multiracial. However, that can be deceptive. Those who live in the homelands cannot live freely in the rest of South Africa. We must look at this very carefully and with sympathy for those who want to improve the lot of all people in South Africa, whether in the homelands or elsewhere in the republic.
  This Government's policy is in line with that of the international community at large. Our policy is to oppose the design of a divided and separated South Africa. Only the South African Government think otherwise. South Africa is the only country in the world which recognises Bophuthatswana as an independent state.
  I believe that there is something in the unanimity of the international community. That is a unanimity of attitude which has nothing to do with being blind to the facts or with not listening to the needs of the people. There is an anxiety about what would be imprinted for the future if Bophuthatswana were to be recognised internationally as independent. That unanimity is there for all to see.
  I know that my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight are as fully opposed to apartheid in all its manifestations as they could be. The Government are fully opposed to all apartheid whether it be part of some master plan or practised—as it is regrettably still practised—in the republic of South Africa. We cannot recognise as an independent state a homeland that is part of that master plan. Bophuthatswana does not meet the criteria for recognition as an independent state that have been followed by successive British Governments. Those criteria are based on international law.
  With others we have supported UN resolutions and statements, which deny recognition to Bophuthatswana. More than all that, and, more importantly, is my duty as a British Minister to examine what British interest would be served by identifying ourselves alone with the South African Government on this issue. Some hon. Members have argued that there are aspects of Bophuthatswana that are sufficient to make the case for recognition. Tonight some hon. Members have referred to visiting European politicians, who may have some sympathy with people in Bophuthatswana. None of the European Governments, whatever individual politicians may say or do—not the
  642
  Government of Franz Josef Strauss nor the Government of France, before or since the recent election—recognises Bophuthatswana.
  I hope that hon. Members will understand that Britain, especially, wants to help, but it would be wrong to lead international opinion in the direction of granting recognition, because it would put our view on a par with that of the republic of South Africa.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose——
  Mr. John Carlisle rose——
  Mrs. Chalker: I say quite clearly that, whatever the case that hon. Members believe can be made for the existence of a democratic, non-racialist society in Bophuthatswana, those are not the points that are central to the Government's reasoning for not recognising Bophuthatswana.
  Mr. Winterton: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and to the debate. As my right hon. Friend is aware, this is an area of southern Africa about which I am deeply concerned. Will she advise the House how the south Tswana people can achieve independence, because it was the United Kingdom which put them in what is the republic of South Africa today? It craved independence. It has started on that trail to independence. Does she not believe that a move towards greater recognition of its status would enable it to consolidate the areas of Bophuthatswana and therefore enable it more ably to become the sort of independent nation with integrity about which she is talking?
  Mrs. Chalker: I recognise my hon. Friend's frustration. His question was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).
  The point is that we must end apartheid throughout South Africa. It is in the ending of apartheid that the people, including those in the front-line states——
  Mr. Dicks: It is about time we heard something about that.
  Mrs. Chalker: This debate is on Bophuthatswana, and I shall stick to that.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that the recognition of the independent nature of the individual people in Bophuthatswana is a matter of international law. It is not about the individuals in that country for whom he and the rest of us feel very deeply. Many others in the republic of South Africa are in very much the same position intellectually, and wish to achieve the same, but they are not in Bophuthatswana. Therefore, we must achieve the ending of apartheid throughout the republic of South Africa. There will then be leadership from the very sort of people that my hon. Friends have been talking about in Bophuthatswana, many of whom are practising——
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: I have very little time and I have a lot of questions to answer. If I give way, I shall not be able to answer all the questions.
  I was saying that the Government's position on recognition is quite straightforward. We are executing a policy of non-recognition, but we know that that is not free of difficulty. Like others in the international community, we want to know as much as we possibly can

  643
  about what is happening in Bophuthatswana—and, lest I be accused of over-concentrating on the homeland, in the rest of the republic.
  Some of my hon. Friends have said that we do not have the right sort of information, but whenever I have found information lacking, we have gone back to find it. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends were not happy, when they made a visit earlier this year, that they could not meet the ambassador. I agree that it was unfortunate, but he happened to be in Cape Town and they were in Pretoria. They met a new Minister who was in Pretoria. I can pass on to them an invitation from Her Majesty's ambassador in Pretoria that he will welcome the chance to discuss this and other issues with them when they visit South Africa again shortly. The ambassador and all his staff are under strict instructions to be fully in touch, and they are.
  Mr. John Watts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: They supply information all the time.
  Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: No. I must keep going; otherwise, I cannot get through all the points that have been made.
  Mr. Watts: It is not true.
  Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend accuses me of having told the House an untruth. I can assure him that I know what goes on between my Department and the ambassador in South Africa.
  Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: I should explain to my hon. Friend that, whatever impression he has formed, it is unfortunate because it is not correct.
  Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: No. I am sorry, but I shall continue with my speech.
  Mr. Dicks: This is the Foreign Office view.
  Mrs. Chalker: It is easy for my hon. Friends to advise that we should take actions which they think are simple and straightforward, but they would be open to misinterpretation. That is why we are careful and thorough about how we go about ensuring that we are as well informed as possible. We have taken steps to improve our knowledge. I remember a debate in the House in 1986, when I was asked about British Council money being available for people in Bophuthatswana. The question was a complete surprise to me. I went away and found out what was happening and corrected any error immediately. I shall always do that. It was not the Government's intention to mislead the House.
  The information that we collect is obviously constrained by the contacts that we can have. I would not have thought that that was the cause of any surprise. The contacts that we have have to be circumscribed by non-recognition of Bophuthatswana as an independent state, but we aim as far as possible——
  Mr. Dicks: The Government speak to terrorists in the ANC.
  Mrs. Chalker: —to cover as wide a cross-sectiori of people in Bophuthatswana as possible, because that enables us to assist disadvantaged black people in that homeland.
  I have already told hon. Members who came to the meeting last week that if there are projects which should be undertaken, the people of Bophuthatswana are just as able to be helped through our projects as people in other parts of the Republic of South Africa.
  Mr. Hunter rose——
  Mrs. Chalker: We will continue to do that.
  Mr. Hunter rose——
  Mrs. Chalker: All suggestions for new projects suitable for assistance, whether inside or outside Bophuthatswana, which hon. Members put to me I shall pass to my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is listening to the debate. We shall examine them with care and, when we can help, we shall.
  Mr. Hunter: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, as the debate is drawing to an end. I note the absence from her speech so far of any reference to the historical responsibility of the United Kingdom for the southern Batswana being incorporated into South Africa. Before the debate ends, will she make a passing reference to the fact that, as a result of British policy, the southern Batswana are now in South Africa?
  Mrs. Chalker: Not all the southern Batswana are in Bophuthatswana. We covered this point in the 1986 debate and on other occasions. If we could solve this problern by turning back the pages of the history books, it would have happened long ago, but that cannot be done. It would be simple for my hon. Friend to say that he recognises the homeland of Bophuthatswana, but if he did, he would do so in the company of the republic of South Africa alone.
  Another question put to me repeatedly has been whether we are prepared to help candidates from Bophuthatswana to take up scholarships. It does not seem widely known that they are eligible to apply for scholarships in exactly the same way as other applicants from the rest of South Africa. We shall continue to ensure that that happens.
  History has taught us that what happens in other countries, even where once we had a clear writ, cannot be changed. We have to face the situation in South Africa as it is. The Government believe that Bophuthatswana and the other homelands will find their future in South Africa once apartheid has been abolished. It is the abolition of apartheid that must be the aim and main purpose of British policy.
  Several of my hon. Friends referred to the speech given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Royal Commonwealth Society. It detailed fully our overall policy towards South Africa. We want to see apartheid ended. We want to see it not merely reformed but abolished altogether, and soon. Our policy on Bophuthatswana cannot be isolated from our policy towards South Africa as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is part of South Africa, and we cannol legally recognise it as anything else.
  South Africa as a country has enormous potential, as has Bophuthatswana within South Africa, but that is where it is. We wish to see it develop along with all the

  645
  other areas around the homelands. I know that hon. Members are anxious about this and that they will not give up, but the best help that we can give the people of Bophuthatswana is to encourage fundamental change throughout South Africa which will lead to a unified,
  646
  non-racial and representative Government in South Africa, and that will also include all the people of Bophuthatswana. We want to see that country free of apartheid——
  In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c.19.]—the debate was conclude.

  Yorkshire and Humberside (Economy)
  10.33 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I hope that Conservative Members will take as much interest in this debate on a region of this country as they did in the preceding lengthy discussion about an obscure and somewhat dubious country in southern Africa. But, as the Benches opposite have completely cleared, I doubt whether that will be the case. It amazes me to see their interest in a particularly dubious country and certainly their lack of interest in a most important region of their own country.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate on the economy of Yorkshire and Humberside. It would have been remiss of the House to go through the first Session after a general election without having a detailed debate on one of this country's most important regions.
  I am reminded of a cartoon that appeared on the front page of The Guardian the day after the general election. It depicted a ship, Great Britain, broken into two parts—the north and the south. It showed the passengers on the southern part of the broken ship telling Captain Thatcher, "Sod the others; lets keep going." To me, that cartoon encapsulates much of the Government's attitude to the north, and in particular to areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside.
  I propose to draw attention to detailed evidence of very real regional differences that have been added to significantly by the present Government's policies. In particular, I shall consider the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside, and concentrate on my own home area of West Yorkshire and the Wakefield district, although I know that some of my hon. Friends will wish to comment on South Yorkshire and other parts of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. This Government have an appalling record of neglect of the north of England. They have effectively washed their hands of any real concern for the economy and future of the north of England, and of Yorkshire and Humberside in particular.
  There has been much debate about whether there is such a thing as a north-south divide. Having spent a lot of time in the south of England since the general election, I know that there are major divisions in London and the south-east—between rich and poor, between the haves and the have-nots—and those divisions have been added to by the Government's policies.
  I shall quote at some length from two academic reports that examined the issue of the north-south divide. A report, written by Gudgin and Schofield for the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre in November 1987, says:
  "it remains true that employment opportunities are on average much more restricted in the northern half of the UK … than in the southern half. Consequently the poverty associated with high unemployment is concentrated in these same regions."
  The report goes on to say:
  "Anticipated growth in national output is sufficient to allow expansion in all parts of the UK. This is not the case however for either employment or population. Large parts of the Industrial North and Periphery are expected to lose rather than gain jobs between now and the year 2000."
  Again it states:
  "What this amounts to is a strengthening of the North-South divide which has become increasingly evident
  648
  since the end of the long postwar boom in the mid 1970s. The future contrast is likely to be between a booming southern half of the country and a slowly declining northern half."
  All the evidence in that report and in others suggests that Government policy is adding to the divisions.
  A more recent report by Champion and Green which emerged in January this year, entitled "Local Prosperity and the North-South Divide," says:
  "The most striking result that emerges continually from this analysis is the great extent of the North-South divide. The Amalgamated Index scores reveal an even clearer cleavage on this dimension than did the index developed in the previous study."
  That was in 1985.
  "All the 35 highest-scoring places … have been found to lie on or south of a line between the Severn estuary and Lincolnshire".
  The report continues:
  "Over the rest of the country, the poor performance of the principal industrial concentrations remains evident".
  In particular, the report refers to the sharp deterioration in the South Yorkshire area, to which some of my hon. Friends will refer later.
  The report states:
  "the main weight of the evidence points to the North-South divide as the primary dimension in variations in economic health across Britain at the level of the Local Labour Market Area and it also shows that, despite the above observations, the general trend in the 1980s has been a widening of this gap."
  The report concludes:
  "the problems of the major urban areas and smaller industrial and mining settlements in the north must be solved in situ, or else their regions will gradually wither away."
  Mr. Barry Field rose——
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, he must catch Mr. Speaker's eye and make his own comments.
  I have today obtained from the Library the official employment statistics for the Yorkshire and Humberside region. They show that since 1979 male employment in the region has fallen by 201,000, or nearly 17 per cent., and, while female employment has increased by 0·1 per cent., that has been due to increased part-time working. I shall refer later to the implications of that in terms of low pay.
  Real figures relating to unemployment are no longer kept, but even the official figures, which have been adjusted downwards perhaps 20 times and which therefore do not tell the whole truth, show that, allowing for discontinuities and seasonal trends, unemployment in June 1988 was twice what it was in June 1979, when the Conservatives came to power. In April 1988, the latest month for which such figures are available, the proportion of those unemployed in the region for a year or longer, at 41·6 per cent. made it the fifth highest in the country. At 33·7 per cent., the proportion of the unemployed aged under 25 was also higher than the national average, being second only to Scotland.
  The standard of living figures, measured by per capita GDP, show that Yorkshire and Humberside have consistently been below the United Kingdom national average for the last eight years. The level of investment in manufacturing per employee—a significant factor when considering the products of the region—has been significantly lower than elsewhere in Britain. In 1987 it was £1,284 compared with the national average of £1.500.
  Low pay is an issue of vital concern to hon. Members who represent West Yorkshire constituencies. The

  649
  regional trend figures for 1988 show that, across the board, earnings in Yorkshire and Humberside were well below the national average. I shall quote from two objective and academic reports prepared by the West Yorkshire Low Pay Unit. Having examined the Council of Europe decency threshold for wages, the unit reported that the county had fallen to the bottom of the national pay league.
  For example, it discovered that one third of the total full-time work force in the area was low-paid by the standards of that threshold. For part-timers the position was even more desperate, with over 80 per cent. falling into the low-paid category when assessed on an hourly rate. The unit reported that, since 1979, the proportion of the male work force in West Yorkshire receiving low wages had more than doubled, with just under one fifth of full-time adult male workers being low-paid.
  For full-time women workers there has been little change in a far more serious problem, with just under 60 per cent. low paid in the West Yorkshire area. Since 1979, average wage levels in West Yorkshire have fallen relative to the British average and the region is now bottom of the pay league with the worst low-pay problem of all nine urban industrial regions in Britain.
  In the last few days a case was brought to my attention of a young lady of 18 working as a care worker in a private home for aged persons in Huddersfield being paid a grand total of 50p per hour. That is a disgrace, but that is the reality of the enterprise culture generated by the Government.
  In the light of cases like that, one must also consider the extent of illegal underpayment—an issue about which I am deeply concerned in West Yorkshire. Wages inspectorate visits to firms in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1987 found that 26·6 per cent. of workplaces were not paying the legal rate for the job. The total amount owed to workers, such as the young lady whom I mentioned, was £161,225 in that year alone. Yorkshire and Humberside also had the highest percentage wages debt of any region in the country, 42 per cent. of the debt being unpaid.
  Interestingly, however, the total number of prosecutions fell significantly, from 16 in 1978 to nine in 1987—no doubt due to deliberate Government policy in support of a free market in wages. There has also been a deliberate attempt to undermine the role of the wages inspectorate region by region. In Yorkshire and Humberside the number of inspectors has been reduced from 14 in 1979 to just seven in 1987.
  In my area of West Yorkshire there is particular concern about two industries—textiles and coal—and no doubt colleagues with greater knowledge will wish to add to my comments on those industries. Ten years ago the textile industry nationally employed 405,800 people. Since then, the figure has been reduced by 45 per cent. The Silberston report of 1984 highlighted the precarious future of the textile and clothing industries in the United Kingdom, suggesting that 50,000 jobs might be lost by 1990.
  We know to our cost that many of those predictions have already come true. The National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers claimed that 90,000 jobs would be lost following renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement in 1986, and there has been a huge impact on job losses in West Yorkshire. Many Members present for this debate
  650
  have experienced greater problems with this than I have in Wakefield, but it is clear that the establishment of a textile closure area in West Yorkshire has only partly slowed down and still constitutes a major problem.
  In September last year a joint report was produced by the councils of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield on the European regional development fund quota assistance scheme. The report states:
  "the Non-Quota schemes … have not been sufficient to cope with the area's needs and potential for restructuring. The objectives of the ERDS Non-Quota measures relating to countering high levels of unemployment in textile and clothing zones, and improving the unfavourable physical environment … have not been fully achieved. The background continuing vulnerability of the economy and decaying infrastructure have shown that the schemes have been well-intentioned and effective at a micro-economic scale, but have failed at this stage to exploit opportunities to the full and to influence the development of the macro-economy."
  Having had discussions with the managemets and unions of firms in my constituency, I am aware of the views of those in the textile industry of Government's policy. Only recently I met the management of Poppleton's in Horbury in my constituency, which left me with no doubt that it considers that the Government have made a disgraceful attack on the textile industry. It considers that the industry has been allowed to be swamped by dumped products and to go to the wall. That has been the case in West Yorkshire.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Government have failed to press the EEC Commission to stop the import of Turkish yarn into the United Kingdom, which has cost nearly 600 jobs in Bradford in the past five months? I am sure that it will cause jobs to be lost in other areas of the textile industry in West Yorkshire.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is correct. That issue was referred to in the discussions that I had only a few weeks ago with the company that is now closed. It was concerned about the way in which the Government had handled the import of Turkish yarn.
  I have spoken in this Chamber about the coal industry on several occasions. The industry is of direct concern to me in my constituency, as it is to other hon. Members who are in their places tonight. I shall draw attention to the problems faced by the Wakefield district as a result of the deliberate attack on and rundown of the industry in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and elsewhere. In 1981, in Wakefield district, there were 17,000 employed in mining in 18 pits. There are now 6,000 employed at five pits. Nearly 2,500 jobs have gone so far this year. The implications for individual families and communities must be obvious to all who are present tonight.
  Often overlooked are the knock-on effects of job losses elsewhere in local industry, including service industries. Three major engineering companies in my constituency have been badly affected. There seems to be a lack of perception of the way in which pit closures have a knock-on effect in the engineering industry and the retail trade. Numerous small firms within my constituency provide services as subcontractors to engineering companies and the collieries themselves. We see also what happens to the retail trade within the service sector—this is what is called the local expenditure multiplier effect— when pits close. Even jobs in corner shops are part and parcel of the local economy, which should be taken into

  651
  account when pit closures take place. In my constituency, nearly 1,500 jobs have been lost in the service sector as a result of pit closures since 1979.
  When the Government discuss the coal industry they refer constantly to the public cost of keeping open certain pits that they deem in some instances to be uneconomic. I never cease to marvel at the amount of public money that is used to keep miners unemployed. I shall refer to a report, published recently, which was produced by Kathy O'Donnell of Leeds university for the Wakefield district council. That report deals with the effects of pit closures in the Wakefield area in recent years.
  Kathy O'Donnell examined the cost to the public since March 1985, the end of the miners' strike, of pit closures in the Wakefield district. She claims that it cost British Coal £65 million in redundancy payments. It cost Wakefield district council £5·5 million because of the reduction in rate income from collieries and increased demands for services from unemployed miners. It cost central Government £169 million in redundancy and benefit payments. It cost the EC £884,000 in contributions to redundancy schemes. A total of £241 million has been spent since March 1985 to keep people unemployed. That is economic nonsense. The money could have been invested in job creation rather than wasted on unemployment.
  In my area, and elsewhere in West Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humberside, there is deep concern about the coal industry's future under the present Government. Only this week the all-party Select Committee on Energy referred to the implications of electricity privatisation, mentioning the uneven treatment given to nuclear energy and coal:
  "The problems of nuclear have been glossed over while there has becn an emotional hostility towards thc coal industry".
  During the last financial year, British Coal sold 77 per cent. of its output to the electricity supply industry. The seriousness of the implications for coal are obvious to anyone. According to a report earlier this year by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, 73 per cent. of jobs in the coal industry depend directly on sales to the electricity supply industry. At national level, those sales account for 98,765 jobs. In North Yorkshire, which relates directly to the Wakefield district, where 87 per cent. of output goes to the CEGB for generation, such sales support about 12,500 jobs. In Wakefield metropolitan district alone, the figure is 5,266.
  Two very dubious private Bills, now going through the House, are designed to increase capacity for the importing of coal from countries such as South Africa. No doubt Conservative Members will support that move. But what are the implications for West and South Yorkshire of allowing the CEGB to import 8 million tonnes of coal to the Trent and Yorkshire power stations? The Coalfield Communities Campaign estimates that if imports proceed at projected levels, 36 collieries will close, with a loss of 51,544 jobs. The Yorkshire coalfield would be virtually wiped out.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Was not the EECs refusal to fund the project on Humberside a direct recognition of the damage that it could do to other parts of the region?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is quite correct. It is a disgrace that the Government have supported—as they
  652
  clearly have—what was supposedly a private measure. We have noted that certain prominent members of the Government have been present to support those Bills.
  I understand that I have been on my feet for rather a long time, so I shall draw my remarks to a rapid conclusion. As well as destroying industry in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, the Government have directly attacked the region's capacity to attract inward investment. An example is the scrapping in 1982 of the industrial development certificate system, which directly prevented the movement of firms from south to north to generate jobs in areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside.
  In my own area, Wakefield district, assisted area status was removed in 1982. Urban development grants, which were previously used to generate employment, have been taken away. The Government have hammered local authorities' capacity to assist the generation of indus try at local level.
  The fortunes of the coal and textile industries in Yorkshire—especially in West Yorkshire—and Humberside are ample evidence of an economic strategy based on unbridled market forces. Large parts of those regions have been written offby a philosophy that believes that it makes more sense to pay people not to work rather than to invest and create the conditions for job generation.
  Last month the Association of Yorkshire and Humberside Chambers of Commerce published a report on the "Yorkshire and Humberside Eurolink", which makes interesting reading. That report states:
  "Our conclusion is that, left to themselves, market forces are unlikely to generate more than a patchy response to the region's infrastructure needs. In the course of our discussions, the region's Chambers have identified a number of priorities in terms of infrastructure."
  That report discusses in detail the need for public investment in air transport, in the road network, in the railways, in water mains, sewers, factory premises and sites. Those are areas that the Government should address and it is their own supporters, the business men, who are trying to get that message across.
  The people of Wakefield, Yorkshire and Humberside, want to work, and it would make economic sense for the Government to enable them to do so.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: I should be understating the case if I said that I differ from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). The picture of Yorkshire and Humberside that he has painted is peculiar to his perceptions and not an accurate representation of the area.
  The economy of Yorkshire and Humberside is dependent upon several factors, including the availability and quality of the labour force. I assure the House tbat, on both counts, the regions' scores are excellent. The economy also depends upon industry investing, creating employment and making profit on its investment—the hon. Member for Wakefield may consider profit a rude word. The region and its people must have self-confidence and generate confidence in outsiders. To succeed, the region must be able to offer factory sites, housing and land, which must be affordable. The region must have good communications by road, rail, sea and air. It must have a decent environment and welcome visitors. I submit to the House that the Yorkshire and Humberside region possesses all those qualities.

  653
  Bryan Gould, writing about the inner cities in volume two of the magazine Agenda——
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould),
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) realises his mistake.
  Mr. Patnick: I meant no insult to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) but I must tell that hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that there is nothing in the magazine to say that he is a Member of Parliament. The magazine just has his picture and his name.
  In that magazine the hon. Gentleman states:
  "In both Birmingham and Sheffield Labour councils have teamed up with local business and the voluntary sector to produce exciting redevelopment schemes. Independent and experienced consultants have commended the plans. Each interested group stands to gain from a go ahead and so the real beneficiaries will be the local community as a whole who will see balanced developments comprising housing and economic activity, community facilities and new entertainment and transport links—so much better than the unbalanced developments that have given vast soulless commercial centres that close down at six or large housing estates with nothing for young people to do."
  Yorkshire and Humberside needs good communications. In a previous debate I referred to that region's links with Manchester airport, which is one of the main outlets for people from that region who wish to visit Europe and America.
  The Government have provided the Stockbridge bypass, which runs through the constituency of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), and is used by my constituents. A new motorway is not on the cards, but a new link between the M1 and the M62 is under active consideration.
  During my discussions with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Transport he said that he was prepared to contact the Peak national park, Derbyshire county council and Sheffield metropolitan district council to ascertain whether improvements could be made to black spots on Snake pass, the A57 and the Woodhead route. Obviously there is need to open up that area and improve Manchester airport. It is a gateway airport that provides a service to people in Yorkshire and Humberside, who can avoid the problems of having to travel south to Heathrow and Gatwick via the M1 roadworks and the overcrowded M25.
  A wider range of intercontinental services out of Manchester would be highly desirable to the business communities of Sheffield, Yorkshire and Humberside. The Minister said that Manchester airport was an important factor when considering the road network between Sheffield and Manchester. Northwest Airlines wishes to serve Boston from Manchester, and American Airlines and Pan-American wish to start New York services. The northern travelling community and those who visit the Yorkshire and Humberside area need those new services.
  In his consideration of the north-south divide, the hon. Member for Wakefield missed an article further on in Agenda, which was not written by a Member of Parliament and which states:
  "Looking south across the river from the Armstrong Centre the Metro Centre, symbol of the North East's recent
  654
  resurgence, shines out like a beacon. The largest out-of-town shopping development in Europe, it features miles of bright shopping malls that attract the shoppers by the coachload from all over the country. The Metro Centre represents a total investment of some £200 million".
  The article states that the developer
  "also hopes to get the go-ahead for a £50 million Metro Centre style complex in Middlesbrough"
  on a 100-acre site. I do not consider that an example of the north-south divide.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to recognise the north-south divide. In my constituency, which is just below the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is a division between the east and the west of that area, part of which is within the travel-to-work area of Sheffield. In Renishaw, where the pit is being closed, the unemployment rate was 18·6 per cent. in April and had risen by 2·3 per cent. since February. In Eckington south, unemployment is 17 per cent. and in Killamarsh it is 15·4 per cent. In the western part of my constituency unemployment is as low as 5 per cent. and falling in Gosforth Valley and in Dronfield. That reflects social division on a massive scale and shows that many of the problems mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) are endemic throughout south Yorkshire.
  Mr. Patnick: As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) managed to bring north-east Derbyshire into the debate on Northern Ireland, I suppose he can now move the east midlands a little further down the road into north Yorkshire and Humberside. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) usually speaks for the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Barron: I speak with no one's voice but my own. The hon. Gentleman complains about my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes), yet he spends two or three minutes talking about the metro centre in Newcastle, which is considerably further from Humberside and Yorkshire than north-east Derbyshire is.
  Mr. Patnick: I did not give the hon. Gentleman credit for being so quick. If he is a little more patient than usual, I shall explain why I used that example.
  Unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rother Valley is 14·2 per cent.; in that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, it is 11·6 per cent.; in that of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), 9·9 per cent.; and in that of the hon. Member for Wakefield, 11·3 per cent. I obtained those figures from the research note in the Library on unemployment in the constituencies.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know what unemployment in Halifax is. In 12 months' time the KP Foods factory there will close with 1,000 job losses, and the Rowntree factory "might not" close in two years' time but if it does 2,500 jobs will be lost.
  Mr. Patnick: Sheffield, Central has the fifth highest unemployment rate in the country—23·2 per cent. I know the facts and figures.
  I have spoken before about British Rail trains. The east coast main line to Donacaster is a fantastic line. It will soon be electrified. Money has been spent on it. The

  655
  London to Leeds service is due to open in October this year. Sadly, the line that Sheffield is on, the midland main line, can only be described as atrocious.
  When Sheffield had the huge steelworks, a vast number of employees had work. That work disappeared when the works closed down. Sheffield had its problems, and many people were unemployed. Small firms in Sheffield are now springing up, and a survey by the council—it is not of my political thinking—revealed that in the east end of Sheffield new firms were taking on employees, and council statistics show that unemployment in the Sheffield travel-to-work area is falling. [Interruption.]Do Opposition Members wish to intervene? If not, I shall continue.
  The official number of unemployed people in Sheffield is coming down—by 3,247 in one year, with the total down by 14 per cent. Success and development create activity that is contagious. Confidence is being restored and employment opportunities are becoming available. The effect is not confined to one area. It is spreading like the ripples of a pebble thrown into a pond and benefiting people in other areas. Sheffield is not alone in that, but it is a classic case of a city that has picked itself up by the bootstraps and got on with the job of making itself great again.
  On 21 April 1988, Mr. Winter, the director of land and planning, stated that the total value of schemes for development in Sheffield -I could not believe the figures but they are here for any hon. Member to see—was £1·3 billion. That will give us 30,000 permanent jobs and 10,000 temporary jobs in construction.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley wanted to know what my remarks had to do with Sheffield. There is a project called "Junction 34" in Sheffield. It is a proposed shopping complex with a large number of retail outlets. It will be built on derelict land at a cost of £230 million. Marks and Spencer has shown an interest in the site, as has Savacentre. Debenhams and Sears are interested, too. The site contains 100,000 sq ft of leisure facilities, quite apart from the shopping complex and, believe it or not, parking for 10,000 cars. Yet according to the hon. Member for Wakefield, despair, desolation and doom are imminent.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is making great claims about that proposal. Many of the shops that opened in Rotherham town centre under the Rotherham enterprise zone scheme are now closed. It is hardly an area of massive growth.
  Mr. Patnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. The size of the Rotherham enterprise zone increased and increased. I remember that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State for the Environment, Sheffield was offered an enterprise zone, but it was prepared to accept it only on conditions. I do not know where the hon. Member for Rother Valley gets his facts, but the enterprise zone has had to be increased to accommodate the firms that want to move into the area.
  An urban development corporation has been set up in Sheffield. We have received £50 million from the Government, a derelict land grant for Junction 34 and £10 million for facilities at the canal basin. Everything is coming together, and the confidence in the area should be recognised.
  656
  An article appeared on 20 July in the commercial and industrial property guide of The Star which said:
  "Record year for regiona) investments is forecast. Rising business confldence in Sheffield could mean another record breaking year for investment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region."
  In the article, Paul Gilmartin said:
  "The record breaking trend looks set to continue. There is a marked increase in business confidence … the current year looks like breaking all records".
  On the same page, another article said:
  "Shops at heart of inner city renewal … Government guidelines and local authority policies on shopping ate not making the most of the beneflts that retailing can bring, says Stuart Robinson, of Hillier Parker Planning."
  I refer the hon. Member for Wakefield to a most interesting article that appeared in the Yorkshire Post on 28 July. It says:
  "Factory values surge as industry expands. A surge in the value of factories and warehouses during 1988 and a shortage of building to meet presenl: demand is reported in West Yorkshire by the Leeds office of King and Co.
  During the past 12 months, approximately 1,500,000 sq ft of new buildings have been constructed in the region for occupiers who include William Morrison, Northern Foods, Thorn EMI and Uniroyal."
  I said earlier that firms such as Marks and Spencer will invest, not in areas that it thinks are declining but in areas that are improving. Such an area is Yorkshire and Humberside.
  The article continues:
  "There is a dire shortage of sites capable of development with buildings in excess of 40,000 sq ft"—
  There are no prizes for guessing where that is—
  "but at Wakefield 80 acres of imainly agricultural land is about to be brought into warehouse and industrial use. The land adjoins the Normanton and Whitwood Industrial Hstates at Junction 31 of the M26, midway between the M1 and A1".
  The list of firms that have moved into that area is quite unbelievable. The article says:
  "More than 215 acres have already been developed at this location where occupiers include Panasonic UK, Associated Fresh Foods, Hewlett Packard, Argos Distributors, Linfood, Tibbett and Britten, Miller Mining, Nestle (UK), Burtons Gold Medal Biscuits, the Halifax Building Society and Sleepeezee."
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. Where there is the infrastructure—it is to the credit of the Labour-controlled local authority in Wakefield that those firms have come to the area—it is possible to attract inward investment. That is precisely the point that I made in my speech.
  Mr. Patnick: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech and it contained nothing but gloom and despondency. Anybody would think that all we have in the region, apart from the hon. Member for Halifax, are KP nuts and coal mining. There is more to Yorkshire and Humberside than those two industries.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Halifax and Marks and Spencer. Would he care to give his comments on Reliance Hosiery, which employs 600 people in Halifax? That company is deeply concerned now that interest rates are rising so high. When I visited the company I was told that it was worried. It supplies Marks and Spencer and is threatened with takeover. It really is doom and gloom in Halifax at present. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me some good news about one of the factories, I should be happy to hear it.
  Mr. Patnick: No doubt the hon. Lady can put her own case. I thought that she had something to say.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman will ensure that we do not have time to speak.
  Mr. Patnick: I am sorry about that. I recollect that it was not so long ago that I sat in the Chamber trying to participate in a debate when the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was speaking. One would have thought that he had suddenly become deaf to those of us facing him, but that he had an ear in the back of his head and was able to hear his colleagues. At least I have given hon. Members a chance to intervene, even the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have been more than generous. —[Interruption.]It is always good to hear the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whether he is sitting, standing or keeping quiet.
  On behalf of Yorkshire and Humberside I should like to argue for the Channel tunnel link—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Halifax wish to speak?
  Mrs. Mahon: I asked about Marks and Spencer.
  Mr. Patnick: I shall sit down and allow the hon. Lady to speak, but she does not stand when I offer her the Floor.
  The Channel tunnel link is needed for Yorkshire and Humberside.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.
  Mr. Patnick: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was a little Englander. I thought he accepted that the time left to the Civil Aviation Authority and airport officials was short. They cause so much inconvenience to people at Manchester, Luton and east midlands airports when they go on strike. When the tunnel is built there will be another way to reach the continent. Time is running out for those people who, every year around holiday time, incon-venience travellers, not just from my constituency, but from Yorkshire and Humberside.
  The chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Confederation of British Industry said:
  "The Government and BR need to commit themselves to a direct link".
  Just so that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby knows how even-handed I am, I shall tell the House that the Trades Union Congress warns that the area will lose out further to the south unless it has such a link. Both sides of the great dichotomy—the CBI and the TUC—recognise that, but no doubt the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, as ever, will know more about it.
  In conclusion—everybody will be pleased to hear that —the economy in Yorkshire and Humberside is good and improving. We have all the ingredients that I have listed. It is time that residents appreciated that they have initiative, ability and talent and that the banner of Yorkshire and Humberside, together with initiatives, current and planned, should enable us to go forward. If we appreciate that, the confidence can become infectious. We must draw on the region's strengths—the availability of work and opportunity. Good news will travel. The upward climb of Yorkshire and Humberside will continue.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay (Barasley, West and Penistone): It is refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) praise Sheffield council, of which he used to
  658
  be a member. It is one of the local authorities that has been laced by the Govemment on many occasions for the way it runs the city. It was laced irrespective of the fact that the auditor said that it was one of the best-run cities in the country and proved that the authority was right in the direction it was taking.
  The hon. Member for Hallam referred to metro developments and to the amount of money that is being spend on Junction 34. It is true that developments are taking place—but they all seem to be shopping and leisure developments. What about manufacturing industry? Why should that not make progress as well? We should turn our minds to those questions during the debate.
  It is all very well for other developments to take place, but they depend on people being able to spend money. They are all consumer-oriented. We do not have the manufacturing industry to make the money or the people in employment to earn it, so no one can spend it.
  Up to a point I applaud some of the things that have happened because of enterprise zones. They have proved a point. However, only last week a young man asked why we in Barnsley could not have the same facilities as other areas or the same benefits to industry in the form of rents and rates and developments. By the time that he had finished talking, it was quite obvious that although the industry in which he worked in Dodworth had not been there very long, it was upping sticks and moving because it could get preferential rates and development rates in an enterprise zone not too far away. Developments in enterprise zones mean, by and large, that there have been fewer, a lack of, or a rundown in, developments elsewhere.
  I agree that all is not doom and gloom in Yorkshire and Humberside, but I am concerned when I see the wealth and prosperity in the south and south-east, and the way in which that reflects on the area in general. In makes me ask why some of that prosperity is not coming north and why it is not in Yorkshire and Humberside. We are one of the most beautiful areas in England environmentally——
  Mr. Barry Field: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why, according to the House of Commons Library statistics to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) referred, the Isle of Wight has an unemployment rate of 11·3 per cent. and why in the recent wages survey we were the third lowest and only just behind Northera Ireland? We should like to see some of the prosperity of Yorkshire come south, to the Isle of Wight.
  Mr. McKay: I can add to that, because the area that I am talking about is not the third lowest; it is the second. I am referring to the area in which I live and for which I am developing my argument—[Interruption.] Oh yes, we have a male unemployment rate of 27 per cent. Hon. Members can study that fact as much as they want. I am referring to Government figures, which can be found in censuses and in the employment figures. If the hon. Member for Hallam waits and lets me develop my argument, he will see what I am talking about. He is jumping in when he should not not do so. I think that he now realises that he made a mistake in jumping in then. I hope that he will realise that more as I continue.
  I am asking why that wealth, prosperity and employment do not come north. I accept that, although there is a north-south divide, parts of the south are probably less prosperous than some parts of the north. Parts of the north are not too badly off, thank you very

  659
  much, but, by and large—and that is what we are talking about—it is easier to get work in the south than it is in the north. Manufacturing and other industries are moving to the south and to the south-east, not to the north. That is what we must put our minds to.
  Instead of considering only unemployment, we should look also at those in employment because those statistics are probably a better reflection than the unemployment figures. When one considers the figures for those in employment in Great Britain and compares them with the figures for Yorkshire and Humberside, one can see what quite clearly is happening. In agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the figures are almost equal. In Great Britain there has been a drop of 18·9 per cent. and in Yorkshire and Humberside the figure is 18·8 per cent.
  For energy and water supplies there has been a drop of 28·7 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole, but a drop of 35·2 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside. In manufacturing, there has been a drop of 16·6 per cent. in Great Britain against a drop of 22·4 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside. For construction, the figures are 9·8 per cent. and 6·6 per cent. respectively. Only in the service industries has there been a regeneration of employment. In Great Britain there has been an increase of 9·1 per cent. and in Yorkshire and Humberside 12 per cent.
  The manufacturing side of Yorkshire and Humberside has disappeared. The steelworks, collieries and engineering plants have gone. Over the period during which the figures that I have quoted were calculated, investment in the United Kingdom as a whole was 30 per cent. In Yorkshire and Humberside it dropped to 22 per cent. That clearly shows that investment is not coming to the area.
  A survey was taken which covered Great Britain and in particular focused on Yorkshire and Humberside, south Yorkshire and my constituency. It found that, of all the areas in Britain, Yorkshire and Humberside was the worst. It futher found that in Yorkshire and Humberside, south Yorkshire was the worst. It showed that there is a difference in the rates of unemployment in south Yorkshire and in Yorkshire and Humberside.
  Last year, the unemployment rate on Humberside was 14·1 per cent. In north Yorkshire it was only 9·1 per cent. Therefore, as I said earlier, some parts are worse than others. In south Yorkshire, the rate was 17 per cent. and in west Yorkshire it was 11·9 per cent. In some of the areas in my constituency, there is a male unemployment rate of 27 per cent. The rate varies throughout my constituency and is 18 per cent. in parts and as low as 6 per cent. which is fairly normal for the area.
  I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will be brief. I want to consider the difference between the south-east and Yorkshire and Humberside in the annual average unemployment rates. It is easy to see the changes that have taken place since 1979. They are not so drastic in the south-east, but they are drastic in Yorkshire and Humberside. It is also clear from the figures that when some parts of the country are coming out of the recession fairly quickly, the Yorkshire and Humberside area is coming out of it sluggishly and slowly. It needs pump-priming.
  I believe that certain things should happen. Major local authorities have investment companies which, by and large, have been very successful in bringing limited prosperity to their areas. However, the Government have issued a consultation paper on local government investment in companies which clearly shows that they are
  660
  looking at this area. It would be wrong of the Government to do what the document suggests. The investment companies represent part of local government that is a success. If central Government see success in local government, they want to take it away.
  The Government must look again at dereliction grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised that point in a parliamentary question. Dereliction grants are working the wrong way in Yorkshire and Humberside. Unless those grants are used to clear dereliction for environmental reasons as well as for the hard reasons, Yorkshire and Humberside will be hit.
  The Channel tunnel must have through trains to the north. It looks as if all the infrastructure for the Channel tunnel is going to the south. We are talking about fast links between the Channel tunnel and London. We need a fast Iink between the tunnel and the north. We want marshalling yards and customs sheds in Yorkshire and Humberside,
  The infrastructure in Yorkshire and Humberside badly needs replacing; that includes the water mains, sewers and roads. The airports, Leeds and Bradford, Humberside and Manchester—many people from Yorkshire and Humberside use Manchester airport—need regional money for expansion. There is also the cross-Pennine motorway. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will receive a lot of letters from members of the Green party, who will accuse him of ripping up the countryside.
  Those are just a few of the matters, and it is a pity that we do not have another hour and a half in which to develop the arguments further.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I felt impelled to take part briefly in this debate, because I did not recognise the picture presented by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I believe that during the past few years, we have seen great improvements in the infrastructure and the prospects for industry and for jobs in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
  The textile industry bears little relation to the one which the hon. Gentleman gave the impression of knowing. The decline in jobs has been going on for far longer than the past nine years. I am sure he will recognise that there has been a decline in employment in the clothing and textile industry for many years. It was caused not so much by the actions of any Government—Labour or Conservative—as by changes in technology and in the need to compete with many other countries.
  During recent years, that decline has levelled out, largely due to the efforts of the textile industry itself—by improved design, by better marketing and by commitment by management and work force alike to make the industry compete effectively. That has taken place during the past few years, and has enabled the industry to offer more jobs. It is certainly true that many companies have had to reduce their work force, but, if they had resisted the urge to modernise, I am quite convinced that the number of jobs in the industry today would be much smaller.
  The Yorkshire and Humberside area has a great reservoir of skills—it is a superb environment, as hon. Members have said—and in the next few months it will benefit from a great new asset—the electrification of the east coast main line. The message that should go forth

  661
  from this debate is not that Yorkshire and Humberside is an area in decline, but that it is looking to people in industry and enterprise throughout Britain and, indeed, abroad, who recognise its assets, to come to the region.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wakefield spoke as he did, and that other Opposition Members share his view. People listen to what is said in the House and will hear the impression given of our region. If they feel that the area is declining, they are far less likely to put their money and their resources into it. If the message goes out that not only is the area not in decline, but that there are pockets that are expanding fast—that that impetus can spread and the region can and will expand rapidly given the will—we shall be halfway to success. That is the message that I want to go out tonight, and I am afraid that it is a very different message from that which we hear so often in the House and outside from Opposition Members.
  11.39pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I would like to comment briefly on the somewhat myopic view of some Conservative Members about Yorkshire and Humberside. I remind hon. Members that there are good things in Yorkshire and Humberside and good things in my constituency. However, unemployment throughout the region on the adjusted figures for May 1988 was 10·1 per cent., which is more than 237,000 people out of work.
  There are other casualties of the past eight years. There are 25,000 people on community programme schemes in Yorkshire and Humberside, and some 88 per cent. of them are on part-time schemes. That hardly represents a healthy income going into a household, especially if it is the only one. More than 14,000 people are on the enterprise allowance scheme, and more than 42,000 are on youth training schemes.
  Mr. Patnick rose——
  Mr. Barron: No, I shall not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman gave way to me, but I do not have much time.
  The success rate of YTS in the Rotherham area is below 30 per cent. in terms of young people coming off schemes and going into full-time work. It is no use trying to gloss over these figures. They are not just statistics. They are people, many of whom live in households in what is deemed to be poverty. We must debate these issues to let those people know that we have not forgotten them, although we are talking about growth in the region.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) invite people to come to the region. The Minister is aware that Opposition Members have been instrumental in bringing it to his attention. Between 1978–79 and 1986–87, regional development grant to Yorkshire and Humberside was cut by 50 per cent. Earlier this year, it was abolished, and it is now to be awarded selectively. I am worried that people who did not come in great numbers before may not come at all now because of that reduction. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
  Wearing my hat as the chairman of the Yorkshire group of Labour Members, I would like to tell the Minister that we have met many people from the region during the past 12 months. We have met people from the British
  662
  Road Federation who are worried about the Sheffield-Manchester link and routes in the Aire valley, and are anxious that the Al-Ml link should go ahead as speedily as possible now that it has received some commitment from the Government.
  People are also worried about infrastructure such as railways. They are anxious that, since it looks as though we shall have the Channel tunnel, we should not lose out. We must ensure that, at least in one part of the region, we have an inland port, a Customs clearance depot or a major area where freight can be put on trains to be taken directly under the Channel, so that we can participate in some of the expenditure that will be made.
  Has anything been done in relation to the correspondence that the Minister had with the Yorkshire and Humberside development association about larger factory units? If we have made any headway, the Minister will know that the size of factory units is just as important as their number. We want to ensure that the right type of units are being built in the region to help us attack poverty and unemployment there as soon as practicable.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): We are tonight talking about the most beautiful, the best and certainly the biggest part of the country. We are talking about God's own county. It is extraordinary that the Minister has had the insensitivity to wear the red rose of Lancashire in his lapel. That shows either extraordinary insensitivity or a declaration of support for the trans-Pennine group, which is dedicated to the development of both sides of the Pennines.
  The area, of which we on this side of the House are so proud because so many of us come from it, has been badly hit by the Government. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) said—he placed his hopes on shopping centres in a speech that was more of a working men's club comedy routine that should have had a "com sec" rather than a Deputy Speaker in charge of it—our destiny lies in industry. It lies in making things and selling them to the world.
  Yorkshire and Humberside is the industrial heart of Great Britain. It generates the power, produces the coal, the steel and the textiles, and does the fishing. That is where our destiny lies, and it is the part of the economy which has been so grievously hit by the Government, particularly by the economic policies that they pursued from 1979 to 1983. In that period the Government closed one fifth of our manufacturing capacity and lost nearly one third of our manufacturing jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out, that process of closures continues. The Government have inflicted damage on Yorkshire and Humberside from which we will take years to recover and for which the Government will never be forgiven.
  The region is the first to suffer and the last to recover. Even now unemployment in Humberside is 12 per cent., which is 3 per cent. over the British average. In Grimsby it is 12 per cent. on the Government's figures and 17 per cent. on the real figures. In Grimsby, male unemployment is 15·7 per cent. Grimsby is not a development area and it is difficult to see why it has been robbed of the urban programme status which it had.
  The whole area desperately needs new development and new jobs, yet the Government have only handicapped our

  663
  efforts to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. They have erected obstacles. We have to compete against the superior power of the Scottish Development Agency to attract industry. We have to face the fact that when local government in Sheffield and Grimsby tries to encourage development, the Government hamstring it, imposes financial penalties on it and stops its efforts. We have no speculative factory development in Grimsby. The Government will not build, English Estates has not, and Grimsby council is not allowed to build because of the screws on its capital expenditure programme. The control of local government spending, which will get stronger, inhibits local authority efforts to provide facilities in which industry can develop.
  We see from the capital expenditure consultation programme that the Government are foreshadowing further cuts in local government spending, and from the local government business paper that they are thinking of curtailing the current range of economic incentives that local authorities can provide. It is ludicrous to destroy industry as the Government have done, particularly in our area—that destruction has had particularly severe effects in the manufacturing heart of Britain—and not allow local authorities to rebuild those sectors.
  Now we face another threat. The country is characterised by a Government from, for and by the south-east at the expense of areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside. As the prosperity in the south-east trickles down to our region—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is correct to say that there are symptoms of a revival—we are belatedly getting the tail end of that improvement. Just as that is washing north, house prices are beginning to improve, unemployment is falling and development is beginning, the Government are stopping the process because of overheating in the south-east.
  If there is overheating, it is certainly restricted to that part where house prices are reaching record levels and where there are skill shortages. Northerners are being lured down the Ml and the rail system to work in the south-east and go home at the weekends. That is where there is congestion. We in the north have none of those pressures. We need the development and the overspill, yet the north will be punished for the sins of the south-east.
  The real problem is one of imbalance between areas. We need to spread development fairly and evenly, and to use the social capital and skills of the population. Tragically, this is the end of the golden weather for the Government. We are now beginning a massive deflation because of the size of the deficit in overseas and manufactured trade which the Government have allowed to develop because of their over-valuation of sterling.
  That massive deflation—the increase in interest rates and the curtailment of economic activity because of overheating in the south-east—will penalise Yorkshire and Humberside quite disproportionately. It will mean one of two things. We may have an economic policy involving a high exchange rate maintained by high interest rates. In other words, we shall be paying the foreigner high interest rates to bring his money to this country to close a gap that we cannot now close by manufacturing exports. Such a policy would inflict further severe damage on manufacturing industry and therefore disproportionate damage on Yorkshire and Humberside.
  If that policy does not work, foreigners will see the real state of health of the economy—that is how weak it is— and we shall have a sterling crisis by the end of the year,
  664
  which will mean astronomical interest rates to defend the pound. Either way, in the interests of protecting the financial economy, which is concentrated in the south-east of England, the north will suffer disproportionately and Yorkshire and Humberside and the manufacturing industry that is so important to us will be severely hit. That is a prospect that we look forward to with dread in Yorkshire and Humberside, and it could only come from a Government who do not know the area and who do not know the real world of manufacturing.
  As I said, Yorkshire and Humberside has suffered disproportionately. A Labour Government will reconstruct the manufacturing industry in the manufacturing heart of this country. That will benefit our area, just as it has suffered under this Government. As part of that process of redevelopment, we shall give Yorkshire and Humberside the power to control and manage its own destiny. We shall do so through regional government. We shall give the regions the power to manage their own economies. We shall do so through regional development agencies on the pattern of the Scottish Development Agency, and by giving back the regional incentives that the Government have taken away to allow those areas to attract back the industry that has been lost.
  We are proud of our area. We are proud of being Yorkshiremen and Humbersiders. We once led the country. We were once at the industrial heart of this country and we shall be again. Our message to the Government, who have done so much damage to industry, put in a dialect that the Minister will not understand, is "Gi'up, gi'ower and gerrout."
  11.52pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I make no apology for wearing the red rose of Lancashire in the context of a debate on matters relating to Yorkshire and Humberside. It must gall the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and his hon. Friends to realise that I am a northern Member and a northern Minister; my constituency is even further north than that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It is a fallacy that my hon. Friends and I do not appreciate the problems of Yorkshire.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) have been able to participate. I know that others among my hon. Friends are interested in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who I guess is waiting for the debate on the Settle-Carlisle railway, and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who has recently joined us on the Front Bench and who is to be the Yorkshire Whip. I know how much my hon. Friends disagree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on introducing this debate. It has been fascinating to hear both sides of the story. The Yorkshire and Humberside region makes an important contribution to the national economy, accounting for about 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. GDP per person in 1984 was a little over £4,000—about 12 per cent. below the national average.
  The area has a mixed economy, which has made parts of the region vulnerable to cyclical trends in traditional

  665
  industries. Nevertheless, there have been positive developments—to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. Areas of recent growth include the petrochemical industry on Humberside. Humberside has also seen growth in the frozen food sector. There has been considerable growth in financial and professional services centred on Leeds. Indeed, the importance of Leeds as a regional centre for such services has been growing steadily.
  The House may find it interesting if I quote from a recent study by the CBI investigating industry in the area. I shall touch on just some of the headings to which the CBI report refers. Referring to demand and output in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, the CBI report says:
  "The general level of order intake is better than earlier this year. The home market is particularly buoyant … The area bounded by Leeds, Harrogate and York is being referred to by the building industry as 'the golden triangle.'"
  Indeed, I was in Doncaster only last week when the Labour leader there referred to Doncaster as "boom town".
  The report goes on:
  "So far as steel is concerned, production remains at a high level …Coal—the super pits are producing good levels … Mechanical engineering—order books are better … Electrical and electronic engineering—very busy … Civil engineering—plenty of work about…House building in the private sector is having a very good period, with demand outstripping supply in many areas…Chemicals—this sector remains busy."
  Much attention has been paid to the subject of clothing. The report says:
  "Companies are very busy … Textiles generally— working at high capacity levels … Telecom—performing at above planned levels, reflecting the increased affluence of the region … Rail services are well used, with InterCity being particularly busy … Confidence remains high. Ambitious investment plans for machinery and buildings will be followed through."
  Surely that tells a different tale from the one that Opposition Members have been asking us to believe. What I have listed are the facts as presented by the CBI, an organisation which has been talking to people in the manufacturing and service industries. I appreciate that there are some difficulties and problems—inevitably there will be—but that is what the CBI is saying.
  Those facts are borne out by the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Unit, the report of which has been quoted by other hon. Members, as they should do because the unit has at heart the interests of the region. It reports:
  "The investment outlook is encouraging, with many companies planning significant expansion projects covering both buildings and capital equipment."
  English Estates reports a 20 per cent. increase in factory sales and lettings in south Yorkshire, with increasing demands throughout the region. Unemployment is falling; it was 10·6 per cent. at the beginning of the year and was 101 per cent. in May. The fact that Opposition Members have referred to a shortage of factory space—a matter of which I am aware—reveals success in this region, as in others. Had the hon. Member for Great Grimsby been speaking from the Opposition Front Bench some years ago, he would no doubt have been complaining bitterly about empty factories. Now that we have the factories full and there is a shortage, we face a different problem. But it is a problem of success.
  666
  While I agree that there are difficulties, investment in and the achievements of the area are particularly good. In tourism, for example, Bradford now has a tourism development action plan and has been successful in developing and marketing its tourism assets. One need only consider the city's historical, literary and industrial heritage, its proximity to beautiful countryside and attractions such as the national museum of film, photography and television, to appreciate the potential of a place such as Bradford.
  Sheffield, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam represents in part, is shortly to host the world student games, which will be the largest event of its type in the United Kingdom to date. All in all, one can tell a number of success stories.
  I come to the problems of Wakefield. It is inevitable that when one decides to accord assistance to some areas rather than others there will be those who feel hard done by. That is particularly the case when, as has happened in the Wakefield area, there have been major closures in a particular industry over a relatively short period. There is little doubt that the loss of 11,000 jobs in the Wakefield area has had a major impact.
  It is possible that Wakefield might be eligible for assistance from the European regional development fund, which is currently being restructured. Details of the eligibility of particular areas remain to be settled, and it is too early to predict the outcome, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will keep the interests of Wakefield closely in mind during the negotiations. In the meantime, Wakefield will continue to receive aid from the European Coal and Steel Community and to benefit from its priority status under the European social fund.
  Wakefield has sought to make a case to have the status of the area reviewed. To avoid raising false hopes, I should say at the outset that it remains our intention, as stated in the White Paper, to keep the present map in place for the lifetime of this Parliament. The map was fixed at the end of 1984 after exhaustive discussions and representations. There are very good reasons for doing that. In setting up assisted areas, the primary intention is to influence private sector investment decisions, which have to be taken with a view to the medium to long term. To change the shape of the map too frequently would weaken the extent to which investment decisions can be influenced and thus undermine the purpose of the policy.
  I accept that particular problems are being experienced in the Wakefield area, especially in the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work areas where many of the coal closures have taken place. It may be small consolation now, but when the time comes to review the map the case for changing the status of the Wakefield area will be taken into account particularly strongly. In the meantime, I know that officials of my Department and of other Departments in the region are in touch with officers in Wakefield to see what can be done for the area within current constraints. The hon. Member for Wakefield may be aware that I also met a delegation representing the enormous Conservative group on the council about these matters, so I am fully aware of the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that within the limits that I have specified we shall do what we can to understand and face the problems in the Wakefield area.
  The Yorkshire and Humberside region has good long-term economic prospects. Its assets include specialised sites suitable for industry requiring access to deep

  667
  water, modern ports and good access to continental markets—factors that will be of increasing importance in 1992, with all the changes that will follow from that. The region so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has a work force with a great deal to offer in a wide variety of areas.
  Like my hon. Friends, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss what has been going on in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, but the Opposition must be careful not to talk down an area which in their own comments they recognise as an attractive and beautiful region both physically and geographically as well as in industrial and other ways. They must recognise that the strengths of the area have to be sold, rather than the weaknesses. If they continue to work as hard in that regard as those of my hon. Friends who so ably represent constituencies throughout the region, I am convinced that the strength that is so important to the region and to the country will continue in the future.
  It is said that English cricket suffers when Yorkshire cricket is down. The sooner Yorkshire cricket reaches the standard that we have come to expect, the stronger will be the future of English cricket. I caution the whole House about the importance of this subject in the foreseeable future.

  Rail privatisation
  12.2 am
  Mr. Keith Mans: Before setting out my proposals for further private investment in the railway system in this country, I congratulate the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), on his new appointment. His predecessor did much to improve efficiency within British Rail and encouraged private investment by his many activities. I hope that in winding up today's debate my hon. Friend will be able to give us encouragement and assurance that that process will continue and expand.
  One of the Government's major successes has been the removal of many inefficient monopolies from the public sector to the private sector, where state subsidies have ceased and vast improvements in business efficiency have have taken place. They have provided choice where none existed before and have steadily turned themselves into consumer-led rather than producer-led organisations. Moreover, their investment policies have not been hamstrung by the public sector borrowing requirement. All this applies even to British Telecom, with competition provided by Mercury.
  One of the last great monopolies left in the public sector is the railway system—still producer-led and still relatively inefficient. I hope to show that, by the provision of more private capital and by the introduction of consumer-oriented management techniques from the private sector, British Rail will be transformed in the coming few years. I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate and accordingly I shall be brief. I know that they have ideas that should be presented to the House.
  We should build on what we have achieved already in privatising certain parts of the British Rail network. Equally, we should build on the experience of other industries that have recently been privatised. Within the rail network, catering at stations is often operated by private concerns. We have sold off the railway hotel chain and Sealink. The engineering section will soon be sold off. All these sell-offs have provided more money for British Rail to invest in infrastructure. It should be remembered that 80 per cent. of the rolling stock, apart from the trains that operate between pitheads and power stations, are already in private hands, amounting to 16,000 trucks. The privatisation that has taken place is already showing returns. An increased amount of freight is being carried by the railways on private trucks. An additional move has been taken by Foster Yeoman, which has bought its own locomotives.
  The other experience on which we should base our plans is that of other recently privatised industries. I think especially of the airlines and the airport authorities. We can probably learn something from the soon-to-be-privatised electricity industry and the recently privatised bus companies.
  I shall use a comparison between British Rail and British Airways to show what I feel may be the future for the rail network. A few years ago, both industries were nationalised, both were making losses, both were producer-led, both lacked investment and both were overmanned; most important of all, both were insensitive to the market and to the consumer. The change in British Airways since it was privatised has been dramatic. It is now the most profitable airline in the world and is showing

  669
  a clean pair of heels to its European competitors, many of which are still in the public sector and still state-subsidised, and almost all of which are making losses. Unfortunately, British Rail is still in the public sector, and is still suffering from the ills that I have mentioned.
  It is worth mentioning the role played in the airways and the air transportation system by the British Airports Authority—again, a recently privatised concern. It runs our airports, together with many other concerns. It runs the terminal and approach facilities that aircraft need when they land and take off. It is interesting that different airlines and airliners use the same airways. At the same time, the airlines see no need to own the airports at their points of departure and destination. Equally, they see no need to operate any of the air traffic control equipment.
  It is on that experience that I base my proposal for a privatised rail network. First, we should build upon our experience, especially in the freight operations of British Rail. We should encourage private companies to own and operate passenger trains on the present rail network. We already have one example. The Orient express is owned by a private company and the rails that it runs on are leased for a period from British Rail. As the process develops, we should aim for all the rolling stock on British Rail to be owned by private companies.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the problem with the Orient express is that, although it leases the track, it has to accept British Rail workers, and that that has hampered its freedom to negotiate?
  Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any future proposals would involve train crews and operators being employed not by British Rail but by the newly created companies.
  If we ensure that new investment in the railways is provided by the private sector, capital will be released in the initial stages of privatisation for British rail to invest in the infrastructure—in the signalling equipment and in the track itself. The structure of British Rail would allow that to happen relatively easily, because money obtained from sale or leasing of track goes not to the Treasury but to the British Rail board. The advantage of such a procedure is that it is the only way to provide true competition, simply because consumers would be given a choice between companies' trains operating on the same line.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Like LMS and LNER.
  Mr. Mans: I am not certain of the relevance of that comment.
  Mr. Hughes: The relevance of the comment is that for decades LMS and LNER had a nice cosy arrangement not to compete with each other.
  Mr. Mans: I do not think that that would happen in the case of the newly privatised British Rail network. I am much more inclined to think that the same situation would develop on the railways as followed the introduction of competition between British Airways and British Midland on the Glasgow-Heathrow route. If the hon. Gentleman had travelled on that service both before and after the introduction of competition, he would understand its
  670
  relevance to British Rail today. His rather anachronistic historical parallel has no bearing on the present circumstances.
  My proposals would create true competition and a better service. Some inspired entrepreneur might actually suggest providing trains that guaranteed seats for the passengers. The airlines have guaranteed seats for years. They will even put on an extra aircraft at Heathrow to fly passengers to Glasgow, Manchester or Edinburgh if the first is full. That is precisely the sort of consumer service that we want to introduce on trains.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Like a jumbo jet.
  Mr. Mans: Not necessarily. We could make do with a high-speed train.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is speaking on the basis of ignorance. Does he not realise that if he were to put on a train from, say, London to Glasgow, the passenger capacity would be equivalent to that of a jumbo jet? There would be capacity for about 400 passengers to transport perhaps two or three.
  Mr. Mans: That is exactly the point that I am making. As part of its campaign, British Airways will put on an extra aircraft for three people. That shows that Opposition Members do not understand the importance of consumer choice. They do not really want the consumer to be able to sit down on a train; they would prefer him to stand. I can understand that, because I know the background to their arguments.
  We are left, then, with a rail network composed of the track and the stations. Our first move should be to sell off the stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) produced an eminently sensible 10-minute Bill only a few days ago. I know that he wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that he will manage to do so, because I know that he has more to say on the subject.
  As part of the sell-off of the stations, there must be a statutory obligation upon the new, private station companies to maintain the track and the signalling equipment in the vicinity of the station. The British Airports Authority has a similar statutory obligation to maintain all the runway aids, the radar and the other equipment which are needed by aircraft to land and take off. Therefore, the precedent exists, and experience has shown that BAA, as part of the private sector, offers a better service than that of old.
  Once the stations have been sold off, we shall effectively have reduced British Rail to a national track authority. At that stage I believe that it would be advisable to make British Rail a public limited company. Ultimately, it would be responsible for the integrity of the network and for improvements, and it would derive its revenue from the train and station companies.
  With the positive generation of cash at the start of the nationalisation process, present subsidies, which top nearly £7 million a year, could be rapidly reduced. In future, I believe that a partnership will develop between the individual train companies, local authorities and others to provide services in the rural areas. The recently privatised bus companies have already demonstrated the success of such partnerships.
  There is a crying need for a railway link between Heathrow and Paddington and for a link between

  671
  Manchester airport and the line that already runs to the north-west. We should also make provision for private companies to build and operate trains on those new lines. The national track authority would have a statutory obligation to connect those links with the main network. It is now 150 years since our Victorian forebears drove the industrial revolution onwards and outwards on the back of a brand new railway network. Their entrepreneurial spirit and engineering feats are still an inspiration to us. We must re-create that spirit and release the rail network from the present stranglehold of the state monopoly which it has suffered for far too long. Let us encourage private capital, combined with individual initiative and business skill, to help to create a second golden age for our railway network.
  12.17 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I apologise for my hesitation in getting up, but I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, called "Bob Dunn". I was looking round the Chamber for the recently sacked member of the Government.
  I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I wish to withdraw my subject for debate, which is No. 12 on the list.
  I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) with increasing horror. He denigrated British Rail, which provides an excellent service, many times. Of course there are breakdowns, and of course trains are overcrowded, but if the Government provided more money for new trains and for track maintenance and signalling, none of that would happen. British Rail receives a smaller state subsidy than any other rail network in the Western world.
  Mr. Conal Gregory rose——
  Mr. Cryer: I shall give way later, when I have developed my argument.
  British Rail receives a subsidy to operate the provincial services, but the subsidy for the InterCity services is to be phased out. As a result, the high-speed trains are being driven into the ground. Those trains receive minimal maintenance because BR wants to keep the HSTs running in order to meet the strict financial limits that are placed upon it by the Government. The trains are often seedy and overcrowded, which is a direct result of the Government's financing limits.
  Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cryer: No, I shall not give way at the moment. I shall make my speech without the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) getting up and down like a jack-in-the-box. He must contain himself——
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend wants to give the hon. Gentleman some facts.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for York does not know many facts. If the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) interrupts, my speech will get longer and longer and other hon. Members who wish to speak will not be able to do so.
  As Tory Members find it funny to laugh at public bodies, I remind them that when they talked about selling off British Rail Engineering workshops, unless he was lying to the House, the Minister said that he thought the standard of work was extremely high and that the
  672
  workshops had an excellent record of producing railway wagons and equipment for British Rail, but the hon. Member for Wyre seemed to suggest that British Rail had no virtues and was producing no new ideas or technology.
  The high-speed trains are a demonstration of public innovation and high technology in railway operation. That technology, introduced under public ownership, has been sold to many railways in other countries throughout the world. It was an outrageous act by the Government—one of many—when they closed the workshops or forced them to be sold off.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was right to say that we have the experience of past years as a guide. Competition does not work. It results either in some companies going out of business and the winners taking all, or in comfortable cartel arrangements in which the notion of competition is simply and quietly pushed to one side.
  In 1922, a Conservative Government compulsorily amalgamated a number of independent railway companies to form four railway companies which operated all but a handful of services throughout the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, where the arrangements were linked to two of the major companies operating there. Even on the basis of the experience of Conservative Governments, the idea of competing railways under private ownership simply does not work.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: In fact there were not just four railway companies at the time of nationalisation. The then Minister of Transport, Mr. Barnes, said:
  "On the assumption that the Bill receives Royal Assent in this Session … there will be transferred to public ownership some 60 railway undertakings".—[Official Report, 5 May 1947; Vol. 437, c. 36.]
  Mr. Cryer: There was a handful—just 56. In terms of mileage, it was a tiny amount. The Stephens light railway was developed by Colonel Stephens in the 1920s, the Kent and East Sussex light railway operated about a dozen miles of grotty track, with equally grotty carriages and locomotives. In terms of mileage, locomotives and rolling stock a handful of railways were still privately owned, but they were largely irrelevant, and none of them operated into any main line stations in any major cities throughout the United Kingdom. Most of them were not even passenger railways. They were mostly freight branches serving junctions where the freight was transferred, and included a number of narrow-gauge railways which, of course, did not even operate to the standard gauge of 4ft 8½in.
  I return to my original statement, that the great majority of railways, track and locomotives were taken over into the four major railway companies.
  Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point that I wished to interject at an earlier stage in his argument was that; he tried to contend that the railways were not efficient because the Government were starving them of funds. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework before making such outrageous allegations. The British Railways Board has not gone up to its external financing limit for a number of years. The Government made the facilities available, but they were not taken up because there were no opportunities for investment.
  Mr. Cryer: The chairman of British Rail, a Tory Government appointee and no doubt sympathiser, made

  673
  that decision against the wishes of the staff of British Rail. If the hon. Gentleman enjoyed their confidence he would know that they are faced with shortages of maintenance facilities, equipment and materials——
  Mr. Gregory: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said before.
  Mr. Cryer: It is precisely what I said. Because of Government policy, British Rail is short of money. The hon. Gentleman must know that, although the HSTs provide an excellent service, they are scheduled for mileages beyond their capability unless they receive more maintenance, because there are not enough high-speed train units. British Rail and the Government will not invest jointly in more units, which would relieve the problem of breakdowns on the main passenger services.
  I want to mention a proposed privatisation by the Government. The new Minister of State has not yet been to the Settle-Carlisle railway, although he will doubtless visit it to keep himself up to date. The Government have proposed that the section of railway from Settle junction to Carlisle should be sold off because British Rail has proposed its closure. Some time ago British Rail decided to run the line down and failed to provide adequate moisture protection for the viaduct at Ribblehead. That is an example of how a lack of adequate finance for our national rail network has led to stringent economies, which inevitably have their effect over time. Then decisions must be made on whether to spend large sums on structures such as the Ribblehead viaduct or to close them down.
  British Rail proposed closure. That is wrong, and the Government should tell British Rail so. They should tell British Rail to keep the line open and exploit it to its full potential. If British Rail receives that instruction, I have no doubt that its chairman will take up the challenge, allocate more funds to the line and appoint more people to market it. It is quite capable of doing that. British Rail has promoted several lines in Scotland for tourism and made a success of it. It could do the job in this case in conjunction with the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association, who are keen to work co-operatively with British Rail, but who recognise the great difficulties involved in a private organisation taking over this 72-mile double track main-line system.
  The railway has already improved from carrying 90,000 passengers in 1983–84 to carrying more than 300,000 a year now. British Rail says that the maximum potential has been reached, but that is clearly not true. There are relatively few trains on the line now, and with more services there could be a much greater increase in passenger usage.
  Closure would mean increased hardship. The Minister asked the transport users' consultative committee to examine the possibility of finding greater evidence of hardship. Since the last hearings of the TUCC, new services have been introduced. I understand from a ministerial reply that it is up to the TUCC to decide how it will assess that evidence and whether it will take written objections or hold hearings. So far, it has decided against hearings. That is wrong. I urge the Yorkshire and North-West TUCC to hold public hearings so that people can explain the greater hardship that would be suffered.
  674
  More time is required, in any event—the Minister has said that the committee must report by November. That is not enough time—if the Minister has decided that the line must be sold off by April 1989—to allow any private organisation to take over its operations and continue the expansion, in theory, of passenger traffic. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to allow more time to overcome any hardship and to consider the proposals that are put forward. I do not think that private ownership is a tenable alternative.
  Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman said that British Rail does not believe that the number of passengers who use the line can be increased. The hon. Gentleman and I are anxious that the line should continue in use—we are both vice-presidents of the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Association—and, like the hon. Gentleman, I am strongly opposed to closure. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the line's long-term prospects might be enhanced if it were run by a body more strongly committed than British Rail to its future and to increasing traffic? Would it not be improved by the input of private capital and by its being run by a consortium of local authorities and passenger transport executives?
  Mr. Cryer: Local authorities have offered in excess of £500,000 for the restoration of the Ribblehead viaduct. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they contribute to a diesel-multiple unit service and to a linking bus service between Garsdale and Hawes. That is a good basis for an integrated system, but I should like the line to continue operating for an experimental period of at least two years, linked to the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association, to see whether the type of promotion that the Minister mentioned with regard to the North Yorkshire Moors railway and the Severn Valley railway could be used by the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association. The revenue that it would yield would be allocated to that line, which would require British Rail to budget on a much narrower basis for the Settle to Carlisle section.
  That possibility should be considered, because many thousands of people have a particular affection for the line. They use it to travel to work, photograph it and use it for pleasure because it is a magnificent railway set in beautiful scenery.
  The notion of trying to sell off the line is a dead duck. I therefore think that the enthusiasm, dedication and energy of bodies such as the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association—all its members are volunteers and contribute because of their affection for the line—should be used to support the line, which is unlikely to meet all its capital and revenue costs over a long period. The time scale for any alternative is too short. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is nodding in agreement.
  The hon. Member for Esher mentioned a friend of his who was talking about facts. I was the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley railway preservation society. I was its chairman for the first 10 years and negotiated its purchase from British Rail. That agreement formed the basis for the purchase of the Severn Valley railway and the North Yorkshire Moors railway. I have carried out every job on a steam and diesel-operated light railway. I have fired and driven locomotives, including the largest class of locomotives such as 2–10–0 and Evening Star, as well as

  675
  small tank locomotives. I have maintained the boilers, the track, the platforms and the stations. Therefore, I know what I am talking about from hard graft and experience.
  I have experienced the difficulties of raising money to buy a railway and finance it. I know that operating steam locomotives is a difficult business and that the amateur organisations do it with great skill, dedication and professionalism. When I say "amateur organisations", that is not a term of denigration. The Severn valley, the Worth valley and North Yorkshire Moors railways are operated to full professional standards. Railways cannot be operated to any other standard, or there would be the danger of accidents.
  Having said that, to run steam locomotives over a 140-mile round trip is rather different from running them over a 10-mile branch such as the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. The Minister's predecessor suggested at a press conference that private owners of the Settle-Carlisle railway could borrow a few locomotives from the Worth Valley railway. The Worth Valley railway, with dozens of dedicated volunteers working through the winter, has great difficulty getting four or five steam locomotives ready for the summer each year. That is for a 10-mile branch, let alone for a 140-mile branch.
  The purchasers of the railway would have 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges, all of which have to be maintained to a safe standard by the operators of the railway. It is impossible for a private preservation society to do that.
  The Minister's predecessors suggested that in order to encourage private ownership there should be some sort of dowry. On 16 May the Minister said:
  "British Rail would undertake to lift, remove and pay for continuously welded rail surplus to the private owner's operating requirements. That could amount to up to £850,000."—[Official Report, 16 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 678–79.]
  Today I asked the Minister
  "what information he has as to what mileage of rail on the Settle to Carlisle section of British Rail is continuously welded flat bottomed rail, as to its current value and as to what would be the replacement cost of flat bottomed or bull-head track of equivalent weight; and if he will make a statement."
  The answer from the Minister was:
  "This information is not available."
  The Minister claimed that replacing continously welded flat bottomed rail would provide £850,000. That would not be much good if the new owners had to pay out £850,000 to replace the rail being taken out. We do not know from the Minister how much rail is involved anyway. I merely use that to demonstrate the impracticability of the Minister's suggestion to sell the Settle-Carlisle line to private owners.
  There is the question of access. Settle is several miles north of Hellifield. Are the private owners to be given running rights over British Rail? The safety standards of the railway inspectorate would have to be observed. Would the trains run under the wires regularly at Carlisle? Would they go to Kingmoor shed, which has recently been closed, for maintenance facilities? The railway inspectorate will require adequate maintenance and inspection facilities for the locomotives and carriages used on the railway.
  What about revenue for diversions? Diversions for the fiscal year ended 30 March 1988 amounted to 320 trains. Would British Rail be allowed to divert over the track? That is unknown and cannot be subject to negotiation.
  676
  Any potential purchaser has to know what the difficulties are and how they will be solved before embarking on such a vast enterprise.
  The Government seem to think that a light railway order operation under the Light Railways Act 1912 at a maximum speed of 25 mph is a potential alternative, because they have not said that that should be ruled out. I should rule it out because travelling at 25 mph for a 140-mile round trip does not seem the most exciting way of spending several days out with the family—that is the amount of time that it would take.
  All those points remain unanswered, and in my view they are insoluble. There is no millionaire on the horizon —the Minister's predecessor called him "Mr. Big"—who will spend several million pounds in affection for the Settle-Carlisle railway, to privatise it to the Government's satisfaction. In any case, if the Government are to privatise any part of the railways, the Settle-Carlisle railway is the one that makes the least sense. If one were talking about the Victoria-Gatwick service, that would at least have some shred of logic and credibility, but the Settle-Carlisle line has no potential in that regard.
  The hon. Member for Wyre, who initiated the debate, talked about the potential of private ownership. Private ownership would go for sections such as Victoria-Heathrow. It would not be interested in maintaining the Settle-Carlisle line—or other such routes which run through rural areas—with its 135 bridges, the maintenance of Ribblehead viaduct, and Blea Moor tunnel, which is nearly two miles long. Private ownership would not be prepared to take that on. It would shut lines and stations, sack staff and concentrate on the most lucrative and profitable areas.
  Unless the provincial sector receives the £450 million subsidy that is currently paid for its services, that whole sector will go by the board. Why should only the south-east sector, which is subsidised by British Rail, get a subsidy, but not a rural line in Yorkshire, which gives access to the Yorkshire dales?
  It is important that British Rail should have all possible sources of revenue—from stations, franchising and catering—from wherever it can get the money to help it cover the costs of the rural, relatively more lightly used branch and main-line services, which will inevitably cost money in maintenance because of the heavy costs that we have inherited from our Victorian ancestors.
  I stress to the Minister that the future of the Settle-Carlisle line should be as part of British Rail. which should provide the through services with help from such dedicated bands of volunteers as the Friends of Settle-Carlisle Railway Association. I hope that that will be the future of the Settle-Carlisle line, and not the bleak future of closure, which will bring dismay and horror and which, if that is what happens, will be regarded as an act of unparalleled corporate vandalism by the Government.
  12.42 am
  Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Rippon): I too wish to address my remarks primarily to the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway which runs the length of my constituency; I too am a vice-president of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association to which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have referred. I reflect not only my own concerns and those of

  677
  Opposition Members, but especially those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), whose constituency is also affected by the line, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who spoke in the previous debate.
  It is particularly appropriate, and indeed necessary, to raise this issue tonight because the brochure which is going out to people who have expressed an interest in purchasing the line is being sent out this week and may even be in the post tonight. It is intended that there will be a seminar in early September for those who respond to that brochure—the prospective purchasers—and the timetable demands that outline bids should be in by the end of September, with a decision due in November. Almost all that time falls when the House is in recess, so it is important that we should have our say tonight, because the period when we return will be crowded.
  That brochure will detail the package of support which has already been pledged. It is important to highlight what is already on the table. There is £1 million from English Heritage for the Ribblehead viaduct. The Training Commission is offering support for projects which are based on the Jarvis recommendations. The English and Cumbrian tourist boards are planning to support tourist projects—for example, accommodation and visitor centres adjacent to the line. The Development Commission for Rural England has pledged up to £100,000 for Ribblehead. The Countryside Commission has pledged £100,000 to match capital invested in tourist projects and commercial concerns like Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, Grand Metropolitan and construction companies have also pledged support to a purchaser.
  Those pledges are heavily tourist-oriented. They offer the chance that a private operator can do what British Rail cannot—as it is debarred from acting in this way—and combine rail and road traffic and offer packages that involve part rail and part road transport. That would open up a new market for tourism in the Yorkshire Dales.
  Privatisation can succeed, but it needs more flexibility and promotion by the Government. To that end, there are several ways in which the Government can materially improve the prospects of the successful privatisation of the line.
  First, I have learned from British Rail that it will be unable to give any figures about the anticipated revenue or level of passengers on the line. British Rail compiles its figures for another purpose, and it has been advised by its legal advisers that it may not give estimates of the level of passengers or revenue. It may not even refer to estimates by other bodies such as Cumbria county council.
  It will be a bizarre prospectus if it cannot tell a prospector what he is going to purchase. There will be a blind man's buff in the prospectus. I urge the Minister to investigate that problem. I recognise that British Rail considers that to be a genuine problem, but I want the Minister to investigate to ensure that the information will enable a proper commercial decision to be made.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the November deadline. I want the Minister to give a clear undertaking that if serious negotiations are in train, given the very short time that any operator will have to prepare a bid from September when he receives the detailed
  678
  information—which will be very weighty, as it will include a long list of all the assets associated with the line—and assemble his capital, he will not apply the guillotine at that deadline. I want the Minister to undertake to proceed with his negotiations if that happens.
  I pay tribute to the efforts made by the Minister's predecessor on behalf of the line. His predecessor said that if British Rail were authorised to cease operations, it would have four months to do so. That is not long enough. We need at least six months. I urge the Minister to make that concession now, as the brochures are sent out, so that purchasers have a proper idea of what is in store for them.
  Local authorities have offered help under conditions. Any purchaser who takes on the line will have to accept the capital structures on the basis of "make do and mend". He will face the prospect of annual costs outstripping annual revenues. It would be more helpful if local authorities felt able to revert to an offer of an annual grant towards the operating costs of the line. I appreciate that they already do that in certain aspects. It would help if they upped that figure and in return demanded certain social services such as winter services and services at the beginning and end of the day.
  I welcome British Rail's assurance that the private operator can have the option of running his trains over British Rail track to Carlisle into Hellifield and, if he wishes, to run trains to Blackburn via Clitheroe. Will the Minister raise that point with the local authorities, so that they may restructure their support?
  Local needs are important. We must not get the idea that we are talking exclusively about a tourist operation. The local needs in that part of the world, with its severe winters and its high proportion of elderly people, must not be overlooked. With increased revenue from tourist operations—the £10·50 day return from Leeds to Carlisle is a very cheap option at the moment—plus some bridging finance for the operating costs, we are in sight of closing the gap between opérating costs and revenue, which would enable the line to continue.
  This is a very sensitive and political issue. The Minister must appreciate that the Settle-Carlisle line is seen as the symbol of a history of a culture and a character. It is very difficult for me to explain to my constituents why it is right that taxpayers should be asked to pay £5 million to restore the Albert memorial, but it is not right to pay a fraction of that to restore the Ribblehead viaduct. Take those two together, and the Ribblehead viaduct is overwhelmingly the more important monument to our nation's history and has the greater promise for the nation's future.
  I support privatisation. I do not seek pure subsidy, but I demand a real commitment to ensure that the venture succeeds. I hope that the Minister will ride the line. Indeed, he must ride the line before he makes his decision, so that he not merely feels its history, but sees its opportunities.
  A few days ago on the back page of The Times there was a splendid photograph of Mallard hauling a steam train across the Ribblehead viaduct. That symbolises what is at stake—it is not just a dramatic photograph, but a symbol of what there is to save and to build on. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those points.
  12.50 am
  Mr. Roger Knapman: As the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has insisted upon duplicating his Adjournment debate speech of 26 May, some of us must take the Beeching axe to our own remarks.
  It may interest hon. Members to know that, back at the time of privatisation, London, Midland and Scottish and London and North-Eastern Region were respectively the second and third biggest companies in the world. The Labour Minister of Transport at that time—1947—said:
  "Passengers who travel on our railways have not today the comfort, either in matters of refreshment or of travel. which they ought to have"
  He finished with a ringing appeal:
  "Give this Labour Government five years of power in … transport services and the people of this country will see more progress than would be made in 500 years of Tory rule".
  Tell that to long-suffering commuters on Network SouthEast, or those trying to get their teeth through a British Rail sandwich.
  If, like me, one cannot make a decent speech oneself, by far the next best thing is to hijack one that is 47 years old and resurrect it from that forgotten age. The person replying to that debate was no less than Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. His speech is just as topical now as it was then. I feel that I must mention two or three points that he made, having spent some four hours in the Library.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe said:
  "I ask those who interrupt me to look at the father and mother of the Bill, the T.U.C. document, in which it will be found that these low costs are stressed"—
  he was referring to the low costs, because of the short distances between manufacturing places and the ports—
  "but we shall not have them under a monopoly which will be cumbrous and top-heavy, whose structural defects are as manifest as its powers are unlimited."
  He went on:
  "The right hon. Gentleman has given us one reason for this integration, with regard to railway services, and that was the difficulty of doing capital works on the railways."
  That was just after the war.
  "He knows as everyone knows that the railway companies had their plans ready for renewals, replacements and new works, and to take his own example, he knows it was planned and that everything was prepared to rebuild Euston Station, which is one of the examples he chose in this matter."—[Official Report, 16 December 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1637–8.]
  So the will for new works was there after the war—of that make no mistake.
  Even more telling—I believe that the word "integration" will be much used in debates as we soon move towards railway privatisation—are the words of Sir Cyril Hurcombe, the Director-General of the Ministry of Transport, who was in charge of the railway system during the war:
  "detailed allocation of traffic has not been practicable, nor, indeed, has it been easy to find any fixed principles on which to allocate at all. It must be confessed that wartime allocation of traffic has not been based on principles or methods likely to be applicable to ordinary conditions, so there will be much talk of integration but I suspect rather fewer people who know what integration means".
  I will not carry on after that short point, but in 1947 there were relatively few Conservative Members in this place—about the same miserable number as there are Opposition Members now. However, during that time we had the support of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) talks of the Liberal Bench, but the Liberals followed us through the Lobby time after time in that debate.
  680
  My hon. Friend the Minister can look forward to a nice easy ride. if I can put it that way, because we can look forward to certain help from the "SaLaD" party. which I presume to be the Liberal party's successor, when privatisation comes about. I hope that that will be soon.
  12.55 am
  Mr. David Shaw: There have been many successful examples of privatisation under this Government. British Telecom is often labelled as one which has not been too successful, but any of us who tried to get telephones 12 or even four years ago knows that the service has been improving steadily. Under Labour, I found the delay excessive and unreasonable. Now, not only is there hardly any delay, but one has a choice of telephone. The consumer is at long last starting to rule the telephone industry and the introduction of Mercury will ensure that that continues.
  The Government must not relax with British Rail privatisation. It would be very easy to say that it is too difficult, that it has been in the public sector too long and that it is an old industry. The Government should not go soft. They should face up to the fact that BR is an opportunity to provide the consumer with a better service.
  BR's service has undoubtedly improved in some areas, but the current service is no more than adequate. Nothing really exciting exists in BR for passengers or for employees, who are denied the opportunity of profit-sharing and of share option schemes. Management is not paid as decent management would be, so one is tempted to say that it cannot be running a decent business and getting decent pay for it.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: How much does the hon. Gentleman get paid?
  Mr. Shaw: Not as much as some BR managers.
  This is not a decent business that provides a decent service. The businesses that depend on BR do not get the same reaction from the staff and management of BR as they would expect in their own businesses. BR has not been exciting for the taxpayer, who has been the investor for the past 40 years or so, as there has been no trace of a dividend.
  Stations in my constituency are not tidy, carriages are out of date, catering facilities are hardly ever available and timekeeping does not accord with what BR tells us in its accounts. It is not very good, especially on Fridays. The only good news is my local village station, which has nice courteous staff and where newspapers are for sale. The station is also relatively well kept.
  We are tempted to ask what can be done with private finance. I believe that it could offer new opportunities for BR and the travelling public. Much finance could be available if there were good investment returns for the private investor. Stations could be converted into retail shops, public houses or guest houses, and many of them could become tourist attractions.
  As for the rolling stock, there are opportunities for business men's carriages where they can work as they travel. There could be office cubicles with telephones and fax and telex machines. There could be tourism carriages with glass tops in which people could tour around the country. There could be catering carriages with much better catering facilities.

  681
  Many property opportunities could be taken advantage of at the major termini. Hotels, offices, shops and business premises could be expanded on BR sites. Docklands and Canary wharf is the largest private sector development in the world at the moment, but it is small compared with the potential for King's Cross, which could be an £8 billion development. There are many opportunities for new investment in track. Even new lines could be contemplated if private sector finance and privatisation were introduced.
  British Rail should be run to provide a good, efficient service for passengers together with a profit for the investors, and it should be a good place to work for the employees, who could do well from privatisation. My colleagues and I call on the Government to publish a Green Paper on privatisation and to introduce private finance as soon as possible.
  12.59 am
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on securing a place in the ballot and choosing this subject, and I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Front Bench for the first time on transport.
  British Rail's corporate plan for 1988 published last week is a thin documentm, certainly unlikely to pass a GCSE in transport and rarely addressing the real issues. It is vital that the railways are put under the spotlight. There are exciting projects—for example, the east-coast mainline electrification, the construction of the Stansted airport rail link, the electrification of the Portsmouth-Southampton line and the provision of international rail services which will come about through the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993.
  Although we hear that British Rail is becoming more customer-orientated—Jimmy Savile used to proclaim that it was "getting there"—the facts speak substantially to the contrary. Can one imagine any other company with rationale advertising its failure by taking advertisements—full-page and London Underground ones—showing the black and red dots of their failure? I cannot imagine any other company doing that. Clearly the railways are operator-led rather than customer-orientated, although they moved from an £83 million loss to a £291 million surplus last year.
  The time has come for the Government to ask British Rail for its denationalisation strategy. It is long overdue. It may propose privatising region by region, and on my recent visit to Scotland that was welcomed. It may privatise sector by sector, or, most probably, split the track and maintenance from the operators. I favour the latter. The former runs along CAA lines and the latter would be like customer-oriented companies.
  What would denationalisation bring? First, it would bring employee participation, which would be beloved by Labour Members, if they were present, but I see many empty Benches. I look forward to British Rail Engineering Limited being awarded to a company or consortium which allows staff at all levels to participate. Even York's hard Left council paid for a private consultant's report last year which concluded that the best future for the engineering company was—surprise, surprise—in private hands. How right it was, and how silent the Socialist councillors have been since. It makes sense for a heavy engineering firm to
  682
  be able to take on all appropriate work at competitive prices that would include major coach and defence contracts, using skills which are rarely fully utilised.
  Secondly, denationalisation would bring frequency of service. If anyone wishes to go to a theatre or cinema in London or to have a meal at a reasonable time, he will fail to get back to York that evening, because the last published time of departure is 10 pm. I could give examples for many other provincial cities.
  Thirdly, at present it is impossible to buy any magazine or newspaper on any train in the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why that is, or why there is that stranglehold monopoly. No doubt the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has noticed that he cannot enjoy the pleasure of purchasing Labour Weekly on the train.
  Furthermore, denationalisation would bring catering en route for the customer. Why is it that frequently no facilities are available for the first 20 minutes or last 30 minutes of a journey? Lunch stops at 12 noon on a train from the north when it reaches Newark. It is time for vending machines on every InterCity and provincial train. It is right that there should be a seat for every customer. Frequently, standard class ticket holders have no seat and British Rail has no answer for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre referred to the privatisation of railway stations. We need open stations. At present, staff at London termini such as King's Cross simply obstruct passengers and make the carrying of luggage extremely difficult by restricting space. They have even tried to stop me boarding the right train. There is no need for those staff to be there; they could be put to productive use. Similarly, we need to develop passenger services at stations. Why do we not have banking facilities at every station, and why do not all stations do what the Essex stations do and provide one with the opportunity to service one's car?
  A visit to the Utrecht headquarters of Dutch Railways showed me the proper use of real estate. There, 250 to 280 retail points exist. The property board of British Rail may say, "We haven't got the space." The answer is to push the railway lines at Paddington and Waterloo further out, so as to put that real estate—the most valuable in Britain—to use.
  One should not expect to find trolleys at these important destinations. If hon. Members went to King's Cross tonight they would find trolleys not on the platforms for use by passengers, but at the exit point, where no doubt there would be 200 or more. One will not find services advertised as one would at Heathrow or Gatwick. One will find no facilities whatever. Even the common rail ticket does not refer to any other service or product that is available.
  The customer should come first, not the railways or the operator. I look forward to a commitment by the Government to put the user first and to ask British Rail, as a matter of urgency, not for completely inadequate corporate plans but for its solid denationalisation proposals.
  1.6 am
  Mr. Quentin Davies: It is no exaggeration to say that the railways in this country have been something of a disaster on wheels throughout this century. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for

  683
  Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the only Opposition Member who has spoken, who implied that the problems went back to a time long before privatisation. Of course they do; they go back to the beginning of the century and are associated with three interlinked factors.
  The first was the growth of monopolistic or oligopolistic practices and attitudes of mind on the part of the companies. The second was the extensive and intensive degree of trade unionisation from which the industry suffered from the beginning of the century. The third was creeping Government interference. Nationalisation was promoted as a solution to the problems of the railways, but it made all three aspects distinctly worse.
  If I had had time after discovering that you had chosen this very timely subject for debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have done some research with a view to presenting to the House in terms of constant 1988 prices the sum of the operating deficits incurred by British Railways and British Rail since nationalisation and the new investment poured in from public funds. Presented in constant 1988 prices, those figures would have been very revealing. I am sorry that I cannot present those figures tonight, although I fear that I can think of few more depressing avenues of industrial research.
  This unfortunate state of affairs is the result of three factors that were completely predictable. A monopoly will generate monopoly costs; they always do. Those costs are insidious, though incalculable, and they would not exist if there was competitive pressure on the firm. At the same time, a monopoly will not seize the opportunities that a competitive firm would seize, so incremental revenues that might have been generated will not be generated.
  The second problem is that a monopoly will develop a very producer-oriented culture. We see that in the terrible structure of restrictive practices, closed shops and compulsory overmanning from which British Rail has always suffered. We also know it anecdotally every time we take the train. Whenever I go to Lincolnshire, I have to queue for about 10 minutes to buy a ticket, and I have to queue to get on to the platform. Ours is the only railway system in the world that makes one queue to get on to the platform. If one wants to get a sandwich or a drink, one has to queue at the bar, which is not normally opened until 10 minutes or so after the train has left the station or when the staff happen to feel like it. That is real producer orientation for you.
  The next problem with a nationalised monopoly is that it will always suffer from insidious political interference such as artificial limits being imposed on its borrowing powers.
  Nationalisation has made the railways hopelessly unattractive economically. It is impossible to produce a prospectus for major parts of the railway system and have any hope of floating them off. On the other hand, this can be a vicious circle. Nationalisation having destroyed the railways as an attractive investment proposition, we may never be able to get out of nationalisation so as to make the activity prosperous, attractive and viable again. The only way to square the circle is to look for niches which enable us to carve into that monopoly and introduce elements of privatisation.
  That is why I welcome the ideas we have heard tonight—for example to privatise small regional railways or to allow private companies to run trains on publicly owned track. We must go forward in the interests of the customers of the railways and the economy as a whole, and not least
  684
  in the interests of the poor taxpayer who has borne this burden over the years. We must seize every opportunity to reverse the fatal tendency towards monopoly from which the railway system has suffered through the decades of this century.
  1.11 am
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I love trains and, like all hon. Members, I want to see the railways improved. I hope that before the Minister achieves that objective by privatising the whole system, he will preserve a few samples of British Rail, such as the plastic cup that bends in the middle and spills boiling hot liquid all over one, the curly sandwich, the dirty old carriage complete with split seat on which one would prefer not to put one's clean clothes, and the timetable.
  Sometimes trains run to time, but often on the lines into and out of my constituency they run up to an hour and a half late. My secretary goes home every evening on the train to Southend. On leaving my office at 5.30—if she is lucky—she makes her way to Fenchurch Street station, from where she arrives at her home in Southend sometimes as late as 9 o'clock, a journey which technically should take an hour.
  Delays occur because the driver will not go the whole distance, as his scheduled time is up, or he started late, or somebody was not available to operate the signals, or perhaps for no reason at all. So the train is shunted into a siding and after perhaps an hour the passengers are offered a coach ride to complete their journey. The result is that my secretary and her husband do not have their dinner until late.
  What I have described is the reality for many commuters. There are four major railway stations in my constituency and almost every household is affected because they have in their families commuters working in London. They are lucky to get to work on time and even luckier to arrive home at a reasonable hour. My description of travelling on these lines is a typical occurrence for commuters who use Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street stations.
  What is more, the rolling stock used on those lines is dreadful old stuff. Whenever I travel in these trains, I feel I need a wash and brush-up on arriving at the terminal, so dusty and dirty are the seats and carriage walls.
  This debate is about how we might use private investment to improve the railway system, and already we could allow private operators to run services over BR lines. We could thereby slot in many more trains. Ample people exist to do this. Reference has been made to the Orient express operation. Those concerned with that operate on other lines, too. There are other companies, including Tiphook plc and Foster Yeoman plc, which are able and willing to do this work.
  The present dirty old carriages could be improved. Allied Lyons plc recently paid about half the cost of refurbishing coaches on the Waterloo-City line in return for having the company's logo on the outside of the coaches, as is done with the red buses. There is no reason why that type of action should not be taken immediately, even before we get new rolling stock.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that there is a surplus of drivers, so there is no reason for trains to stop in the middle of nowhere because there is no driver. Far more are trained than we need, and young qualified drivers

  685
  often wait years for promotion, which is on the basis of age. Sometimes they have to wait until they are 50 and have only 15 years left. If some of them became private contract drivers with licences, they could come in and take over trains when other drivers reach the end of their schedule. We could also have self-employed porters. In America they do a deal with the passenger on the cost of carrying the luggage and are happy to work on a self-employed basis. Computer technology could do much to improve timetabling.
  The platform at Billericay has holes so big that people trip and have serious accidents. We could privatise the maintenance of stations as well as the track. And while we are waiting around for the trains, why should we not have shopping facilities? Every train station could be a mini-concourse of the kind found at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, where people can buy all kinds of bits and pieces. There are so many ways in which the private sector could inject capital straight away and improve the lot of those who travel on those lines.
  Finally, I wish to put in a little word for myself. I often travel by rail. As I have said, I enjoy it. I often travel first class, especially if the person inviting me is prepared to pay for the ticket. First-class travel is expensive. It can cost more to visit Hazel Grove than Paris or Barcelona if one pays the full fare of £85, and what does one get for it? There is no reclining seat, no decent selection of food, no in-service magazines, newspapers, muzak or video, or any of the other services provided by British Airways for the same price. I hope that, without the need for primary legislation, my hon. Friend the Minister will think of my poor commuters going up and down those two lines and do what he can straight away to bring in private enterprise and make their lives happier.
  1.17 am
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has raised the subject of rail privatisation, as it needs to be properly debated. The Government have been far too reticent about their plans. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State chided the Labour party for not having a transport policy. As he said that he had read every word of our policy review, I give the right hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. for diligence but zero for comprehension as he clearly did not understand a word of what he read. Our policy, which I believe is well supported by most people, is that the railways, like all forms of transport and all service industries, exist to provide for the customer and the user, whether individual or corporate and whether in terms of the economy, regional development or whatever. The main purpose is to provide a service.
  The problem is that we are getting privatisation by stealth, which is distorting the whole transport market. As soon as there is the slightest possibility of money being made, private capital is brought in to siphon off the gravy. As a result, morale within British Rail is debilitated. How can one expect initiative from British Rail when it is told that it will be left with the dross and that the only way to survive is to sell off anything that is any good, and constantly retrench?
  Comparisons have been made with British Airways and the British Airports Authority. The only excuse for
  686
  privatisation of the BAA was that it would be able to go out and build hotels, car parks and shops. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who has such an interest in the Settle-Carlisle line, said that the problem was that British Rail was prevented from doing certain things. That is what needs to be cured. It is not a matter of privatisation but of allowing British Rail to use its initiative and expand. It was forced to sell off its hotels, but it ought to be able to go back into that sector and provide a service if it wishes. In our view, this is the way forward.
  The paucity of the Government's policy is amply illustrated by their decision for the Settle-Carlisle line. Everyone knows and accepts that the line should be kept open. Everyone says so. The Secretary of State for Transport accepts that it should be kept open. Even the Secretary of State for the Environment accepts that it should be kept open. The only trouble is that the Cabinet decided that the Secretary of State for Transport should lose, that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be the winner, and that there should be a private enterprise solution.
  The so-called dowry—the subsidy for the private section solution—is to be provided by the public sector. I have seen the letter of the Secretary of State for the Environment in which he states that the Government should provide the money to keep the line open, but adds that the last thing that they should so is make it available to British Rail. That is dogma gone mad. The sooner that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State realise that, the better. I hope that they will fight for British Rail and for the passenger.
  The deregulation of bus services and the privatization of the National Bus Company, for example, brought a poorer service for those who are on the periphery. We know—[Interruption.] I can understand that at this time of night Conservative Members are unwilling to face reality. The trouble is that they take their dogma and their blinkers through the daylight as well. The problem is that we are dealing——
  Mr. Cryer: Conservative Members do not want to know.
  Mr. Hughes: I ask my hon. Friend not to heckle. That goes for Conservative Members as well. I am trying to finish my speech.
  Instead of endeavouring to provide a service for the public and the nation, the Government are concerned about service for the moneylender. That is the only thing that matters to them. It is that attitude that is destroying the transport system. The Channel tunnel and the concept of spreading benefits throughout the country and not only to Kent, which for some reason does not want it, or to London, where there are problems, will fail because the Government will not accept that the railways are part of the transport system. They will not give priority to service and they will not make available the necessary investment. They will not allow British Rail to use initiative. For all these reasons, British Rail is failing. The new Minister of State can make his mark in the Department if he casts aside all the dogma and past practice and considers seriously developing the railways.
  1.23 am
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portilio): The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for his diligence in reading the Labour party's policy on these matters. In the 72 hours that I have held my present office it has not been my highest priority to mug up on Labour party policy. I have not been encouraged to do so by the statement that the market has been distorted by private capital. That is such an extraordinary statement that I am not tempted to read on.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on initiating the debate. Two things have become evident to me. First, it is impossible to ignore the spontaneous eruption of opinion on the Government Benches in favour of further privatisation. The full Benches behind me, even in the middle of the night, testify to how strongly that opinion is felt. Secondly, it will be impossible for me to ignore the Settle-Carlisle railway, which will be a major concern of mine in the months to come.
  I must disappoint my hon. Friends by saying that I have no major announcement to make, such as the preparation of a Green Paper. That will be a disappointment to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for York (Mr. Gregory), as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who showed us tonight her clean clothes and her entrepreneurial inventiveness. I congratulate her on that.
  We listened to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who said that the railways were short of finance because of Government policy. No investment proposal since 1983 has been rejected by the Government. If there were a shortage of finance because of Government constraints, surely that would be an argument for privatisation. I found the hon. Gentleman's argument puzzling.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) quoted a speech that was 41 years old. I have to say that it had a fresher feel to it than the speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was very concerned about the Settle-Carlisle railway, as indeed was the hon. Member for Bradford, South. I recognise the serious concerns about that, and I look forward to applying my mind to the problems that confront us.
  I shall take into account some of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and when I meet the local authorities, as I shall before long, I shall mention what he has said. I shall consider carefully his comments about the lack of available information. I am also happy to concede to him that as the timetable change in any case occurs in mid-May 1989, it seems reasonable that if closure is decided on it should not occur until then. That extends the period in which we can seek a private sector solution, although in my view it is still right for the new evidence on hardship to come forward under the timetable so that we can reach final decisions with a fair degree of urgency.
  I very much agreed with the general defence of privatisation policies produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre. Successive Governments have attempted to grapple with the poor performance of nationalised industries through increasingly stringent control frameworks. The cumulative effect has been to
  688
  create a set of external stimuli which, in the absence of real competitive forces, try to provide pressure similar to that normally provided by market mechanisms. The intention behind the Government's privatisation and competition policy is to replace the surrogate market with the real market.
  Privatisation is intended to benefit customers, employees and the economy as a whole. The customers benefit from greater efficiency, which then results in lower prices, wider choice and better service. For employees, privatisation means working in a company with clear objectives, the means to achieve them and rewards for success. The economy benefits through higher returns on capital in the privatised industries, which can no longer pre-empt resources from elsewhere in the economy but must compete for funds in the open market.
  Let me say in parenthesis that no better defence of the Government's privatisation programme has ever been made than that made by my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Social Security, back in 1983. It still remains a remarkable statement about our objectives.
  I am proud to join the Department of Transport, which has a most impressive privatisation record. Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) that there are many examples of the vicious circle being broken in the past. The Department has privatised the National Freight Consortium, Associated British Ports, British Airways and the British Airports Authority, and has a major privatisation programme for the subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. That leaves three industries in the Department of Transport—the Civil Aviation Authority, which I believe is in a category of its own, London Regional Transport, and British Rail.
  I stress that we have no plans to privatise British Rail at present, and we are constantly reviewing our long-term options. None is ruled out, as has been made clear successively by my right hon. Friend and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), to whom such a generous tribute has been paid not only tonight but during our debate the other day.
  Many issues need further study. We need to examine regulation in monopolies and arrangements for subsidy of loss-making services. In the meantime, as so many of my hon. Friends have said, the priority is to improve British Rail's service to the customer and to increase efficiency. Good progress is being made, with dependence on grant being reduced, productivity increased and substantial investment being made to improve the quality of service.
  The objectives set out and agreed between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—now Secretary of State for Social Security—and the British Railways Board call for a series of vigorous measures to broaden the participation of the private sector in providing services to the railway, and for British Rail to establish specific programmes to that end. Private sector involvement has been increasing over the past few years, and I am very pleased with that. It is now quite extensive, with British Rail spending some £1·3 billion annually with private companies, out of a total expenditure of £3·3 billion.
  Private caterers compete with Travellers Fare at eight major stations and private companies operate alone at 90 other stations. The private sector also provides prepared food for on-train catering and about 20 private on-train

  689
  trolley services are now operating. Total private sector involvement in property development is running at about £1 billion.
  My hon. Friends will be familiar with earlier sell-offs, which include Sealink, British Transport Hotels, Hovercraft, British Transport Advertising and Doncaster wagon works. That policy will continue, and the House will be aware that British Rail will be issuing a BREL information package shortly to a number of prospective purchasers. Today, the executive directors of BREL made an announcement about their plans for a management and employee buy-out, in which they would be supported by ASEA Brown-Boveri and Trafalgar House. Naturally we welcome all serious expressions of interest in bidding for BREL, although it is too soon to say who the successful purchaser will be. Our approval will be needed for the eventual sale and we shall take all relevant factors into account.
  With our agreement, BR is preparing to invite offers for Travellers Fare. That will give the new owners greater freedom to develop the business and should be good for the customer and good for the railway. I thought that there was a certain obsessiveness with food and catering in some of my hon. Friends' remarks. Therefore, I know that they will be interested in that information. British Rail will be ready to invite bids in September and it hopes to complete the sale before the end of this financial year.
  The reason why we are able to discuss BR privatisation is that it has made progress under firm Government guidelines and with taxpayer investment. Two other things, however, were necessary—first, the determination of Ministers since 1979 to move industries into the private sector and to stimulate competition; and, secondly, the presence of opinion formers who created the climate in which such enlightened changes could be made. Such opinion formers have been with us tonight on the Benches behind me. I congratulate all my hon. Friends who have made their voices loudly heard.

  Overseas Aid and Development
  1.31 am
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, I welcome the presence of the Minister for Overseas Development and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). It is important to have this debate, especially in the light of some of the replies that the Minister has given my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and other hon. Members recently.
  It is appropriate to discuss, in as much detail as time will allow, what the figures, statistics and all the rest that the Minister has offered mean in terms of the problems of poverty in the Third world and the Government's response to them.
  I do not know how many letters the Minister has received since he took over the Department, but I suspect that the one that will be foremost in his mind will be the one that began, "Dear Chris". It was an open letter published in the Sunday Telegraph on the Sunday after the Minister's appointment, and it was from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised if I remind him that, in that open letter, his right hon. Friend had some interesting things to say. In the quietness of the hour we can reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman said and compare it with the Minister's record in office. His right hon. Friend then advised:
  "Nor will you be plagued with adjournment debates"
  Therefore, it is right that we should be having this one.
  His right hon. Friend also said:
  "The Guardian over-stated it when they said that you seem 'to have been sadly despatched to the saltmines of overseas aid'."
  In one of the most acute exercises in open government, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I've no doubt Geoffrey will fight the battle well. I only hope that the Prime Minister, having put you there, will be sympathetic. She has many qualities, but I can't say that over-enthusiasm for the aid programme is one of them."
  He continued:
  "I couldn't help thinking, as we had our amiable farewell chat last Wednesday, that it was about the first time that I had ever had a conversation with her about what Pd been up to at the ODA."
  The other day, the Minister assured the House that he had had a person-to-person confrontation with the Prime Minister. Perhaps tonight we shall hear how much she said, how much he said and whether the discussion influenced Government policy.
  The most telling sentence in that letter, to which I want to address myself tonight, stated:
  "We simply don't have a large enough programme by international standards."
  I put it to the Minister, who is highly regarded in all parts of the House—I hope I do not damage his prospects by saying that—that we have seen no improvement in that regard since he took over this crucial responsibility.
  The debate is vital and absolutely necessary because of the Government's quite appalling record on overseas aid. We have a moral responsibility to aid less developed countries. As a country, we benefit from that aid through world growth and economic interdependence. That was what the Brandt report was about. The House will not forget that one of the biggest lobbies ever at the Palace of Westminster was when more than 10,000 people urged

  691
  upon the House the necessity to accept the principles of the Brandt report. One gets the impression that the Government hardly know that it exists.
  The United Nations target figure, the internationally agreed target, is that developed countries should aim to contribute 0·7 per cent. of their GNP to less developed countries as official development assistance. In all candour, the Government's approach is an absolute disgrace and I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position.
  The United Nations set a target not of real percentage increase, but of a fixed proportion of GNP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has consistently reminded the Minister. The principle is that, as western economies and western incomes grow, simultaneously, so will our commitment to development and overseas aid. The GNP of the United Kingdom increased by 21 per cent. last year, but that was hardly reflected in our aid budget; hence, our proportion fell. Countries that accept the United Nations target figure of 0·7 per cent.—indeed, countries that accept the principle of paying a fixed proportion of GNP—are saying that we should tie the health of the Third world to our wealth.
  The target figure of 0·7 per cent. is, to some extent, our income tax due to the Third world. A strange parallel can be drawn between the Government's approach to aid and United Kingdom taxation. They have made it easier for richer people to feel that they have no responsibility to the poor by cutting the proportion of individual incomes used to fund services. Similarly, we, as a rich nation, have cut the proportion of our national income, our GNP, used to fund world development.
  The lack of logic in the Government's approach can be seen by using a tax analogy. If a person's income increases, we expect him to pay a fixed proportion in tax. We do not tell him to pay slightly more tax than last year to keep pace with inflation. We do not write to the tax inspector to say that our income increased by 21 per cent. last year so we will pay 5 per cent. more in tax. That is nonsense. If we accept that domestically, why should we take this approach to the Third world? Just as income tax is the money that members of the community pay to meet their responsibilities to the community, overseas aid is the money that members of the international community pay to meet their responsibilities to it. So the Government's record is a scandal and their excuses, which we hear every third week on Mondays, for 10 minutes in the House, are tawdry.
  Let us hear no more of real terms increases; let us hear when we shall increase the proportion of our GNP that goes to the Third world. That proportion has fallen by 45 per cent. since 1979. On 20 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles asked:
  "as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly stand at the Dispatch Box and say how well off the country is, could we not expect more of that wealth to go to the Third world? Instead, the amount is declining at a time when the countries that we visited are in desperate need." —[Official Report, 20 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 830.]
  Our record as a member of the international community is appalling. That is nowhere more evident than in the United Nations. In a 1987 league table of OECD contributors to UNICEF, the United Nations children's fund, the United Kingdom came second from bottom. Our per capita contribution of 34 cents compared with Sweden's $9·41. So to say that net aid is growing in real terms is not to give the whole picture. Small increases
  692
  now are still not making up for the real-terms losses the Government have caused over the past eight years. And the Government's published expenditure plans to 1991 still leave real net aid from the United Kingdom 12 per cent. below that of 1979. That is the first answer to the Government's pathetic excuses.
  The second, more important reason why the Government's opinions do not ring true is that real-terms increases do not really matter. They are much less significant than measurements of the proportion of GNP, given that in 1979 this country was well on the way to reaching the 0·7 per cent. target. The figure then was an internationally respectable 0·51 percent. of GNP. Much of the credit for that is due to Judith Hart, who did so much at the Department when it still meant something in terms of Government policy——
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): Tell that to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
  Mr. Clarke: If my right hon. Friend were here he would have every reason to be proud of his record in this area —much more so than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister should tell that to his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Patten: There is one important difference between the former Chancellor and my right hon. Friend, the present one. My right hon. Friend can go to the IMF and help it to lend money to other countries. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East went to it to borrow money.
  Mr. Clarke: I look forward to an economic debate. I would be stretching the point, as the Minister tried to, if I were to argue about borrowing. I have many constituents who have been forced to borrow and borrow by this Government, so the Chancellor is not in a position to lecture Labour Members.
  I remind the Minister that overseas development is his responsibility. Under his stewardship, the amount of aid given has fallen and continues to do so. The 1987 figures show that the proportion of the United Kingdom's GNP given to aid is only 0·28 per cent. The proportion of GNP given has fallen by 45 per cent. Of the 17 members of the OECD's development assistance committee, that fall is by far the largest. Those countries have Chancellors, or their equivalents, who would not dream of trying to justify the unjustifiable to their Parliaments. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to do so.
  That fall should be contrasted with a 300 per cent. increase in the proportion of GNP by Italy, a 138 per cent. increase by Finland and a 43 per cent. increase by Sweden. Other increases have been given by countries such as Denmark, Norway, Japan, Holland and even the United States of America. No wonder the Minister attempted to distract us by trying to introduce issues that are not relevent to his brief.
  The United Kingdom is now 14th out of the 17 countries in the OECD league table. In 1979, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and Judith Hart shared responsibility for these matters, we were seventh and set to climb higher. Under this Government, who have a wretched record, we always look as though we will drop lower in the table.

  693
  In a reply to a written question asked by me, the Minister stated that the Government had set no target for reaching the 0·7 per cent. figure. He said that it
  "depends on developments in the economy and other claims on resources."—[Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132 c. 168.]
  Since the Government's record has been not one of gradually moving to the 0·7 per cent. but one of decline, perhaps the Minister will say when the United Kingdom will reach 0·2,0·1 or even 0 per cent. People used to believe that 0·4 or 0·3 per cent. were magic barriers below which the United Kingdom would never fall. The Government have proved that such naive optimism was quite unfounded.
  The Government's stock excuse is that our aid budget is growing in real terms. That is an interesting defence, and no doubt we will hear it again tonight.
  Mr. Chris Patten: The hon. Gentleman said that he thought it more important to concentrate on increasing the proportion of GNP given to aid than increasing the aid programme in real terms. I cannot believe that he thinks that. Would he like to reconsider his remarks and say whether he believes that what matters above all is the proportion of GNP and that having a sufficiently strong economy to increase aid in real terms is not of any consequence whatever?
  Mr. Clarke: Constant prices are important, which is why the Minister seldom, if ever, refers to them. If the Government have changed their minds about the proportion of GNP given and the United Nations' target, they have a responsibility to tell us. They have not yet done so, but the debate will give them the opportunity.lb/>
  A modest increase in real terms this year looks generous on paper, but we should remember that in constant 1986–87 prices United Kingdom net aid fell from £1,395 million in 1978–79 to £1,198 million in 1987–88. That is a decrease in real terms—in cash terms—of about 14 per cent. in the contributions made before the Government took office. How the Minister can justify any of those figures is beyond me. The debate will give him an opportunity to do so.
  The United Kingdom's record is just as bad in other United Nations agencies. We followed the United States of America and pulled out of UNESCO, cutting ourselves adrift from the process of reform currently transforming that organisation. We stand 24th in a table of 24 OECD members in contributions to UNESCO. We are joint bottom with the United States. We are 16th out of 24 in per capita contributions to the World Health Organisation. Our pathetic and miserable 21 cents per head per year is half that of Switzerland, which is in first place. Presumably the Minister is proud of that record. I notice that he is not so keen to intervene on that point, although I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Would the hon. Gentleman care to give us the figures for where we stand in volume terms in our contributions to the WHO? I am sure that he has the figures and is knowledgeable on that point.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give the Minister figures in the same way as he gave me figures. There were times when he was somewhat coy in response to the open questions he has put to me and which I have put to him.
  694
  We are 17th out of 24 in per capita contributions to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and we contribute only 3 per cent. of the per capita figure given by Denmark, which is again in first place. I wonder whether that figure pleases the Minister and whether he regards that as progress.
  If we are to continue to follow every move of United States foreign policy like timid and obedient poodles, we should also bear in mind that in league tables for the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNESCO and UNICEF, in no case does the United States contribute more. Perhaps the Government are racing the United States to the bottom of the heap.
  The Government's response to aid is selective in the extreme. In the case of Nicaragua, in 1986 we gave less than $5,000 in bilateral aid for technical co-operation, while Italy gave over $7 million. In 1987 we could still find only £47,000 for technical co-operation, co-financed with British voluntary groups. That is a pittance when compared to the scale of suffering caused by the Contra terrorist war paid for by the United States. Our contribution to Nicaragua, in contrast to our contribution to Costa Rica and even Honduras, is far from generous. We are giving less than we gave to the Somoza regime, which left its people impoverished. The Government's attitude to poverty and health care in Nicaragua is somewhat inconsistent with their attitude elsewhere.
  The Minister should be aware—it is unusual for a Minister to ask me questions on statistics, but I am always willing to help when I can—that we are second from bottom of the league table in our OECD contributions to Nicaragua. That is what I was told in his parliamentary answer to me.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Nicaragua, is he aware that the Government have made no discernible move to assist Nicaragua in the difficulties it faces in borrowing money on the international money markets because it is given such a low credit rating? Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Government have taken part in giving it that low credit rating, despite its excellent record in the repayment of debt?
  Mr. Clarke: Since the Minister became excited about borrowing a few moments ago, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may respond to that important point.
  On Kampuchea, I asked the Minister a few days ago whether he planned to organise an international relief effort. He said that the Government were considering what response, if any, they will be making to the Food and Agriculture Organisation's appeal for food aid for Kampuchea. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to let us know whether the Government will respond to the FAO appeal; how much food they will give; how much our contribution will be in comparison to those of our OECD colleagues and friends, and whether the Government will stop food aid going to representatives of the discredited Khmer Rouge.
  On Mozambique, I am sure that the House will accept that that area currently experiences dire poverty. It has one of the highest levels of infant mortality in the world—123 per thousand in 1985. Much of that relates specifically to the policy of destabilisation by South Africa which has contributed to civil war. Therefore, as the Minister speaks

  695
  on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I must ask him what steps the Government are taking to prevent South Africa's destabilisation of the Mozambique Government.
  I turn briefly to Europe and its role in development. Lorenzo Natali, the European Community's Development Commissioner, has made proposals to allow European Community involvement in microeconomic planning in the African, Caribbean and Pacific states. Those proposals are the basis for the EEC negotiations on the 4th Lomé convention, to cover the period after 1990. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's views on Europe's role in development planning and what opinion, if any, the Government have on Mr. Natali's detailed proposals. Among other things, those proposals would allow more co-ordination between the European development fund, the World Bank and the IMF on the ACP adjustment.
  It would be impossible to take part in an important debate of this kind without referring, as I am sure hon. Members and especially my hon. Friends will wish to do, to famine in Africa. The House has had the benefit of what I feel was an excellent report by the Select Committee called "Famine in the Horn of Africa". Difficult though the Minister has made it for me to do so, I should like to say that the Government's response was constructive. What they said should be welcomed. The report rightly identifies one of the major causes of famine as not only the drought but civil war and conflict.
  We are especially worried about Eritrea and Tigré. Therefore, we would welcome any urgent action that the Government feel free to take to find a solution to a problem which the House will accept is extremely difficult. However, if the Government decide to increase our contribution to Ethiopia, Chad, Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa, they would have outstanding support. The Minister must know that 76 per cent. of people in an opinion poll said that we should give the same or more, as against 18 per cent. who said that we should give less.
  People are concerned that when funding is made available, whether on a voluntary basis or by Government, we should concentrate on measures to deal with drought, on irrigation and on agriculture, and not always on prestigious projects such as dams, airports and power stations. People accept that industrial development and agriculture are extremely important, which is why they take great exception to some of the food surpluses in the EEC and the failure to distribute adequately to those in need. People accept that the quality of aid is important. Therefore, we ask how much of our aid to Africa is going to agriculture, health care, industrial development and social needs. We urge the need for monitoring in those respects.
  The absence of the political will to deal with the structural causes of poverty by Governments of North and South is all to obvious. The number of hungry people has roughly doubled over the past 12 years. The House must face the reality that 500 million people—one eighth of humanity—are suffering from chronic malnutrition tonight.
  There is also the population problem.
  Mr. Corbyn: While one welcomes aid that gets through to help the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world, does my hon. Friend share my concern that some policies, particularly those adopted by the World Bank in its advice to poor countries in receipt of loans it organises,
  696
  force on those countries economic models that often involve cuts in public expenditure which make the living conditions of people dependent on public services, health, education or housing worse because those countries are pursuing some economic Valhalla similar to that pursued by the present Government? Does he believe that the Government should consider their role in multinational agencies such as the World Bank as well as my hon. Friend's obvious and quite correct concern about the lack of spending on overseas aid in general?
  Mr. Clarke: Again my hon. Friend makes a very solid point. I hope that he will be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try to provide that opportunity by drawing my remarks to a close.
  There is clearly great concern about the debt crisis, interest rates and commodity prices. Those problems are very important for developing countries that are struggling to assert themselves and release their peoples from poverty. That is the challenge to the House, to the Minister and to the Government's international policy. Developing countries have to face that challenge daily.
  I believe that the great mass of the British people in every part of the United Kingdom feel that we could and should be making a tangible contribution to the solution of those problems. However, they bitterly regret the fact that, at a time when overseas aid is declining to very low levels, we still find opportunities to export arms and military equipment. Perhaps we should take a sober look at precisely what we are doing. Those priorities and the policies that the Government have pursued so far do not reflect the approach of the British people, which is not only generous, but takes into account the potential for development by the peoples of developing countries. If the Government ignore that potential, the needs of others and world poverty, they do so at their peril.
  2.3 am
  Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on getting this item on to the political agenda tonight. As he said, this subject does not command a great deal of time in the House. We have little time for it at Question Time and few opportunities to make speeches on it. I am indebted to my hon. Friend for the detail in his speech and for his dedication to the subject over the 12 months that I have been involved in it as Labour Front-Bench spokesperson.
  I think that the Minister and I share a deep concern for the problems of two countries that we have visited recently, namely, Mozambique and Ethiopia. Within the limits set on him by the Budget, the Minister has done much to increase the amount of assistance and aid to the very sad and war-torn country of Mozambique, which is being destabilised and is suffering as a result of South African aggression. I believe that he has tried, within the limits, to meet some of the needs and requests that have been made.
  We are left with the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred. When the target was set by the United Nations at 0·7 per cent. of GNP, it was accepted and agreed that the industrialised countries would move towards that target. Our share will decrease and whether aid goes up in real terms will be irrelevant, because the gap between the rich and poor nations will become wider. We become richer, but we do not share our riches with the developing world.

  697
  The United Nations picked a percentage of GNP— which happened to be 0·7 per cent.—to meet that real difficulty. As my hon. Friend said, when the Labour party left office in 1979 we had reached a figure of 0·52 per cent. of GNP. Now, as the Minister said, as a proportion of GNP the budget is 0·28 per cent. He may say that during the past year or two in real terms there has been some increase here or there, but that is not true in all cases—and we are slipping away from the target. It is legitimate to ask the Minister whether the Government are still aiming at that target. If they are, why is it that we are slipping so much behind that target, when the Government are constantly telling us that we are improving our economic position every day and that the country is better off now than it has been for many years?
  The gross public expenditure on aid is down from 1·2 per cent. to 0·90 per cent. That figure shows that, although the Minister may talk about the figures in real terms, we are giving a smaller part of a larger cake. If GNP is increasing, as we are told it is, we are giving less to the developing world.
  We can take as an example the bilateral aid given to the member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. Gross bilateral aid to those countries has fallen to 64 per cent. of its 1979 level in real terms. We are now giving much more in bilateral aid in real terms to Mozambique. I have gladly acknowledged that. However, in real terms, aid to the other countries involved with the Development Co-ordination Conference, such as Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia, is decreasing, and their needs are great, too.
  When the front-line states were formed as a result of the military, economic and social destabilisation by the racist regime of South Africa, it was acknowledged that, although many of those countries were, or could be, rich in some natural resources, and perhaps under normal circumstances would be able to develop, the circumstances prevailing were not normal. In addition to the problems of economic debt and the national hazards of drought and floods, the military war of South Africa has taken its toll, especially against Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Angola, and the economies of all the front-line states have suffered from South Africa's policies of apartheid and destabilisation. I know that the Minister, when he was in Mozambique recently, saw examples of that, and we have already exchanged views on this across the Chamber, so I shall not repeat them.
  Women and children in front-line states have been the innocent victims of this aggression. In 1986 UNICEF estimated that 140,000 children under five years of age were killed as a result of the war in Angola and Mozambique. That leaves out of account the hundreds of children who have died as a result of famine, drought and other causes. Because of the dislocation of population in the region, 500,000 people are now threatened with starvation, and 8·5 million have lost their homes.
  South Africa continues to block food and emergency relief supplies and, as a result, some 200,000 people died between 1983 and 1985. Women and children are particularly vulnerable and daily suffer the most horrendous atrocities committed by MNR bandits and South African forces. It is hard to believe what is
  698
  happening until one listens to the people saying what has happened to them and sees the villages that have been destroyed and the children who have been mutilated.
  The Minister has done a great deal to assist Mozambique within the confines of his budget, but the fact remains that unless the Government are prepared to take on South Africa and the sanctions and investment issue, we are simply bandaging the results of South African aggression.
  The result of the wars and the migration of male labour to the South African mines is that many women have been left to maintain essential services. They face additional problems for, despite the rains in Mozambique, there has been a shortage of labour. There have been other complications, as South Africa has suddenly decided that it will employ fewer Mozambicans in the mines, thus again destabilising an economy that has relied heavily on people in some areas being employed in the mines. With the destruction left by the bandits, the result is horrific.
  When the South African Development Co-ordination Conference was formed in 1980, it was a positive attempt by front-line states, including Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland, to break their dependence on South Africa and to promote and plan the economic development of the region. That is why I find it so distressing that those countries are suffering a decline in real terms in the aid available to them. Their needs and suffering are no less than those of Mozambique.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West has said much of what I intended to say, and I am grateful to him for quoting answers to some of the questions that I have asked and some of my comments. I shall not delay the House by repeating what he said. Of course I am pleased that the Government have tried to deal with some of the debt problem by continuing the Labour Government's policy of converting loans into grants. I was pleased when, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister finally acknowledged from the Dispatch Box that that was a Labour Government initiative implemented by Judith Hart.
  The debt crisis hits at the standard of living of a large number of people throughout the world. UNICEF reckons that income per head fell by 9 per cent. in Latin America in the five years between 1980 and 1985 in 17 out of the 23 countries there. There is rising malnutrition in Chile, Uruguay and Brazil. There are problems with the EECs common agricultural policy for sugar from the Caribbean, and the over-production of beef in Europe is having an effect on the Botswana economy.
  I know that the Minister will talk about the increased money that he has given certain countries during the past few months, but when Italy can increase its aid budget by 300 per cent. as a proportion of gross national product, whereas ours has declined by 45 per cent. as a proportion of GNP, there is something sadly wrong. The Government cannot have it both ways.
  In 1983 the Prime Minister answered a world development movement questionnaire that was sent to parliamentary candidates. I remember filling it in, and I am sure that others do. The questionnaire asked many questions but, when asked whether the Government would move towards the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP given in aid, the Prime Minister told one of her constituents in her own fair hand:
  "We will move towards the UN Target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP when economic circumstances permit."

  699
  If the country is doing as well as we are told it is, why do economic circumstances not permit us to increase our aid budget as a proportion of GNP?
  2.14 am
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this matter which has been so thoughtfully provided by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on a Friday morning just before the holidays. I am only sorry that the Opposition do not choose to use one of their Supply days for an aid debate because then we could have an even fuller House to listen to our discussions. I shall not allow myself, whatever the hour of the morning, to become waspish and think, let alone speak, the suggestion that perhaps the Opposition might have as much difficulty getting their Members to attend such a debate as they have on other issues. I would not for a moment wish to say anything like that from the Dispatch Box. This is a welcome opportunity to talk about aid.
  Whatever arguments there may be about the size of our aid programme—and I shall come to that with relish— there can be no argument about its quality. Certainly there is none outside Britain or in some of the multilateral institutions to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to which we make substantial cash contributions year after year. I shall be pleased to let the hon. Gentleman know about them at some time because plainly he is not as well acquainted with them as one might like. Our aid programme is widely recognised internationally for its quality and effectiveness.
  Our aid is concentrated on the poorest countries. That is more the case than with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development donors generally. In 1987, 81 per cent. of our bilateral aid went to countries with an income per head of less than $800—that is, International Development Association eligible countries. The major recipients include India and Bangladesh in Asia and Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania in Africa. The Commonwealth continues to provide an extremely important dimension to our overall aid programme.
  The grant element of British aid in 1987 was 99—8 per cent. All our aid to the poorest countries is provided in the form of grants. Britain has led the way in forgiving past aid loans. In recent years we have played a leading role internationally in helping to develop new policies towards and solutions to the problems facing developing countries. Our views have carried weight because of our success in managing our economy. It is inconceivable—this is a point I raised in an intervention earlier—that we should be listened to in the same way if the International Monetary Fund were having to manage the British economy again. Our views have also carried weight because we are recognised as a serious donor, willing to reshape our programmes to meet new circumstances and to find additional resources for key initiatives, such as the debt initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the IMF's structural adjustment facility. We have been, and will continue to be, a firm supporter of structural adjustment and economic policy reform.
  I am not suggesting that we or the international financial institutions have all the answers, but I am sure that in too many countries, particularly in Africa, too many past policies have failed too many people. In
  700
  particular, they have failed too many very poor people. That is why we have reshaped our long-term development assistance to Africa and backed our words with cash.
  We are providing substantial balance of payments support for countries able to agree adjustment programmes with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In the last finacial year we spent more than £90 million in bilateral programme aid. Last December, we pledged a further £250 million of bilateral programme aid for co-financing with the World Bank over the next three years to assist the poorest and most indebted countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
  As I said in a widely unreported speech in Washington recently, structural adjustment is not a short course of curative medicine. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health would agree that, like all good preventive medicine, it has to become a way of life. That underlines the need both to find ways of protecting the vulnerable groups most immediately affected by adjustment programmes—often in the urban areas—and of improving the access of the poorest groups in society to health and education services through the process of structural adjustment. In Ghana, which has the longest track record of policy reform and which since 1983 has achieved an annual average growth of 5 per cent., we are associated with efforts to do both those things. I was pleased to have the opportunity of discussing them this week with the Prime Minister, Mr. Obeng.
  We are as sensitive as anyone to the growing awareness of the need to take proper account of both the social and the environmental impact of our aid. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spoken in our past debates on the environmental impact of development. The Government's response to the Brundtland report "Our Common Future" was published on 22 July. It underlines what we are doing about aid and the environment. We have introduced specific measures to strengthen our internal procedures ensuring that the environmental impact of our aid programme is given the weight that it deserves in evaluation, appraisal and so on. We have made arrangements for tapping outside expertise on environ-mental issues. We are funding specific work such as the Nepal study of the interrelationship between environment-al degradation and macroeconomic policies.
  Last week I approved over £14 million for a third slum improvement project in India—this time in Indore. I have seen for myself the first of those projects in Hyderabad, and an extremely successful project it is.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Now that the Minister has regained his composure, may I thank him for the interesting information that he is giving the House, notwithstanding the fact that most of it was already available to us in the excellent handouts that come from the Department? Before he concludes his speech, will he tell the House whether the Government still intend to aim at the United Nations figure of 0·7 per cent. of GNP?
  Mr. Patten: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to deal with that point. As he laboured the issue, it would be discourteous of me not to give it the attention that it deserves, to do so with relish and to point out to him some of the intellectual shortcomings of his argument.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the environment, will he tell us how successful he has been in persuading the World Bank in particular to ensure that

  701
  aid programmes or development programmes that it helps to finance are much more environmentally conscious than previous ones? I have in mind the environmental disasters that have happened in a large part of Brazil as a result of mining projects partly financed by the World Bank and the catastrophic consequences for the rest of the world unless something is done to prevent the destruction of the tropical rain forest there.
  Mr. Patten: I do not think that it is going too far to suggest that a number of the environmental NGOs would concede that we have done as much as, or more than, any other bilateral donor in ensuring that these environmental issues are on the agenda for the World Bank in a more prominent place than they have been before. One of our most useful actions was to bring together the World Bank and a number of the environmental NGOs in a conference last year during which issues such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred were discussed in what the press release might have described as a free and frank way.
  These are immensely important issues, but it is important to recognise that some of those who criticise the World Bank on environmental grounds do not want any development to take place. They do not want the World Bank and international donors to spend more in developing countries. They believe that the people in those countries have a divine right to go on living in primitive conditions until the crack of doom. That is an easier proposition to advance if one lives in a comfortable suburb in Europe or North America than in dreadful conditions in a developing country.
  The argument is not about growth or no growth. It is about growth that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable, and the World Bank is acutely conscious of that, as we all should be because each year we are still desertifying an area of the planet the size of Nova Scotia and deforesting an area the size of Yugoslavia.
  As I said, I was able to see for myself the slum improvement project in Hyderabad. We have just announced our third project—the second was in Vizag —at Indore, and there are good examples of how one can make aid work to assist some of the most disadvantaged groups in society and at the same time make a positive impact on the environment. The project represents an integrated approach to improving the quality of life of about 80,000 slum dwellers, enhancing employment opportunities and giving children better education and health.
  Running an effective aid programme requires not only right policies but much dedicated work around the world in the careful preparation of individual projects and programmes. The ODA is acknowledged to be one of the most professional of the bilateral aid agencies and, through our five development divisions and our posts abroad, we maintain an effective presence in the field. I have had the opportunity of seeing many of our aid officials in action and I congratulate them on what they achieve. I am sure that other hon. Members who have seen our aid programme in action, whatever their arguments about the size of it, will endorse that remark.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to Nicaragua and said it was an especially deserving case which needed more generous support from us. Nicaragua is not one of the poorest developing countries. There are
  702
  over 60 developing countries with lower incomes per head, and as per capita figures are of such concern to the hon. Gentleman I trust that that one will be of equal concern to him.
  It is true that we do not give purely bilateral aid to Nicaragua on the scale of the earlier Labour Administration. British aid to that country peaked in 1977 when Somosa was in power there. I do not know whether there were political reasons for that or whether it was entirely coincidental. But the contributions that that Labour Administration made to the Somosa regime were, I am sure, greatly appreciated.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Tory Members who have just arrived should know that I referred to that in my speech, as well as to the regrettable decline under the Tory Government. As the Minister is talking about per capita figures, how does he justify the comparison between Nicaragua and Costa Rica?
  Mr. Patten: The figures for Costa Rica and certain other central American countries include contributions that we make to regional institutions in those countries. In our total bilateral and multilateral contributions we pick up 20 per cent. of the substantial aid that Nicaragua receives from the European Community, which totalled £6—2 million in 1986.
  Mr. David Ashby: How does this country's aid to Nicaragua compare with that of Italy and Germany?
  Mr. Patten: Speaking off the cuff, both Germany and Italy give a lot more bilateral aid to Nicaragua. Apart from the money that we put through the joint funding scheme for NGOs, our major contribution is the multilateral contribution through the European Community. I am usually pressed by the Opposition to ensure that our aid programme achieves the maximum poverty alleviation and that money is spent as much as possible in the poorest countries. Whatever the politics of the matter, the fact that there are 60 countries poorer than Nicaragua does not seem entirely irrelevant to the argument.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves the subject, will he come clean and admit that there are clear political reasons why the British Tory Government will not give aid to Nicaragua at the level that it needs and deserves because they do not like the process of reform, development and poverty removal that the Sandinista Government are doing their best to carry out? Will the Minister reconsider the position and provide the aid so desperately needed in Nicaragua, where many of the problems have been caused by the war and not for any other reasons?
  Mr. Patten: It is perhaps even more relevant to wonder whether there were political reasons for the more substantial aid to Nicaragua in the past. I am content to rest my argument entirely on developmental grounds and to leave discussion of the political aspects to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman at every conceivable opportunity.
  Mr, Clarke: I am always willing to rescue the Minister from the embarrassment thrust upon him by his own

  703
  alleged supporters. As Italy and Germany have a far better record than ours in terms of aid to Nicaragua, does the Minister believe that they were affected by the factors which he claims influenced the Labour Government?
  Mr. Patten: I could troop through the House all those countries considerably poorer than Nicaragua where we have substantially larger aid programmes than Germany or Italy. For historical and other reasons, different countries' aid programmes have different profiles. For instance, 75 per cent. of our aid goes to Commonwealth countries. Alas, that is not true of German and Italian aid, however desirable it may seem to us. I think that in the next few weeks the hon. Gentleman will come to accept that there are historical reasons why some countries have larger aid programmes in central America than ours.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, East referred to Cambodia, and I shall respond reasonably fully to his comments. As he suggested, the history of Cambodia over the past two decades has been one of appalling suffering. The bloody Khmer Rouge experiment in remodelling society has been appropriately described as taking Cambodia back to the year zero. The Vietnamese invasion, which was initially welcomed as instrumental in overthrowing the Khmer Rouge, compounded the problem of the Cambodian people by extending the invasion into a continued illegal occupation that has lasted for almost a decade. During this period we have refused to give development aid to Cambodia. We believe that aid would send the wrong signal of implicit support for Heng Samrin and help to prop up his regime. Instead, our aid has been directed to Cambodian refugees in the Thai border camps, who have been made homeless by the years of conflict. Since 1979, we have contributed more than £13 million, which has been channelled mainly through international agencies such as the Red Cross and the United Nations. We are the largest bilateral donor of such assistance.
  We welcomed the recent tentative signs that various factions in the conflict may be moving towards a political settlement. It is too early to judge the outcome of the discussions in Indonesia, which have just finished. We have taken note of the announcement by Vietnam that it will be accelerating the withdrawal of its troops from Cambodia. According to some reports, as yet unconfirmed, the withdrawal will be complete by the end of 1989, or the first quarter of 1990. We hope that further progress will be made when China and the Soviet Union discuss Cambodia next month.
  In view of these signs, however tentative, of movements in the political situation, I intend to examine closely our aid policy towards Cambodia. We have always been prepared to consider assisting any internationally organised relief effort that sought to provide humanitarian assistance within Cambodia. I therefore propose to contribute £100,000 to the Food and Agriculture Organisation appeal that was launched in May for Cambodia. We shall be examining also whether we should now provide some support for humanitarian aid for projects administered by British non-governmental organisations working in Cambodia. It is far too early to consider aid for reconstruction. We would be prepared to reconsider these matters when a Government acceptable to the majority of Cambodians is in place.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to Europe. I set out in a speech at the Royal Commonwealth
  704
  Society a couple of months ago, which he may have seen, our principal objectives for the Lomé renegotiation. I do not want to rehearse those again today. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the importance of greater co-ordination between bilateral donors, bilateral donors and multilateral donors, and multilateral donors, even when they are separated by the Atlantic. it is important that the Commission and the Bretton Woods institutions engage in a closer dialogue on developmental objectives. That view is shared by Commission staff and by Vice-President Natali, who has made such a distinguished contribution to the development and strengthening of the Community's own substantial aid programme to which we contribute a large amount of money.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor)—I am coming to the question of gross national product—talked about African debt. Britain has been to the fore in advocating special measures for low-income debtor countries, chiefly in sub-Saharan Africa. The Toronto summit agreed on debt relief measures. The initiative behind that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spring of 1987. I am delighted that at Toronto other creditor nations agreed to join us in providing interest rate relief or the taking of equivalent measures. Good progress has already been made in working out the detailed arrangements in the Paris Club. These involve ways of ensuring comparability between the concessions offered by different creditors. I hope that the final agreement will allow measures to be put into effect as soon as possible. It is clearly in the interests of African debtor countries that that should be so.
  Finally, let me say a few words about the size of our aid programme. We inherited from the last Labour Government a level of total public expenditure that was simply not sustainable. I do not think that many members of the outgoing Labour Government in 1979 thought that it was sustainable, and I certainly do not think that the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury thought so. Between 1979 and 1983 the priority had to be to get public expenditure under control, and aid could not be exempted from that. It was during that period that aid fell in real terms.
  Between 1982–83 and last year, the aid budget was broadly constant in real terms. I am delighted that as a result of the last public expenditure round, or more properly as a result of our economic achievements, we are now planning for aid to grow in real terms. We are aiming for cash increases over our 1987–88 budget of £72 million this year, £140 million next year and £185 million the year after that. That reflects the fact that with a strong economy we can afford to do more, and the fact that, used in the right way, aid can be effective in enhancing economic growth and alleviating poverty. It also reflects the recognition that an effective aid programme is in Britain's own long-term political and economic interests. We have the seventh largest aid programme among OECD donors. My job is to continue to seek further improvement in its effectiveness as the best argument for ensuring that it continues to grow in real terms.
  The whole argument of the hon. Member for Monklands, West and other Opposition Members is about the 0—7 per cent. target and the proportion of GNP that we spend on aid. The Opposition always avoid any mention of the target mentioned by the United Nations for official and

  705
  unofficial flows—the 1 per cent. target. I suspect that they do that because of our extraordinarily good record of private investment in developing countries.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose——
  Mr. Patten: I keep on giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I am going to finish this point. The United Kingdom provides almost as much in private investment in developing countries as the rest of the European Community put together, but that does not suit Opposition Members' argument.
  Let me now turn to the extraordinary proposition that it matters more to have a proportion of GNP increasing than to have real volume increasing. I have no doubt that, without doing anything to the volume of our aid programme, the Labour party, if in government, would ensure in a very short time that we had an increase in the percentage of GNP, because the growth rate would fall so rapidly. That is all that they would have to do.
  Mr. Clarke rose——
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way when I have finished.
  Let us follow the hon. Gentleman's perverse argument to its logical conclusion. Let us take two countries. Country A increases the volume of its aid substantially year after year, but by not quite as much as its economy grows in percentage terms. That country is bad, in the hon. Gentleman's book. Country B, which has a low economic growth rate, increases its aid programme by miserable amounts year after year, but by slightly larger percentages than its increase in economic growth. That country is virtuous.
  To the developing country the virtuous country is the one that is managing its economy successfully and the one whose aid programme is growing in real terms. The resources for building roads, hospitals and schools and for the provision of technical co-operation in developing countries are provided by such programmes and successful economic management. The hon. Member for Monklands, West never talks about absolute terms, volume terms or real terms. It is about time that he recognised that his argument is positively perverse.
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister is taking a long time to get to the point. We still want to hear whether it is the Government's objective to achieve the 0·7 per cent. of GNP target, as accepted by the United Nations. Given that other OECD countries whose economies have developed in a similar way to ours, although they have not had the beneft of North sea oil—not one drop in many cases—have still stuck to the 0·7 per cent. objective, why are we not sticking to it, or have the Government gone back on that objective?
  Mr. Patten: I believe that four, possibly five, countries have achieved the 0·7 per cent. target, and only one has an aid programme that is larger than ours in real terms. The hon. Gentleman refuses to face up to the fact that volume——
  Miss Lestor rose——
  Mr. Patten: I must answer the hon. Gentleman's other question, otherwise he will be on at me again.
  706
  The first question that the hon. Gentleman asked obliges me to agree with the previous Labour Government. My hon. Friends may think that that means that I am not entirely sound on this matter, but our views on the 0·7 per cent. target are the same as those expressed by previous Governments. It remains an objective, but we cannot, any more than previous Governments have done, set a timetable for achieving it. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is wrong, he must have also made that criticism of the previous Labour Government because that was also their view.
  Miss Lestor: I tried to start with a note of agreement because it is the holiday period. At the beginning of this debate, behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, the Minister, in his conspiratorial way, said "I want about 10 minutes." I said "OK. It is the middle of the night and people want to get away." The Minister has now taken almost three times as long as we agreed and he still has not dealt with our argument.
  Mr. Corbyn: And he is in a bad mood.
  Miss Lestor: I do not mind that, but I could have taken an equally long time. I did not because I have a degree of honesty when it comes to agreements. My old dad was right when he said "Never trust a Tory."
  The Minister is sliding away from the point. He says that he accepts the target of 0·7 per cent. but that we cannot have a timetable for its achievement. Previously he has implied that if GNP goes up it does not matter whether the target slips—that the percentage of GNP spent on aid falls to its present low level—so long as there is an increase in the volume of aid. If he was sticking to that objective and steadily moving towards the 0·7 per cent. target, the volume of aid would be greater than it is now. It is wrong to say that GNP has increased and that, therefore, the proportion spent on aid does not matter very much.
  Mr. Patten: I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Eccles. I have spoken for about three times as long as I had intended and doubtless longer than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wanted. However, I have given way to every intervention and I have tried to answer the questions that the hon. Member for Monklands, West asked—although I have not satisfied him. If I had delivered the carefully unprepared remarks that I had brought with me, I could have sat down after 10 minutes. However, as the hon. Gentleman made an important speech, I thought it right to try to respond to it. I have not had the advantage of hearing him in full flood before. I wish to make one more point, and then I will sit down, otherwise the hon. Member for Eccles will scold me again.
  What matters to me is that we should have an aid programme which is growing in real terms, supported by an economy which makes that situation likely to continue into the future. The best justification for growth in real terms is the effectiveness of our aid programme. At the very least, the hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman and I can agree that, although some countries would like us to do more, and although they would like us to do more overall, we have an effective aid programme which is a considerable credit to those who manage it and work in it, whether in the public sector or the non-governmental

  707
  organisations which play an increasingly valuable role in making sure that aid reaches its targets and helps to alleviate poverty throughout the world.
  I could continue, in response to the hon. Lady, but I shall leave it at that and thank the hon. Gentleman once again for giving us the opportunity of dashing around the course. I hope that we shall have a rather longer circuit at some future date.

  Latin America
  2.51 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on our relations with Latin America. It is no fewer than 38 years since the last general debate on this most important subject. On 26 May 1950 the House last had the opportunity to review the matter, so I believe that the debate is long overdue. So often foreign affairs debates in this place centre strategically on East-West relations, fashionably on Europe, nostalgically on the Commonwealth and indifferently on the remainder.
  Latin America represents some 8 per cent. of the world's population. It has outstanding potential, abundant natural resources, skilled work forces and few extremes of poverty with which we are so familiar in Africa and Asia. Above all, Latin America has a close cultural identification and rapport with Europe.
  Britain has long had a very special relationship with Latin America. It was our then Foreign Secretary, George Canning, who acted as the midwife of the independence struggles of the new nations in the early part of the last century, with his statement in the House in the debate on the Address of 12 December 1826 that he had
  "called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old".
  Illustrious Britons fought alongside the freedom fighters in the wars of independence in Latin America. Admiral Lord Cochrane played a vital part in the independence of Brazil, Chile and Peru, and O'Higgins became the first president of Chile. A British legion of veterans of the Peninsular wars made up the backbone of Simon Bolivar's liberating armies in Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador.
  We have a great heritage of good will to draw upon in the region. That was supplemented by the leading part that we played in developing its railways, livestock industries, mining and public and financial services. Latterly we earned their respect in the lead we took for the democracies in the second world war.
  The affection with which we are still held compares favourably with the respect for the power of the United States, motivated by the Monroe doctrine and which descends into resentment at the United States" high-handedness and pressures over the years—not least that manifested recently in central America.
  However, during the past 40 years, we have returned the Latin American affection very poorly indeed. In 1945, a quarter of Latin America's trade was with Britain. As a boy, I saw the majority of merchant shipping coming into the port of Santos in Brazil flying the red duster. By the late 1970s, our share of trade with Latin America had fallen to a mere 2 per cent.—way behind our trading partners.
  We should draw on the fund of good will in Latin America, and at least the Government have made a good start. Our trade share now tops 3 per cent. Three of our right hon. and hon. Friends have travelled to Latin America in the past year to rekindle the flames of friendship, but we must do better. When I used to travel through Latin America 10 years ago Britain meant nostalgia to its people—the battle of Britain and the weird game of cricket. But they had written us off as delightfully decadent.

  709
  Today we are seen in the context as a new beacon; the virtues of Thatcherism, privatisation and sound economics are extolled. Perhaps the most salutary thing that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench could do would be to encourage our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a tour of the great cities of Latin America. That would show the high regard in which this country holds the countries of Latin America.
  We must not let the trauma of the Falklands episode divert us. Latin American solidarity in that matter is proverbially as wide as the River Plate, but only ankle deep. Latin Americans respect our military achievement in the Falklands, but consider the islands a minor irrelevance in the great scheme of diplomatic and commercial relationships. The vivid scar on our relations with Argentina must be allowed to heal with time and without rancour.
  British industrialists, told of Latin American opportunities, will often talk of failure to pay, of the debt mountain and of their personal expectations of mud huts, discomfort and palm trees. The debt crisis in Latin America represents Government and bank lending problems, and not necessarily the settlement of trade debt. Even these medium-term lending problems are mixed. Chile, in particular, is paying interest and principal on its debt. Venezuela is repaying official debt, and the recent Toronto summit paid particular attention to overcoming debt problems.
  The message must go out: the slumbering giant of Latin America is again on the move, with a new realism setting in. Conditions for foreign investment in the continent are easing. Better trading conditions are prevailing. For instance, Mexico has joined the GATT. There are massive opportunities for joint ventures by companies from this country. There is scope for reciprocity deals with the EEC.
  We must give a higher profile here to Latin American affairs. Canning house, the Latin American business and cultural centre in London, already does a sterling job. LATAG—the DTI's Latin American trade advisory group—must be given a greater airing. The British Council must be encouraged in its English language teaching thoughout Latin America. And the outstanding example of the Cultura Inglesa in many countries of Latin America shows what can be achieved in the region. Incidentally, a little more teaching of Spanish and Portuguese in our own schools would not come amiss.
  We must also pay closer attention to the sponsoring of students in these countries to come to Britain, to our universities and colleges of further education. We are already making major advances with Mexico and should see what can be done in other countries, notably Brazil.
  After a period of extreme difficulty for Latin America's economies, things are again on the move, and I hope that Britain will play a leading part, as it has done in history, in the development of Latin America.
  2.50 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for ensuring that there is a debate on Latin America, albeit at 3 am. I regret that it is seldom debated. I especially agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks: Spanish and Portuguese should be taught much
  710
  more in schools in this country. The teaching of the history of Latin America could be developed with great benefit to the school curriculum and to the chairs of the history of Latin American development in universities. I learned virtually nothing about the continent at school, although I have since visited almost all its countries. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Latin America's significance to Britain in the past because of its trading relations with Britain.
  The hon. Gentleman said that developments were proceeding apace in Latin America. It is true that some Latin American countries are experiencing rapid rates of growth at present, but that often masks the most hideous poverty and the most appalling social disruption of people fleeing to large cities, where they lead short, bitter, miserable and poor lives in shanty towns. That is the lot of many Latin American workers.
  There are great contrasts in wealth between Latin American countries. Brazil has a per capita income of about $1,700 per year, which is quite high by the standards of developing countries, but Honduras has a per capita income of only $721 per year. Averages can mean very little. If one's head is in an oven and one's feet are in a freezer, is one's body normal? The contrasts in wealth between Latin American countries are quite appalling.
  I fear that the attitudes of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in dealing with Latin America's debt problems are solving the problems not for the majority of poor Latin American people but for the banking systems of the United States and western Europe. They are trying to impose economic policies that involve a reduction in public expenditure, loss of education and health programmes, high rates of unemployment, loss of public-sector employment and increased privatisation. That might make some balance sheets in Washington, New York, Frankfurt and London look a bit better, but it does not make life better for poor people, whose efforts to produce crops are not being rewarded if commodity prices continue to be depressed. Life is tough for many poor people throughout the continent.
  We should be treating Latin America as part of the same world in which we live and doing what we can to alleviate the misery and poverty of its people. I am not convinced that the economic strategies being used by the world's financial institutions are doing anything of the kind. The line taken by President Garcia of Peru in attempting to limit debt repayments to no more than 10 per cent. of export earnings is a reflection of the anger felt by many Latin Americans about the vast repayments that they must make to banks elsewhere.
  Some may say that Latin America's debts should always be top of the agenda and should always be repaid, but I ask them to consider how those debts were incurred. In many cases it was because of the oil boom. The oil-producing states were loaning money to anyone for anything, but the countries that borrowed money do not control the interest rates under which it was borrowed or the commodity prices which their exports earn. The position in Peru, Bolivia and Mexico has become worse as they have had to pay more in interest payments. Increasingly, they are having to take out loans to finance loans that have not been paid. The problem has become quite appalling.
  The writing off of debt is the only way in which many countries will survive or recover. That has been recognised by many banks that have written off debts, and last year,

  711
  for the first time, some British clearing banks recorded a loss because of non-repayment of debt by Latin American countries.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman should differentiate between writing off the Latin American debt, which has not occurred, and the provision in the balance sheet of major banks against potential loss to the loans they have made, which has occurred. There is an important difference between the two.
  Mr. Corbyn: I accept that there is an important difference. I was saying that many banks have accepted that they will not get all their debt back and have made provision for the non-payment of it. I am going a little further and saying that the debt is unpayable because Chase Manhattan bank cannot possess the economy of Peru or Boliva any more than anybody else could. Therefore, there comes a point at which the debt becomes unpayable.
  The political consequences of attempting to impose economic models on so many Latin American countries are so catastrophic that I urge people to think carefully before they start urging policies on them that are impossible to achieve.
  I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to take up too much time. However, I want to deal with central America, which is much in our thoughts at present. The conflicts there are deep-rooted and long-standing. In Nicaragua, the origins lie in the way in which the United States behaved before the second world war in the imposition of the Somoza family, and the war of liberation, which culminated in 1979 when the Sandinista revolution triumphed and the Sandinistas took over in Managua.
  Since 1979 there has been nothing but a process of attack, destabilisation, economic and physical warfare and hired terrorists attacking the Government, all paid for by the United States. That has occurred largely because of President Reagan's obsession with the supposed threat to the United States of the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. That is a bit of a hollow laugh when a small and poor country is struggling to provide its people with a health service, an education system, housing, jobs and opportunties. I do not understand how that can be a threat to the United States, unless it is the threat of an example which may be copied elsewhere in Latin America as people try to escape from the cycle of debt, poverty and deprivation.
  The war that has continued since 1979 has cost the lives of thousands of people. It is ironic that the United States gives so much military aid to the Contras but refuses to give any humanitarian aid to the people of Nicaragua, other than through the Contras. The degree of interference in Nicaragua is appalling.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the first 18 months of the Sandinista Government, the United States, directly and through the World Bank and the American Investment bank, made available to the Nicaraguan Government more aid than they made available to the Somocista regime throughout its 19 years?
  Mr. Corbyn: The Carter Administration promised substantial aid to the Sandinistas. There is doubt as to how much of that aid was delivered before Reagan took office
  712
  and, in effect, prevented that aid from reaching Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman must agree that President Reagan has been obsessed with Nicaragua since taking office and that that obsession is continuing into the dying days of his Administration.
  The process of peace that has taken place in the region in the past couple of years with the Arias peace plan and the agreement that all Governments in each country in the region would negotiate with the opposition forces, be they guerrilla forces or any other form of opposition, was a significant step forward.
  In Nicaragua we see the efforts of the United States at their worst. They are trying to prevent that peace process. No Government has been more open, more quick or more ready to accept the Arias peace plan than the elected Government in Managua. At this moment it is still being frustrated by the decisions and destabilisation measures of the United States. Even now, in the last moments before its recess, Congress is debating yet more proposals for a resumption of lethal aid to the Contras against the Government of Nicaragua.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it helps the peace process for the Nicaraguan Government to close down the Opposition radio station and newspaper in direct contravention of what the peace process is trying to achieve?
  Mr. Corbyn: In the past, the Nicaraguan Government have closed down La Prensa, and have now closed it down again, and have closed down Radio Catholica because they were telling absolute lies and were inciting the Contra terrorists to continue their work of maiming.
  The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that Nicaragua has been at war for a long time. During that war, many people have been killed and all sorts of dirty operations have been undertaken. I have visited Nicaragua several times; I have met the editor of La Prensa and discussed these matters with him. He showed me some of the stories that had been spiked out of the paper when it was in publication. Frankly, I was not in the least surprised that some of those stories had been spiked. I also met opposition forces in Nicaragua, before the last elections there.
  The fact is that we are in the process of the peace plan. The new methods of destabilisation of the past few weeks have been deliberately designed to obstruct that peace process. I hope that the British Government will do what they can to put pressure on the United States Government not to resume lethal aid to the Contras because, if they do, we are straight back to the civil war and to all the deaths that have occurred. A ceasefire is a precious thing to have achieved. I very much hope that the British Government will be prepared to do what they can on that.
  Last week a delegation of us went to the American embassy to discuss these matters and we argued with Mr. Seitz, who is responsible for Latin American policy, our view that the United States should not give any lethal aid. We made strong political points.
  One point that cannot be answered by the United States Administration or anybody else is that made by Father Metcalfe, the priest to the Bluefields region on the Atlantic coast, which is not an area in which the Sandinistas initially had a great deal of support, although they now have much more. I am sure that Father Metcalfe will not mind me repeating that he has wondered what he can say

  713
  to the people in his parish and region, to the mothers of the young men who have been killed by the Contras, to the relatives of those who have been murdered by the Contras, to the people who have lost their homes because of the Contras, and to the people who have had their crops destroyed by the Contras, about the obsession of a man a few thousand miles away in the White House who is so frightened of the process of liberation in Nicaragua that he finances terrorists to murder, kill and destroy.
  It is incumbent on the British Government to express the point of view that they support the Arias peace plan; that they support the right of self-determination of the people of central America—but, above all, that they tell the United States to stop financing the Contras, to stop the process of destabilisation and to give Nicaragua the chance that it is seeking for itself to develop its own economy for its people, and to develop its health, education and housing services. The crime that has been perpetrated against the people of Nicaragua during the past eight years is one of the most appalling since the second world war.
  Mr. David Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is not one iota of genuine opposition to the Sandinista Government among the Contras? Is he saying that no Contras are genuinely and properly opposed to the Sandinista regime? If he is not saying that, is not the process that should be followed one of dialogue and of trying to get the two together?
  Mr. Corbyn: Of course the process of opposition must be by dialogue, debate, discussion and election—all those things are possible in Nicaragua. What is not possible in Nicaragua is dialogue, debate, discussion and election if, at the same time, the richest country in the world is financing a group of terrorists to destroy that very process. That is precisely why it is essential that the British Government put all the pressure that they can on the United States to stop funding the Contras.
  It is quite interesting that Amnesty International has no cases against Nicaragua at the moment. That cannot be said about very many countries. It is important to remember that the political freedoms in Nicaragua do not exist to the same degree—or any degree—in the neighbouring countries in the region.
  Mr. Ashby: I agree with much that the hon. Gentleman says. I take an independent view. However, has not the unofficial human rights group in Nicaragua cited a number of instances of breaches of human rights? Are there not a number of well-documented cases of breaches of human rights in Nicaragua?
  Mr. Corbyn: The unofficial human rights group had drawn attention to some cases. Some cases have been resolved and many prisoners have been released under the amnesty towards the ceasefire.
  The best way to achieve peace in Nicaragua, as I said earlier—I cannot repeat this often enough—is to end the financing of the Contras so that the peace process and the dialogue can continue. That would be a spur to the peace process and the dialogue in the region as a whole. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will be able to give us some hope in that direction.
  714
  I want to refer to the British Government's attitude to Chile. Chile is a poor country. It is one of the most indebted countries in the region. The debt figure per head is $1,540. Some 35 per cent. of its population cannot eat properly. As an example of the very low wages that poor people who have work in Chile experience, I can tell the House that those on the Government's temporary work programmes receive $32·20 a month. There are very many very poor people in Chile.
  Chile's recent history is among the most tragic in the region. In 1973, a Government dedicated to eradicating poverty and to the development of a democratic society was overthrown in a brutal coup. General Pinochet has the blood of thousands on his hands. He supervised the murder of Salvador Allende and of about 20,000 other people. He herded all political opposition into the stadium in 1973. Since then there has been a monetarist experiment in Chile which gave great riches to a new middle class and brought terrible poverty to many others. Chile has been through purges; many people have suffered at the hands of the secret police and have been imprisoned. Many Chileans have found refuge here or in other European countries.
  Tragically, in more recent years not only have the British Government been happy to trade with General Pinochet, but they have not been as forthcoming as they should have been in condemning the many abuses of human rights. Most appalling of all, they have been prepared to sell arms to Pinochet's Government which have been used to bolster his position in the region.
  The horror continues day after day. Last week there was the festival of Chile Crea. That is a festival of culture, science, education and art. During the festival, a number of students were arrested and there were allegations that the Government had tortured people. Such allegations of torture by the Government have been made by many people.
  Pinochet does not believe in democracy, fair play or the rights of the Opposition. That is clear, and his record speaks for itself. He is one of the most murderous, bloodstained dictators that the continent has ever seen. I find the British Government's attitude very surprising. They are prepared to sell Pinochet arms and to concede that some democratic process is going on in Chile.
  A plebiscite is due to be held later this year, but the registration forms are very expensive, and many poor people will not be able to afford to take part. There will be only one candidate.
  Mr. Ashby indicated dissent.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Member for Leicestershire North-West (Mr. Ashby) shakes his head, but the fact is that poor people cannot afford to take part in the vote in the plebiscite. If the hon. Member looks at the income of the poorest people in Chile, he will begin to realise what I am talking about.
  Few people have any faith that General Pinochet, the army or any of the institutions supported by General Pinochet will allow a democratic election of any sort in Chile. I do not believe that the man who murdered his way into power is about to walk out of power because the ballot box finds against him. Dictators are not usually from that mould, despite what some of the United States press might say about him.

  715
  We want to know what the British Government's attitude is towards this plebiscite. Do they plan to send any observers to find out what happens during that election? Are they observing the political scene in Chile? The crime that was perpetrated in 1973 against the people of Chile did not stop then. There are not normal political freedoms, in the sense that we understand them, in Chile. There will never be normal political freedoms in the sense that we understand them while Pinochet is in power and the army dictatorship continues. We want the return of a real democracy in Chile, but I do not believe that that is compatible with the presence of General Pinochet.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: One of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has in referring to the events of 1983 is in explaining why it is that overwhelmingly the people of Chile were relieved by the change of power and the overthrow of Salvador Allende, because of the disorder and the hunger that that regime brought about. One of the significant aspects of Chile was the initial strong support for the regime of General Pinochet. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that point. Further, in saying that a military dictator will not give way he must look at the example of Brazil and a number of other Latin American countries which have made the difficult transition from a military dictatorship to a quasi-democracy without bloodshed.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has come out in his true colours—as an apologist for the murderer that Pinochet is. Only a year before Salvador Allende was murdered, his party received over 50 per cent. of the vote in the local election. Salvador Allende was elected with 33 per cent. of the vote in 1970. By 1973, in all the local elections that took place, the Unidad Popular Front was achieving more than 50 per cent. of the vote. He was murdered at that time because he was so popular, because he was attempting to nationalise foreign-owned multi-national companies and because he was redistributing wealth to the poorest people. That is why the army, the CIA and ITT moved in with a major vehicle for destabilisation.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the coup was some form of popular event. I advise him to talk to the Chilean refugees who live in this country and who went through that hell of September 1973; when they saw their families shot in front of them; when they had to go to the stadium and try to get people out; when people had to hide in the Mexican embassy; and when people had to flee for their lives in fear of a Fascist dictator who had murdered an elected president in cold blood. When an elected Member of the House comes here as an apologist for that process, it is a disgrace of the highest order. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his words of apology for General Pinochet.
  Mr. Arnold: I asked the hon. Gentleman to face up to the fact——
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is an apologist, and he knows it.
  Mr. Arnold: —that the people of Chile noted the change of regime with considerable relief, because of the suffering and hunger that went before it as a result of the Allende regime. To suggest that that is some kind of apology for
  716
  the undoubted breaches of human rights that occurred in that process is a completely different matter and is certainly not the case.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is interesting that even now the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to condemn the fact that a military coup took place in 1973 and an elected president was murdered. I find it surpirising that the hon. Gentleman is still not prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do that now, I shall happily give way to him. He does not want to.[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West finds this so funny. We are dealing with a murderer. If the hon. Member for Gravesham wants to condone it, so be it—it is on the record.
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman still refuses to——
  Mr. Corbyn: Why does the hon. Gentleman not answer the point?
  Mr. Arnold: I intervened on the hon. Gentleman to ask him how he explains the fact that the military regime of General Pinochet in Chile has undoubted support from the ordinary populace. That does not mean that I condone the disgraceful excesses and infringements of human rights that have occurred in that process. There is the difficult problem, which must be tackled, that the Pinochet regime —perhaps even to this day—has the support of the great mass of the Chilean people. If the hon. Gentleman does not face that, he is flying in the face of the reality of Chile.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is not talking about the Chile that I understood we were debating. If the Government of General Pinochet, as the hon. Gentleman so politely calls him, are popular, why do they require such an enormous secret police? Why do they require so many political prisoners? Why are there so many Chileans in exile? Why are so many Chileans who return from exile in danger? Why are so many poeple shot on the streets? Come on—we are dealing not with a democracy but with a Fascist dictatorship. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that.
  There are, of course, Ministers in the Government that the hon. Gentleman supports who have been to Chile and commended its economic policies. Presumably they are happy that 35 per cent. of the people do not have enough to eat. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions that I have raised.
  It is on the record that the British Government have sold ships and arms to the Chilean Government. I hope that the Government will say that there will be no more such sales. I also hope that they will say that British military forces will not use bases or any military facilities in Chile as part of the south Atlantic presence.
  There is a great deal of suspicion that British forces have been using Chilean bases as part of the Falklands operation. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a clear statement that the Government condemn the violations of human rights in Chile, that there will be no further arms sales and that observers will be sent to see exactly what goes on in the plebiscite. Apparently they are not planning to do that at the moment.
  3.27 am
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for giving the House an opportunity, albeit at this time of the morning, to debate, after a very long interval, the affairs of Latin America.
  My hon. Friend is the admirable secretary of the all-party Latin American committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman. I know that his deep knowledge of and commitment to British relationships with Latin America are profound. I hope that this debate will carry that interest forward and that we shall invigorate even more the Government's interest in furthering links between us and that continent.
  I would like only to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. Our relationships with Latin American countries are deep and long standing. They are only dimly perceived in this country, but they are remarkably alive in nearly all Latin American countries. Our forebears played a leading part in the liberation of the continent. They did, 150 or more years ago, what I believe the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would thoroughly endorse. It is right that we should continue to take pride in the achievements of our country men and the lives that they sacrificed in the cause of Latin American independence from the Spanish empire, and encouragement from the fact that Latin Americans continue to recognise Simon Boliver, San Martin and all the other liberation heroes of the 19th century.
  It is said that the tremendous commercial stake and position that we carved out towards the end of the 19th century and the first part of this century has declined so sharply. Everyone who has visited those countries knows about the railways, the public utilities and the banking systems. For example, Argentina was virtually rescued by the Baring loan in the 1840s and 1850s. All those left a legacy which we have squandered since the war.
  The percentage of British trade with Latin America declined to an abysmal extent so that among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries our exports to Latin America were at barely 2 per cent. In recent years there has been an encouraging increase, but we are still only at 3 per cent. of the exports of all OECD countries to Latin America. That is deplorable and we must rectify it. For many years I have sought in various capacities to boost that effort, but so far we have not succeeded to the extent that we should. I hope that those efforts will be redoubled or even quadrupled.
  One of our problems is the poor quality of reporting in the British media and probably the western European media as a whole on the affairs of Latin and central America. That is why we have misguided views, such as those we heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North. It must be recognised that the United States held out the hand of friendship to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, following the overthrow of the Somocista regime. The Marxist-Leninist regime of the Sandinistas rejected it and immediately installed a vast army by central American standards before there was any question of civil resistance or Contras. The Soviet Union, its allies and Cuba poured in and built up the army so that the Nicaraguan army is greater by far than the total of her neighbours' armies.
  All that happened long before there was any question of action by the Contras or support for them from the United States. The repression that began when the Sandinistas
  718
  took office, the impact of the so-called Turbas Divinas, and the mobs and thugs who spread revolutionary terror predated any civil war in Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman and people like him perpetrate this complete misrepresentation of the real position in central America because of the abysmally low quality of reporting in the British media, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.
  The other impact of the low standard of reporting, so much of which is extremely biased, is the poor level of understanding of what is happening. In many respects events in recent years are encouraging. Obviously, there is a debt problem and it would be wrong simply to write it off. The British Government, rightly, are taking a positive lead in helping the countries of sub-Saharan Africa with their debt relief. The countries of Latin America are of a very different order. It is true that they have severe problems, but they are greatly in advance of the really poor countries of the world in terms of per capita income, basic wealth and export earning potential. Each of the countries of Latin America has a different problem. They must be helped in terms of flexibility, and the IMF and the World Bank are providing that, but any idea of a blanket write-off would be misguided for the countries of Latin America—or, indeed, for any other developing country that looks to take loans from the international business community in the future.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North that the banking system of the world was, in a sense, becoming too easy thanks to the oil glut and the effect of the Arab oil surpluses. I agree that in the 1970s both the lenders and the borrowers had their faults. I hope that we shall all learn from that. I believe that the debt situation has improved and that it should not be writ too large as a threat.
  Our own business men should look at Latin America country by country. The phrase "Latin America" rolls off the tongue far too easily. We all know that there are 20 separate countries with their own traditions and pride and their own possibilities for commercial, political and cultural co-operation. There are great opportunities.
  To most of us, the other aspect of relations between Britain and Latin America is the problem of the Falklands. We all recognise that it is a deeply sensitive issue. I suspect that my views are slightly different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. I think that the Falkland islands question looms somewhat larger in relationships with Latin America than he believes. I accept that we are talking largely about words rather than reality, but I think that there is some reality in terms of solidarity with Argentina on this issue.
  We must continue to ensure that the freedom and the interests of the Falkland islanders are preserved. We should also acknowledge, however, that we are in a brittle situation and that it is not in the longer term interests of the Falkland islanders that this brittle situation should persist. It is unsatisfactory for them, for us and for the region as a whole.
  I recognise that the impact of what has happened in the five or six years since the conflict has been a remarkable economic advance for the islands. However, that is a short-term perspective and before very long we must begin to look for a longer term settlement. That will require sensitivity and understanding on the part of the three communities involved—the British, the Argentines and, above all, the Falkland islanders.

  719
  The problem will not go away and the Government should realise that and accept that we cannot rest on the status quo, although we must nevertheless recognise that the interests of the islanders are paramount. In my view, they can be preserved and there are ways forward. I believe that even so we can proceed with a much more positive approach to Argentina, and I hope that the Government will take every possible opportunity to do that. The proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham about the possibility of more frequent visits by Ministers—in particular our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—to leading capitals of Latin America is an admirable proposal.
  I place more emphasis than does my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham on the need to teach Spanish and Portugese, particularly Spanish, in our schools. We are now embarking on the new national core curriculum and are keen to ensure that what our children learn is relevant to their needs and the needs of Britain in the coming years. One of those is the need for greater facility in foreign languages. The most obvious and effective language, an easy one to learn, is Spanish, a delightful language to speak and one which enables the speaker to communicate with the people of 20 countries.
  As we develop and produce the new curriculum, I strongly urge the Minister of State to make sure that her colleagues at the Department of Education and Science are aware of this need. Some hon. Members have been communicating with that Department on this issue and I have been far from satisfied with the response we have obtained. The Government as a whole, including the Department of Trade and Industry with its export promotion responsibilities, must do more about this matter.
  It has been a long time since we debated Latin America. This is an extraordinary hour and an extraordinary time in our parliamentary timetable at which to be having this debate, but it has been valuable and I hope the Government will renew their efforts to reawaken British awareness and commercial interest in the continent of Latin America.
  3.42 am
  Mr. David Ashby: We seldom debate foreign affairs. it is noticeable on the rare occasions when we do that the debates are dominated by what we call the great and good in the House. They make wide-ranging speeches covering the world; they deal with America, Europe, China and Japan, and they might just about deal with South America. But they never deal with central America. The reason for that is historical. We in Britain were put off taking an active part in debates on action in central and south America by the Monroe doctrine in the 19th century. Although that doctrine is said to be something of the past and is not part of our policy today—and is not part of America's foreign policy—it still looms large on the horizon and in fact forms an active part in our policies.
  We do not seem to have an independent foreign policy covering central America. That poses a problem because almost every other country has such a policy. We are part of Europe and, come 1992, we shall have the Single European Act. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Germany have never been inhibited by the Monroe doctrine and they have policies covering central America.
  720
  They are making use of their political clout to make economic headway in that and other areas. I intervened on this subject in the previous debate initiated by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Yet we are losing out in south America and in central America because we are stuck with this outdated Monroe doctrine as a result of our special relationship with the United States, which still treats central and south America as its own sphere of influence which the British are not permitted to enter. Yet other countries are allowed to do so. The Americans do not say to the Spanish or the Italians, "Hey, this is our area and you should not go there."
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Monroe doctrine with which the United States said, in effect, "Don't interfere in our back yard," predated Canning's support for independence and was thus the first instance when Britain made it clear that it would not be associated with the Monroe doctrine —a figment of American wishful thinking which the rest of the world, including Britain, has never recognised.
  Mr. Ashby: Britain may not have recognised it. but the spirit or idea of it has inhibited our actions, certainly since the last war. Something in the background of our special relationship with America has inhibited our participating as fully as we should. Other countries such as Italy, Germany and Spain have not been inhibited in that way. One has only to consider the aid going to central America and to Nicaragua from Italy and Germany, which are not Left-wing countries. Since 1945, Italy has been a conservative country ruled and run by the Christian democrats. yet this year, and indeed in the past couple of months, Italy has given substantial amounts of aid to Nicaragua. We have not given that kind of help and our exports are not following our economic ventures.
  Mr. Whitney: I continue to be puzzled by my hon. Friend's references to the Monroe doctrine, although I share his concern at the decline in our share of exports to Latin American countries, which is now down to 3 per cent. Is he suggesting that the failure of British business men to look for markets in Latin America is governed by a 180-year-old doctrine, or is he suggesting that there is some kind of Government influence involved?
  Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development pointed out in the earlier debate, the balance of aid to Latin America is different for Italy and Germany because the vast majority of our aid goes to Commonwealth countries.
  Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend has not followed my argument. I was pointing to the total absence of any substantial independent British policy towards central America. That is the major point. Countries such as Italy also have former colonies into which they put substantial amounts of aid. It may even be that Latin countries have a tendency to put their aid into other Latin countries, but that does not detract from the fact that countries such as Spain and Italy have policies towards central America which are followed up by substantial exports. That is why they are getting the business there. Germany as well has been following up its aid with business and exports. It has made substantial inroads into central America.
  I visited Nicaragua about three years ago and I hope to revisit it during the recess to see the changes that have taken place and to renew my friendships there. The

  721
  revolution took place following a despicable regime which had been put in place and maintained to a large extent by the United States. There was strong resentment within the region towards the United States for that reason, and that resentment continues to this day.
  It is important to remember that it was an all-party revolution, not a Sandinista revolution. When I was in Nicaragua I met a number of people whose politics are not dissimilar from my own. They are Conservatives, but they were all supporters of the revolution. I met Liberals who were strong supporters of it and had participated in it.
  The problem is that after the revolution the Sandinistas went on to some extent to hijack it. They took it over as their own. In so doing, they sat upon many who had participated in the revolution. They disregarded them. At times they were to treat them quite harshly.
  It was not a revolution that lacked popular support. Indeed, it had the overwhelming support of the population. I believe that the Sandinista Government have the support of the majority of the population. If there were a proper plebiscite, we would find that it is a regime that has the support of the majority. They are a Government who have been accepted de jure and de facto. They are recognised by the United Kingdom and other nations, and they should be respected as such a Government.
  In 1984, for the first time for a long time, there were elections in Nicaragua. We must not take a black or white approach to Nicaragua for there are shades of grey in everything. We must not say yes or no, black or white or Stalinist or Marxist. Even within the Sandinistas there are moderate elements as well as elements far to the Left. It is a mix, and it must be regarded as such.
  As I have said, in 1984 there were the first elections for a long time. The first steps were being taken towards democracy, and such steps are to be encouraged. It is rather unfortunate that the election was condemned in harsh terms by the world, including the United Kingdom Government and the American Government. It was not a fully fair election, but within limitations it was one to be accepted. We must look to the municipal elections next year and elections in the 1990s in tuning the process of democracy. If we continue to treat this and other central American countries in this way, we are not helping. We should be encouraging what is taking place, and urging the country towards more dialogue and democracy.
  We must remember, for example, that a large percentage of the Nicaraguan population has suffered in the wars. I believe that a considerable element among the Contras is genuinely opposed to the Sandinista regime. We are not encouraging dialogue or getting people together by dismissing them as an odious regime. We can take a positive step. It must also be remembered that there are a number of English-speaking people in the Caribbean area. There is a strong English-speaking contingent in the Bluefields area, among the Meskita Indians, and we can be of great assistance there.
  In the little time available, let me deal with the Panama. Like Nicaragua, the Panama is being treated most unhelpfully by the Americans. The leader General Noriega has behaved disgracefully, and his involvement in drug-running is well known and documented. But the attempt to destabilise the Government and get rid of him has only strengthened his position and that of his
  722
  supporters. There must be a better way of achieving what we all wish to achieve than by destabilising the country to the extent that America has done. Our Government can play a part in achieving a decent, democratic Government there.
  We should be taking a positive role in central America, and we should have a positive policy there.
  3.57 am
  Miss Joan Lestor rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Has the hon. Lady the leave of the House to speak again? I hear no dissent.
  Miss Lestor: When we are dealing with a wide range of countries—I agree that we should consider them independently rather than grouping them together—it is very difficult to know which one, or two, to choose in the short time left to us. I should have liked to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who raised the question of the Falkland islands, because I feel that we cannot leave things as they are: at some stage we must return to discussing the future of the Falklands and, indeed, Argentina. But that is a matter for another occasion. I shall confine my remarks to two countries, Chile and Nicaragua: perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with them in her reply.
  I am not sure whether my information is accurate, but just before the debate began the Nicaraguan network in Washington told the Nicaraguan solidarity campaign that the Stevens-Dole amendment was being supported by the Democrats and was likely to be passed 60–40 in the Senate.
  Mr. Corbyn: Disgraceful.
  Miss Lestor: As my hon. Friend says, that is disgraceful. If it is true, it is possible that the package could go through before the Congressional recess on 11 August.
  The package proposed in the amendment consists of $27 million to the Contras for humanitarian aid, $20 million for lethal aid and $27 million in unspecified aid including insurance for air transport, making a total of $74 million. That is regrettable. It takes no steps towards what we all want to see—a resolution of the terrible problems in Nicaragua.
  It is particularly ironic that, just as the first anniversary of the central American peace accord is reached in August, and while the Sandinistas have again unilaterally declared a ceasefire, the only United States of America contribution to that progress is an aid package to the Contras. That will only continue a process from which we hoped that we had moved away. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) recently led an all-party delegation to protest about that. It was pointed out to the United States embassy that the eight-year war has led to 50,000 deaths. The Contra leadership is now dominated by a man who openly advocates terrorist tactics.
  I remind the House that the central American peace accord was a strategy for all central America. However, United States, and to some extent British, policy has emphasised the lack of compliance in Nicaragua. In contrast, to date only the Nicaraguan Government have engaged in serious negotiation with the armed opposition. Talks in El Salvador and Guatemala have long been abandoned, and death squad activity in E1 Salvador is now

  723
  increasing at an alarming rate. Deaths and torture have dramatically increased in Guatemala and its Government have closed down a television news station. A weekly newspaper was also forced to close after its building was set on fire.
  It is odd, therefore, that of the five central American countries that have signed the accord, Nicaragua should be singled out for infringement of it. Whatever the arguments about human rights abuses, Amnesty International has no Nicaraguan cases on its records. Surely we should ask the United States to leave Nicaragua alone and ask it not to go ahead with the aid package for the Contras. It should try to make everyone comply with the principles of the central American peace accord of non-intervention. At this stage, Nicaragua should be given encouragement and support rather than subjected to sabotage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke about Chile and I agree with his description of its past and the present state of affairs. It now appears that the junta is getting nervous. Recent opinion polls have shown that large sections of the electorate are undecided about the plebiscite that is to take place, and that the noes may have the majority. We do not know whether that is true, but we know that the state of emergency in Chile continues and that it impedes the activities of any opposition to the junta—that is the reason for it. Access to the media, which was promised, is still not allowed.
  It is obvious to me and to many other people that, in such circumstances, intimidation will occur now rather than in the final days before the election. It is essential that, from now on, monitoring is undertaken.
  The junta has just announced that it will meet on 30 August to nominate its candidate. Under the constitution, that plebiscite must be held between 30 and 60 days after the nomination and the speculation is that it will take place in the first week of October.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will be part of two delegations to Chile. One is an international, pre-plebiscite delegation. The other delegation will visit Chile in election week when my hon. Friend will be accompanied by Bishop Taylor, Lord Avebury and the well-known barrister, Geoffrey Bindham. It is important that the Government should also play a part in encouraging a return to democracy in Chile. They should send observers, just as the Labour party and others intend to do, to see what is happening now and at the time of the plebiscite.
  I hope that the Minister will explain what pressure the Government are exerting upon Chile to ensure that the plebiscite is fair and that it is conducted according to democratic principles. At the moment it appears that such principles will not be observed.
  Until 15 years ago, Chile had a long-standing tradition of democracy. We are concerned that, when human rights violations take place, the voice of our country should be heard. Our country should send representatives to Chile to ensure that such violations do not take place and to ensure that the election is held in as free and as fair an atmosphere as possible.
  I am conscious that we have had a wide-ranging debate and that many other issues could have been discussed. Although I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I am grateful that he initiated the debate. J hope that, some time in the future, the
  724
  Government will take time to allow the House to debate in full the issue of Latin and central America, which could play an important role in developing other ties with the United Kingdom—particularly trading links, which are badly needed.
  4.5 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the right hon. Lady have the leave of the House to speak again?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on Britain's long-standing and varied relations with Latin America. It is quite clear that there is need to explain certain aspects of policy.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and I welcome his special role in the formation of the new all-party group on Latin America, which is important to the House. I welcome the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who is the chairman of the group.
  Britain's links with Latin America go back a long way. British troops fought under the great General Bolivar in the struggle for independence from Spain. British business, through trade and investment, has played a major role in the development of almost all Latin American economies. British engineers built Latin America's lighting and water systems, its railways and its river craft. The Portuguese royal family travelled in British vessels to Brazil to escape from Napoleon and it is the clearly stated wish of the Government to build on and develop those long-standing links.
  The clear trend of a return to democracy throughout the region is encouraging. It is not as fast as any of us would like, but there are now only four Latin American Governments which are not democratically elected. The British Government very much support the process of redemocratisation.
  I shall come straight to the point about Chile. The national affairs of Chile attract particular public interest and excitement. It is now embarking on the democratic process by holding a plebiscite later this year. We want an orderly return to democracy. We make that clear to the Chilean Government bilaterally and with our 11 partners in Europe. The EC statement of 11 July makes absolutely clear our wish to see fair elections. We welcome the fact that there is now co-operation between the democratic opposition parties which have courageously come together in the plebiscite campaign. We do not know definitely who will be the candidate for the opposition, but it is particularly important that the plebiscite takes place in fair and open conditions. I respond to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on that score.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that, although we are not sending an official observer delegation to Chile, our embassy will report fully on the outcome. The registered democratic opposition can nominate its own observers and scrutineers at all polling stations, and we shall make best use of our team in Chile during the plebiscite.
  Mr. Corbyn: What about registration?
  Mrs. Chalker: I have only 12 minutes to finish my comments on several countries. Let me try to get them on the record.
  The hon. Gentleman is right in intimating that there is a problem about registration, but it is important to note that there has been an increase in voter registration which is now more than 6·5 million people. The democratic opposition now has access to television. I do not wish to prejudge the plebiscite, but the United Nations special rapporteur has declared that the electoral machinery has been prepared in a serious and responsible manner.
  We have consistently made clear our concerns about human rights in Chile. We have done so elsewhere in Latin and central America—particularly in Colombia, in the light of the recent Amnesty report. We shall continue to make sure that we take a clear public stand whenever violations of human rights occur. It is not only a matter of "He who shouts loudest." We must recognise improvements when they take place and encourage further progress. We shall condemn violence from all quarters, however it occurs—and the violation of human rights likewise.
  It would be easy to spend the whole debate discussing Chile. The hon. Member for Islington, North asked me about arms sales. He knows that it has been the policy of successive British Governments not to disclose details of defence sales. We believe that Chile has a sovereign right to secure its means of defence, but we take great care not to approve the sale of items that we judge could be used for internal repression, and we shall continue so to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham spoke a great deal about trade and investment. They should form a much more major element in our relationship with the region. The economic importance of Latin America is not always fully recognised. Latin American GNPs total more than those of the whole of Africa, the Indian sub-continent and south-east Asia combined, and we do well to remember that. Recent moves in the area to modernise economies present important opportunities for United Kingdom business. It has become a cliché that our trade performance is poor. It is now about 3 per cent. of the market in most countries again, having previously fallen to 2 per cent., but our entire trade with Latin America is only about 2 to 3 per cent. of our foreign trade. United Kingdom business men could and should do better, although our percentage share has risen over the past four years.
  Latin America is now beginning to emerge from the debt crisis, although I readily admit that it is still worrying for many nations. In trade terms, however, Latin America is ripe for a more concerted export effort. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of personal contacts and of regular visits to the area. Official services are ready and glad to help. I commend the work of the Latin American trade advisory group which brings together those from Government and business who are interested in improving our economic performance there.
  I must also mention the reopening of the consulate in Miami, and the British Florida chamber of commerce, which are there to assist United Kingdom trade into Latin America and the Caribbean. The DTI has held a seminar on the advantages to British companies of selling through Miami, and missions to the region are being encouraged to consider Miami in their itineraries before launching forth into Latin America.
  726
  We are seeking to offer exporters a range of services for Latin America, as for other markets, and the increasing interest of British companies, which is being reflected in the growth of market share, suggests that the service we are giving is effective. But we shall be truly effective only if—as hon. Members have said—our people can trade in the language of the countries with which they wish to trade. That means Spanish and Portuguese being spoken by our business men, let alone being taught in our schools.
  Despite Latin America's problems, it is important that its potential should be made better known to investors. There is now well over $1 billion worth of investment in Brazil, where we are the fifth largest investor. A number of British companies with subsidiaries there and in Mexico and Venezuela, in which we are the third largest investor, are doing well. By expanding debt-equity swaps, we want to give a new entree into these markets. The Government are paving the way for business in Latin America by double taxation agreements and investment protection agreements. We are determined that our competitors, who have been active in Latin America in recent years, will not have the field left to them.
  As hon. Members have said, debt still looms large in the popular perception of Latin America. We are trying to work with Latin American nations to solve the debt problems on a case-by-case basis. Many Latin American nations have made enormous sacrificies to meet their debt obligations. I welcome recent moves by Brazil and other countries to reach agreement with their creditors. I understand the frustrations that have been expressed in the debate, but we shall succeed in helping those countries economically only by working with them, not by simply believing that problems will go away if we ignore them. That has sometimes been the attitude of a few countries.
  I shall not speak at length about the drugs industry, but one of the most worrying aspects of Latin and central America is the seamy side of their marketing of drugs. It is rather like a ghastly parody of economics that there are problems with demand and supply. If the cocaine problem is not tackled effectively, the dangers not only for south America but for the rest of the world are enormous. We shall continue to attach a high priority to combating the corrosive effects on all our societies of drug misuse and trafficking.
  Many of the points made by hon. Members about drugs were too detailed to answer at this stage, but we are giving material support to Bolivia and Peru and have pledged money to the United Nations drugs law enforcement programmes to tackle the problem. We welcome the efforts being made by Latin American Governments to combat the evil of drugs. We shall attack the problem from the cultivation of the basic crop to the smuggling of it into developed country markets and its sale and consumption on the streets of our cities.
  I must deal with central America, although I cannot spend long doing so. I add a serious note of caution about the position in central America, where, sadly, the peace process is barely alive. Esquipulas II offers the best hope for peace. We call on all central American Governments to redouble their efforts to implement its provisions in full, especially the conclusion of ceasefire agreements to make rapid progress towards a pluralist democracy. It is important for Europe to urge all parties to comply with their commitments, especially for democratisation. In this

  727
  context, I deplore the recent measures taken by the Nicaraguan Government in direct contravention of their Esquipulas II obligations.
  Together with our EC partners, we welcome the Esquipulas II agreement, which was made in August 1987, and the Sapoa truce, which was made in March 1988.I am sorry that the regional peace process and the Nicaraguan ceasefire talks are virtually at a standstill. The peace agreement is still the best hope, and we must make progress at the various meetings of central American foreign Ministers and presidents, which will be held, as the hon. Member for Islington, North said, in August, towards a successful, peaceful, negotiated settlement of the conflict in the region. We shall continue to urge all parties to comply with their commitments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) accused the Government of not having a central American policy. It would be helpful to write to him at length to outline what is going on in central America.
  I was asked whether I would condemn the United States' support for the Contras. My colleagues and I have been asked that question many times of late in the House. United States' policy is a matter for the United States. We do not always agree with the United States, and that is well known. Our position is quite clear. We shall continue to advocate peaceful, negotiated solutions, not military ones. We believe that to be as right in central America as anywhere else. The problems of the region cannot be solved by armed force, and we shall continue to urge restraint on all sides. We tell the United States of our views repeatedly.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the importance of language. I commend the sterling work being done by
  728
  Canning house in promoting the study of Spanish and Portuguese. However, we need more teaching of those languages in our schools. We shall continue to press our colleagues for greater attention to be paid, not just to the language training of children but to the need for teachers able to train the next generation of children.
  Mr. Whitney rose——
  Mrs. Chalker: We try to help with scholarships for Latin Americans to come to study here and some of those Latin Americans help to increase our understanding of their countries as well as increasing their understanding of our country.
  I cannot go any further other than to say that the Latin American region is one of great potential. We have historical links and we want to build on and expand those links. There are opportunities for business. Much work has been done and much remains to be done. The debate has been useful in showing our recognition of the importance of the region and I hope that by the efforts of the group in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and other hon. Members are participating we shall be able to build up political and economic links between Latin America and the European Community.
  Latin America is increasingly looking to Europe, and we have made it clear that we support regional integration in Latin America. We hope that the region will learn some lessons from the European experience and that there will be greater political dialogue between the European Community and the group of eight countries, which has been a recent feature of international life. There is much to be done, and at 4.21 am it is time we got on with it.

  The Environment
  4.21 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is an odd time of the day to be debating anything, either ending or beginning. However, I am glad of this opportunity to speak on the environment. This is the first debate that any member of my party has introduced under our new leadership. I hope that it is significant that the first debate opened by a Social and Liberal Democrat under that new leadership reflects two of the expressed concerns of our leader—our internationalism and our environmentalism. As my party's spokesman on the environment I am glad to have this opportunity.
  I welcome the Minister on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. She would probably have chosen a different time and possibly a slightly fuller House. However, it is good to see her. I congratulate her sincerely on her appointment. I am a little embarrassed because I intended to write to her to congratulate her but she is on duty so quickly that I have been beaten to it.
  I have to concede that I campaigned briefly against the Minister's election in the year after I was elected. I had mixed thoughts about the result, but I am glad that she can sit on her party's Benches and has been promoted and taken on her new responsibility. I am sure that she will do a good job.
  It is said that, as yet, the structure of the Government does not allow us to have a department of environmental protection with the same overview of environmental matters as the Treasury has of economic matters. I received today the list of ministerial responsibilities under the new regime since the Government reshuffle earlier this week. It is to be noted, and a little regretted, that so far there has not been a clear division of ministerial responsibilities with appropriate titles, similar to the previous way, which I thought was an improvement in the way in which the Department was structured after the general election. Ministers were then described as being the Minister of Environment, Countryside and Water, the Minister for Housing and Planning, or the Minister for Local Government. Perhaps that will come but it is not yet the way in which Ministers are described. At the moment the Under-Secretary of State has a rather anomalous group of responsibilities in her Department. I hope that in future the Department can be structured in a way that will allow the importance of environmental protection to be recognised in its form as well as in its subject matter and work.
  What I propose to do is to air a range of issues of which I notified the Minister's office. Without wanting today to have a particular go at the Government, I want to put these issues on the political agenda. The Library has told me that there has not been a general debate on international environmental matters since the 1979 general election. That is sad. I hope that one objective that we may achieve in the coming years is more often to debate our international environmental responsibility.
  The title of the debate that I submitted originally to the Table Office was "The Global Environmental Crisis." In the way that the Table Office does, that title was slightly amended to be more objective and less judgmental. But it is the growing awareness of the environmental crisis internationally which has prompted me to seek this debate, and it has prompted many people in the country and
  730
  throughout the world—not just politicians—to raise it recently as a much more important issue on the political agenda. That is a good thing. It is good that our international and environmental responsibilities are now seen to be politically important.
  I confirm that by referring to the words of the Prince of Wales when he presented the European Year of the Environment awards at Merchant Taylors' hall in the City of London in March this year. He said:
  "When we read that over the next 60 years, if we go on as we are doing, something like a third of all the forms of life at present living on this planet may be extinct, can we feel anything but a kind of cosmic horror?
  We were facing a serious and urgent challenge on a huge international scale.
  Too many political leaders still gave far more attention to the obvious costs of action than to the concealed costs of inaction."
  That recognition represented an increasing awareness among the establishment in this country, as well as a general concern. An opinion poll, conducted last year by MORI on behalf of Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund, showed that 81 percent. of respondents felt that the Government should give a much higher priority to protecting the environment. I am sure that that is a correct analysis of people's concerns and that that number will increase rather than decrease.
  I am aware that this subject crosses departmental boundaries. Clearly, it involves the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the overseas aid and development portfolio. The two areas are very much interrelated because the way in which we contribute economically in trade and in patterns of trade within the international community affects environmental matters. Therefore, it is difficult in simplistic terms to analyse how much we spend on environmental protection because some of that expenditure is hidden rather than explicit. However, I should point out that there is concern, and I ask the Minister to take on board and recognise the fact that we have been cutting our expenditure on important environmental matters in certain key areas, which is to be regretted.
  In reply to a parliamentary question last month the Secretary of State for the Environment gave total figures for the Department's expenditure on environmental research and protection. The figures were then broken down into expenditure relating to radioactive waste, air pollution, water and countryside. The figures supplied cover 1981–82 to the present day.
  In real terms, expenditure on radioactive waste and water matters in connection with environmental research and protection has been reduced. It has been reduced for radioactive waste from £11·9 million in 1981–82 to £9·9 million in 1987–88. Expenditure on water has been reduced from £4·5 million to £3·5 million over the same period. We have seen attacks on science and research funding and there have been staff cuts at the Natural Environment Research Council. An article appeared in The Guardian on 6 July anticipating large-scale cuts in oceanographic research. The Minister should recognise that there is scientific and professional concern that we are not spending what we should to ensure that Britain is sufficiently aware of what is happening. We are not investing sufficiently in research on environmental matters. I hope that that position will be reversed.
  Everyone who has considered this subject believes that expenditure today can be very helpful in preventing

  731
  enormous waste and destruction tomorrow. Unless we are prepared to make that financial public expenditure commitment, the Government's contribution to the strategy of dealing with environmental destruction and despoliation will be considerably impaired.
  One of the encouraging aspects of the past few years has been the amount of international concern about this issue. The Minister will be aware that there are two seminal works on the subject—one more general, the other more specific. I am referring to the Brandt and the Brundtland reports.
  I want to refer to some of the comments made by the Prime Minister of Norway. Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland was appointed by the United Nations to chair the World Commission on Environment and Development at the end of 1983. Her statements are trite in a way, but they deserve to be repeated because they reinforce the conclusion that, after taking evidence of the international nature of the problem, there is a need to deal with the issues internationally. Mrs. Brundtland states:
  "one of the most fundamental of our findings is that the problems we face are global in nature and that they defy solution by local or even national endeavour … There is now a growing recognition that much of today's development is not sustainable. Rather it is based on a squandering of our 'biological capital'; soil, forests, animal and plant species, even air and water. It consumes its own ecological foundations. The result has been devastating, as was bluntly stated by Bjornulf Kristiansen, a speaker at the Commission's Oslo meeting."
  He said:
  "The most serious threat facing the world today, apart from nuclear war, is a global ecological crisis."
  Mrs. Brundtland continues:
  "Many of today's economic, monetary and trade policies as well as energy, agriculture, forestry and human settlement policies, induce and reinforce non-sustainable development patterns and practices. Widespread poverty and concentrated affluence conspire to increase environmental degradation, to increase pressures on resources and to increase inequities that lead to global instability and political tension. Indeed, poverty can be said to be one of the most important environmental problems."
  One witness who gave evidence in Ottawa said:
  "Poverty is self-sustaining, a self-generating process that compels people to live in a way which destroys valuable soils, water resources and forests. Much of the environmental degradation is the result of the desperate search by the poor and the landless for such basic needs as fuel, food and water. Small farmers are held responsible for environmental destruction as if they had a choice of resources to depend on for their livelihood, when they really don't. In the context of basic survival, today's needs tend to overshadow consideration for the environmental future. It is poverty that is responsible for the destruction of resources, not the poor."
  It is not that the poor are unaware of the problem. I met an impressive man last year, who was the leader or representative of a group in north India, mainly women, who have taken to protecting their trees by hugging them, and they received one of the Right Livelihood awards. They did this to protect what is both necessary for their ecology and their community. They have taken direct action and it has been successful.
  Mrs. Brundtland continued:
  "We are beginning to learn that there are better ways to manage our small planet than to 'react and cure': we must anticipate and prevent. This may sound simple and obvious, but it requires that we recognise environment and development as essential and mutually reinforcing goals. We must learn that we cannot separate the two. The environment is not a luxury, nor can it be postponed until later. Environmental considerations must be built into development at the earliest possible stage, otherwise it will not be
  732
  economically sustainable. The world—and especially the Third world—is littered with cases of 'development-without-environment', often aid-supported, that have literally consumed their own bases—in soil, in water and other resources—and ended up reducing rather than increasing the future economic potential of their countries.
  Finally, it requires that we begin to take a much broader view of environmental policy, seeing it not just as air, water, waste and noise policy, but more importantly as resource, energy, agricultural and transportation policy, and development assistance, trade and economic policy".
  I started there because that was the conclusion by the representatives of the international community, which made it clear that we must look at the subject as a whole. Of course, the subject is made up of component parts, and I now want to deal with them in turn.
  Land is a delicate, finite and precious resource. Every year we lose more than 200,000 sq km of land to desert. That happens because of erosion, over-grazing, over-ploughing, poor irrigation and bad farming techniques generally. According to United Nations estimates, every 10 years the Sahara desert alone spreads by the size of Czechoslovakia. History shows repeatedly how more ancient civilisations have been destroyed by desertification than by conquest. There are some very telling examples. The Sahel comprised what once were great civilisations. Timbuktu, which we are all taught in primary education was the end of the earth—the furthest and most remote place one could ever get to—was the centre of a vast empire at the time of the Roman empire. The Lebanon was once famous for its magnificent cedars, which it exported around the world, and were used to build the royal palaces of Egypt, of Babylon and of Assyria, but there are not many of those left. The pattern has been changed as much by ecological as by military or economic change. It is important to recognise that.
  By straining land in the short term, the very agricultural practices that produce the food surpluses, which enable civilisations to flourish, starve them in the long term. For example, the area along the southern Mediterranean—all the African shoreline—used to produce the wheat for the Roman empire. Now there is very little production of wheat or other crops; it is very much desert with, I suppose, some tourism thrown in. A once grain-rich area has given way to sand.
  Desertification is a major international problem. The expansion of deserts has been far more rapid in the past few decades. We must realise that other countries feel the consequences of that process. The whole international economic order is affected.
  Global warming is recognised as a cause of desert expansion. There was an interesting conference in Toronto at the end of June. It considered, even if not for the first time, the climatological crisis that will arise if we continue to interfere with the atmosphere. It is estimated that the earth's temperature has risen by between 0·3 and 0·7 deg. C this century. If the temperature were to decrease by only 4 per cent. on average, we would be into a new ice age. An increase of 0·3 per cent. is therefore enormously significant.
  The greenhouse effect contributes to global warming. The concept is now well known and it is the subject of parliamentary questions. It was debated in the other place earlier today. Its causes are becoming clearer. They are gases and pollutants which are used by man, the felling and burning of tropical rain forests and additional carbon dioxide, methane and fluoridated hydrocarbons and other gases which accumulate in the atmosphere, preventing

  733
  heat from bouncing back into space. The climatological consequences of that are potentially devastating. Many cities could be flooded within 50 or 60 years. If Antarctica were to melt just a little, we would face enormous problems, and they would be the result of our own activity.
  There are simplistic ways in which to tackle the problem, such as dealing with CFCs and gas pollution produced privately and by industry, but we must co-operate internationally to anticipate and deal with the potential crisis.
  We destroy the earth's resources substantially through soil erosion. Scientists estimate that soil which can have taken between 200 and 120,000 years to form can be lost in a few years. We know from our own gardens that topsoil is vulnerable. It is much needed and can be "lost" easily. Topsoil only 2 cm thick can be removed by wind or water power, but farming throughout the world depends on it. Soil was previously able to form at the same rate as it was eroded, but the pace of erosion now outstrips reformation alarmingly.
  The wind erodes soil when natural vegetation cover is removed. Man might cut down forest or overgraze grassland, as happened in the American dustbowl disaster of the 1930s. The soil was lost because of the interests of short-term production. A very odd phenomenon resulted. About 350 million tonnes of fertile topsoil were blown up into a giant cloud, even producing an eclipse. The topsoil was lost and it has taken half a century to recover from that climatological aberration. The retention of soil for farming in this country and north America, particularly in times when, as now, there is a substantial drought, has an important effect. Farming and incentives to farming that we encourage through our aid programme and collectively in the international community are influential.
  The third form of effect on the land is water erosion. When the natural protective cover of trees and plants disappears on hills and mountains topsoil can be lost permanently. I gather that 25 million tonnes of soil is washed away by rains, rivers and flood waters every year. Next week I hope to go to north Wales where my family comes from. I have been there in August most years of my life, when there is normally a substantial amount of heavy rain. We see in a small way exactly what happens. It is a major problem and we cannot prevent the effect of water eroding the soil, but we can work to anticipate how we recover it. That is particularly necessary in the poorest areas of the world where only one phenomenal period of heavy rain can eliminate the potential for farming for a long time.
  Since farming began in the United States it is estimated that one third of the topsoil across the nation has been lost. The present escalating demand for firewood and forest land for cultivation will mean that increasing quantities of our precious land—I say that as a world citizen—will be exposed to degradation. There are deserts in every continent bordered by vast areas of semi-arid land that support huge populations, many of which are in danger of becoming deserts. We tend to forget that the semi-arid areas provide the world with 20 per cent. of food supplies and support 850 million people. If in 60 years' time they become desert, 20 per cent. of our food capacity will be lost, probably when there is an increase in population making demands on those areas.
  734
  At present, 230 million people are directly threatened by desertification, and by the year 2000, only 12 years hence, one third of the world's present farm land will be desert. That is a frightening statistic. Although that figure is reached using the scientifically agreed definition of a desert, which is according to its aridity, we will have a major problem which we must help to solve.
  At the same time we must recognise that if we farm over-intensively, whether in our country or by contributing through chemicals and so on to farming abroad, and if we interfere in the soil composition either by using chemical fertilisers, lime, humus and other ways of dealing with the acidity of the soil, or by over-intensive ploughing we shall damage irreversibly an element that we need. The issue is simple: man and woman cannot survive without food, and the earth produces it.
  The second most fundamental element of our environment is air. The older citizens of this city will be more aware than most people of air pollution at its worst. I remember that when I was young we had smog the like of which we no longer see. I was brought up in what is now Greater Manchester and we certainly had some pretty grim autums and winters. Such conditions caused thousands of deaths at the turn of the century and before.
  We have done better than that. The Clean Air Act 1956 was the beginning of recent legislation on these matters. Unfortunately, however, we do not yet have clean air. A number of very effective lobbying organisations are still trying to ensure not only that legislation is introduced but that when Acts such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are passed their provisions are implemented. Sadly, in the past decade or so there have been substantial delays between the enactment of legislation on this subject and its implementation.
  We have moved pollution away from the centres of population. We have made chimneys taller and thus spared ourselves, but the pollution that we create now gets sent further afield—western and northern Europe have been the principal and doubtful "beneficiaries". It is a well known fact—we have debated the question quite often —that the forests and lakes of Europe and north America are being damaged, in some cases irreversibly, by the pollution that still comes from our manufacturing processes.
  The obvious enemies are sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, which are discharged mainly by power station chimneys. They mix in the atmosphere to produce acid rain, which may fall near or further afield. Every time I drive up the M4 I look to see the state of the trees on either side of the motorway. People have examined, much more carefully than I, the terrible effects of acid rain in Germany and Scandinavia. The Scandinavians are still very cross with us—that is putting it nicely—because we still cause destruction to their fish stocks, lakes, fjords and trees.
  Approximately 40 million tonnes of airborne sulphur dioxide were still being produced in Europe a few years ago—the equivalent of 66,000 30-tonne lorries full of sulphur being dumped directly into the lakes of Europe. In southern Norway, more than 13,000 sq km of lakes are nearly empty of fish. It is estimated that 50 per cent. of trees in West Germany are affected.
  Unfortunately, we are still the dirty man of Europe. We still produce nearly 30 million tonnes of airborne sulphur every year—two thirds of which is blown away to Scandinavia. It is estimated that of the 610,000 tonnes of

  735
  sulphur deposited in Sweden every year, only about a sixth comes from there; the rest is imported, not by invitation but because we expel it.
  I am sad to say that we have dragged our feet. I know that at the Environment Council in June we reached an agreement to reduce our sulphur emissions by the turn of the century. It was not as much as Opposition Members —and indeed some Conservative Members—had hoped for. Our refusal to join the 30 per cent. club is sad, and there is substantial room for improvement. I hope that the Minister will take a specific interest in that. The Department has done some good work but when it comes to the crunch we are one of the countries in Europe that has been most reluctant to agree to strict enforcement of control on our pollution.
  Similarly, the ozone layer is threatened by air pollution produced on an everyday basis by our chemical processes. That produces not only harmful effects on the environment, but health consequences, too. Skin cancer is on the increase and it is suggested that a factor of 2 to 3 per cent. of its increase is attributable to the damage to the ozone layer. Ultraviolet radiation is causing increased eye disease and there are also effects on marine ecosystems, plant life, crop and timber yields and so on.
  The third major element is water, the third resource in the world under threat. Our planet's waters have been contaminated by waste deposited in the sea by rivers, streams, pipelines and dumping vessels. I heard on "Today in Parliament" at 11.30, over five hours ago, about a debate in the other place in which they discussed how, when we talked to the French about sewage deposits, we suggested that perhaps the answer was to make our pipelines longer. Apparently the French replied that if we built longer pipes, sending out our sewage nearer to them, they would build longer pipes, too, and we would get similar coming back. That is clearly not the way to proceed.
  With the threat of unclean, environmentally unacceptable beaches—which have now to be notified; we have all had experience of visiting beaches which are foul, to put it mildly—we often have foul water. There are hazards of a short-term nature, and concern has also been expressed recently about the aluminium contamination of water in Britain. Water pollution is bad for the health of this and every other nation, bringing bacteria, viruses and other disease-causing effects. The pollutants are mainly industrial by-products—apart from sewage—and we have a responsibility to deal with this issue to protect ourselves, marine and bird life.
  About 3·5 million tonnes of oil is dumped into the sea every year. The Mediterranean contains an enormous amount of sewage, 85 per cent. of it untreated. If people knew that as they waited at Gatwick airport they might decide it was not such a desirable and healthy place to go for their often delayed summer holiday. Mussels and oysters are becoming increasingly unsafe to eat. Typhoid, paratyphoid, dysentery, polio, viral hepatitis and food poisoning are common. They are caused, among other things, by poisoned and contaminated water.
  In addition to contaminating the water, the world has been guilty of over-fishing and over-drawing from the marine environment. We cannot afford to do that. For example, nearly one third of Peru's foreign exchange is earned through anchovy fishing. In 1974, it fished 9 million tonnes of anchovies, and the world was grateful for the fish. But those methods allowed woefully insufficient time
  736
  for the anchovies to breed and replenish themselves, and by 1980 the catch had gone down to 1 million tonnes. One could give many other examples worldwide. That sort of foolish over-exploitation causes many problems.
  In Britain and elsewhere we rely on estuaries for the breeding of fish, crustaceans, and so on. But that is where pollution is at its greatest because of chemical, industrial and sewage pollution. As a result, many of the world's estuaries are dying. We cannot put off dealing with that problem.
  If, as estimated, there is a 200 to 300 per cent. increase in water withdrawals in the world by the end of the century, we must make sure that the water that is withdrawn is suitable and is used properly. At the same time, the water table is falling in many key agricultural areas. Much water needed for irrigation is being lost through over-evaporation and transpiration and is not available for re-use.
  If we do not have water we will perish. Earth, air and water are the staple elements of our planet's life-support system. With them we have the basis for food and shelter. With them we can accommodate, feed and provide the resources for the increasing global population, and that is one of the remaining issues with which the world must deal.
  Although world population growth has been slowing since 1965 to 1970, the highest annual increase, averaging 87 million extra people per year, will be between 1990 and 2010. The global total has already passed 5 billion and may reach more than 10 billion before it starts to level out— and 96 per cent. of that growth will be in the developing countries. Regional trends are highly diverse. Birth rates remain high in Africa and western Asia, growing at 3 per cent. and 2·8 per cent. per year respectively. In Latin America and south Asia the figures are 2·3 per cent. and 2·2 per cent. and have started to slow down. In east Asia, the increase has slowed considerably. Rapid population growth, coupled with wasteful or polluting technologies and lifestyles, are depleting the planet's finite resources and jeopardising our life-support systems of soil, forest and climate. We can produce enough food to feed future populations, but in 73 of the 122 developing countries food production has fallen behind population growth, arable land per person is declining and in many countries population exceeds, or soon will exceed, the carrying capacity of the land. That is a vital area to address in terms of political pressure.
  Aid for population programmes is still inadequate. Since 1965, when the total was just £10,000, it has grown to £1 million and then to £15·5 million, but population programmes receive only 1 per cent. of total British aid compared with an OECD average of 1·5 per cent. British bilateral aid is patchy, with one or two projects accounting for a large chunk of the aid. In 1984 and 1985, two thirds of our bilateral aid for population programmes went to one project in Orissa state in India. The whole of sub-Saharan Africa received an average of only £235,000 per year from us in the three years from 1982 to 1985—the price of a four-bedroom flat in Hampstead, as was pointed out in a briefing note that we all received, and scarcely an acceptable contribution on a world scale from the British Government.
  Aid for population programmes drawing attention to the dangers of failure to act and concern that we give more

  737
  in overseas aid must be among the key elements of our strategy in the future. We must anticipate the greater problems that lie ahead.
  We must educate to ensure that our young people are aware of their global responsibility and invest in that education. We must encourage the idea that an environmental approach to all our activities, particularly our economic activity, is a prerequisite for a sustainable economy for us all in this and every other country. Those are the principles of environmental awareness that we must follow.
  I end as I began, with a quotation from Mrs. Brundtland:
  "We stand at a crossroads. In the past the pursuit of 'progress' in the industrialised West was founded on four dominant beliefs: that people dominate the earth, that they are masters of their destiny, that the world is vast and unlimited, and that history is a process of advancement, with every problem solvable. But we must now call into question those four basic beliefs. Instead, the essential basis for sustainable development must be the concern for the world's environment. We need individual participation at all levels in the care of the planet and, based on this deeper and wider perception of the basis of life and human activity, we need profound changes in economic and social attitudes. If the planet is to be saved, this is a battle we are all called on to fight."
  Government and Parliament have a responsibility to respond to an international call such as that. Whether it is food, energy, arms, defence, aid or education policy, we have a collective responsibility to ensure that all activity of Government makes for a much greater priority to be attached to it. I believe that the international community is now ready to be pushed into taking that sort of action. I hope that our Government will make international environment and responsibility a major political priority. I trust that we shall see that reflected in an increasing amount of attention being given to these matters in this place, and increasing resources given to them on behalf of the people of Britain, both in energy and in money.
  5.5 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is a privilege and an honour to reply to the debate, which has centred on environmental issues. I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising such important questions, and especially for presenting his remarks in such a thoughtful, detailed and well-informed fashion. I thank him for his kind remarks about my appointment. I have taken an interest in our environment throughout my career, and it is an exciting challenge to tackle the many problems that remain to be solved.
  The Government's environment record is a good one. One of the first papers that I read this week was the Department's recent publication that is entitled "Protecting Your Environment". This excellent guide, which understandably had to be reprinted to meet public demand, sets out succinctly and convincingly the Government's policy for environmental protection. Our basic principles stress the need to base decisions on the best available scientific foundation, to adopt a preventive approach and when necessary take precautionary measures, to set realistic goals for the quality of the environment, and to take full account of technical feasibility and economic considerations. We want to
  738
  ensure that the public are aware of the state of our environment and that their feelings are reflected in our policies, which are designed to develop the concept of the best practicable environmental option. We have published today a consultation paper on integrated pollution control.
  We recognise the international dimension to so many environmental problems, and welcome the fact that the hon, Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has chosen to focus on this aspect of the subject. We play our full part in finding international remedies.
  I am especially keen to work more closely with the many environmental groups that have done so much to raise the profile of environment matters, and with the press and the journalists who keep the public better informed and more enlightened about the vital importance of developing policies for the environment worldwide.
  I am looking forward to working with my noble Friend Lord Caithness, the Minister of State, who has already proved his commitment to the environmental cause as well as showing his great skills as an international negotiator. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to some confusion about the roles of various individuals. My noble Friend will still lead on this subject, but I am pleased to say that I shall be speaking on environmental protection in this place.
  I hope that the House will join me in paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibilities for sport. He has shown his understanding and persuasive abilities in this place when discussing these important topics.
  I pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). She is a much valued parliamentary colleague whose concern for rural housing, the provision of low-cost houses and protecting villages has greatly impressed the House. Her personal commitment to and support of the housing association movement is well known to us all in this place and to many outside.
  Before dealing with the issues that particularly affect the Department, I shall deal briefly with some of the arguments that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was advancing, which is some respects should more properly be raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Having had the privilege to serve my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development earlier in my time here, I am well aware of the serious commitment the Overseas Development Administration has to many of the topics raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. He rightly pointed out the extent to which these subjects cross departmental boundaries. One of the privileges of being a Back Bencher that I am quite sad to lose is that of being able to stroll freely across Departments. I shall now have to observe the convention and confine my remarks primarily to my own Department.
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ODA booklet "The Environment and the British Aid Programme". The questions of preservation of soil, desertification and tropical rain forests were all given keen attention during the International Year of the Environment, and I think that he will find there a good deal of useful material. The tackling of population expansion, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned, is also a matter primarily for the Overseas Development Minister. The Government accept the grave threat to sustainable development posed by rapidly increasing populations in many poorer parts of

  739
  the world, and we share many of the Brundtland report's conclusions about giving more priority to support for primary health care activities, with special emphasis on mother-and-child health and family planning.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken great steps to spell out the need for reform of the common agricultural policy, and to consider the overproduction in Europe and the United States in the context of the shortages in many Third world countries. Again I refer the hon. Gentleman to the work done by the Minister for Overseas Development on the reform of food aid, in which he has given priority to these issues.
  Let me return to the responsibilities more directly in my Department, particularly the international aspects. Clearly the European Community plays a central role. More and more legislation in Brussels affects our lives here. Important EC legislation helps to govern the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the seas and the life that surround us, and even our stratosphere. This is not an imposition; the Government are positively committed to improving the quality of our environment. We see Europe as a challenge, an opportunity to share our concern for the environment and to work together with others on transboundary issues to shape the environmental future for our own children and those of our fellow Europeans.
  A major event last year was the European Year of the Environment, which was a great success in the United Kingdom. Our national committee included many non-governmental bodies, which played a crucial role. It mounted an energetic publicity campaign which stimulated hundreds of first-rate, small-scale environmental projects. This is relevant to what was said by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the increasing public awareness, interest and concern about these important subjects.
  The European Year closed on 31 March, and its momentum led within three months to European Ministers agreeing far-reaching measures to protect the environment. The positive role played by the United Kingdom in helping to bring about those achievements was of major significance.
  On 16 June, after four and a half years of difficult negotiations, the Environment Council reached agreement on the large combustion plants directive: a phased programme of reductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from power stations and other large combustion plants. Even more far-reaching was the agreement to ratify and implement the Montreal protocol. I am glad to say that we also reached agreements in December 1987 and June this year on pollution standards for medium and small cars. June also saw the virtual conclusion of negotiations on amendments to the so-called Seveso directive, which deals with major accident hazards from chemical stores. We also made substantial progress on a draft directive aimed at controlling waste from the titanium dioxide industry. We hope it will be possible to sew up an agreement in November.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the importance of air pollution. Many thought that the Clean Air Act 1956 would solve the problem. It was a major improvement and a recognition of the need, but of course new threats have emerged and developed since then.
  This year we have reached historic agreements on the means to protect the quality of our air. I thought that the
  740
  hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was a little mean-spirited in his description of the country's performance in that regard.
  The outstanding agreement is the large combustion plants directive. The directive commits the United Kingdom to reducing 1980 levels of sulphur dioxide emissions from existing large combustion plants by 20 per cent. by 1993, by 40 per cent. by 1995 and by 60 per cent. by 2003; and nitrogen oxide emissions by 15 per cent. by 1993 and by 30 per cent. by 1998, again from a 1980 base.
  Before that agreement, the United Kingdom was already undertaking a substantial £1 billion programme to reduce acid emissions, the second largest in Europe. That included plans to retrofit three major Central Electricty Generating Board coal-fired power stations with flue gas desulphurisation equipment and to fit all major CEGB coal-fired power stations with low-nitrogen oxide burners. All new coal-fired power stations are required to have technology to control acid emissions. The commitment undertaken in the directive will require substantial further effort over and above existing programmes.
  The United Kingdom can be proud of the major part it is playing in reducing European emissions and helping to bring about an end to the acid rain problem.
  Vehicle emissions are another important component of acid rain. They are set to fall substantially following the Government's intention to introduce, as soon as practicable, tighter new exhaust emission standards agreed in the European Community in December. Still further progress was made last month when EC Environment Ministers reached agreement, subject to views of the European Parliament, on the further tightening of standards for small cars.
  I would like to point out the great strides we have made in promoting sales of unleaded petrol. The Government are fully committed to the introduction of unleaded petrol. My first engagement in the Department was to chair the unleaded petrol group, which brings together the oil and motor industries, consumers and Government Departments to work for a smooth transition to the new fuel. In this year's Budget the tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol increased significantly. Unleaded fuel is now being sold some 6p per gallon below the price of 4-star and comfortably below that of 2-star. There are powerful incentives for motorists to save money and contribute to a cleaner environment.
  I urge all motorists to find out whether their cars can use unleaded petrol—two thirds of cars can run on unleaded petrol, although some may need a minor adjustment. Some 1,520 petrol stations now sell unleaded petrol—a significant improvement, but there is still further to go. Environmental groups, fuel companies, vehicle manufacturers and the media, working with the Government, must urgently get the message across to more motorists.
  Global issues need global solutions. Protection of the ozone layer is a classic instance of the need for action on an international basis. The United Kingdom was one of the first countries—and the first EC member state—to ratify the Vienna convention on the protection of the ozone layer, which we understand is due to enter into force in September. We played an active part in negotiating the Montreal protocol to control emissions of chlorofluoro-carbons. That protocol is a landmark in international

  741
  co-operation on the environment. It is the first international measure designed to prevent rather than cure a global environmental problem.
  Our first priority—shared with our partners in the EC —is to ensure that the protocol enters into force on 1 January 1989 as planned and with the widest possible participation. On 16 June the Council of Environment Ministers agreed, in principle, proposals for the Community and for all the members states to ratify the protocol before the end of this year and to implement it in the EC. Clearly, however, in the light of important scientific developments since Montreal we must look ahead to the process of assessment and review of the protocol measures. British scientists, economists and officials will be participating fully in the international meetings in the Netherlands in October which will set the process in hand. By then the Department's stratospheric ozone review group will have published its second report, which will give a full assessment of the latest evidence. In the meantime, we have noted carefully the warning in the executive summary of the group's report issued last month about the need to strengthen the protocol. The Environment Council, on 16 June, gave a clear political signal in its resolution on the ozone layer about the importance of going beyond Montreal and calling for further measures on a voluntary basis to reduce the use of CFCs and halons to the maximum possible extent.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned research. I can assure him that the NERC changes will not affect research on stratospheric ozone. The United Kingdom has a strong programme of stratospheric ozone research. British scientists were involved in the Antarctic campaign last September, and will be involved in the Arctic programme next January. The Department supports this and other work and keeps in close touch with the results of other United Kingdom research programmes, principally the Meteorological Office, NERC and SERC, collectively amounting to some £2 million a year. The United Kingdom has taken the initiative in bringing together research programme managers from EC and EFTA countries to discuss how stratospheric ozone research in Europe should be co-ordinated. Progress on that front has been encouraging.
  The protocol provides a stimulus to research into alternatives. The two United Kingdom producers are actively engaged in research and development work to find substitutes and have joined an international consortium to speed their commercial development.
  We are all well aware of the importance of the issue of climate change, raised by the hon. Gentleman. As my noble Friend said in a message to last month's conference on the changing atmosphere in Toronto, the principle of sustainable development faces possibly its greatest challenge in man-made climate change. Its causes and effects pose difficult and challenging problems which can be solved only internationally. There are great uncertain-ties, but it is important to reduce them as quickly as possible by co-ordinated international research. The Department has increased spending on climate change research and has commissioned a study of possible impacts of climate change on the natural environment of the United Kingdom. There are measures which can be taken now on the basis of our current understanding. For
  742
  example, CFCs and halons are also greenhouse gases. The Montreal measure will not only benefit the ozone layer but reduce the greenhouse effect.
  Turning to the water environment, the hon. Gentleman mentioned bathing and the water round our beaches. I can assure him that £70 million a year is already being spent on cleaning up bathing water, and it is likely that the amount will increase.
  The United Kingdom has a history of international collaboration on measures to prevent and remedy pollution. Because of our island location, we do not suffer from the problems of transboundary pollution in the same way as many of our continental partners situated on major international waterways. As a result, much of our collaborative effort has been directed towards combating pollution of the seas.
  The North sea is one area in which the United Kingdom has taken a series of initiatives, together with its North sea partners, to make a real contribution towards protecting and improving the international environment. Last November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hosted the second international conference on protection of the North sea. Its successful outcome was internationally acknowledged.
  The United Kingdom has taken an early lead in implementing the conference declaration. In February the Department published a detailed guidance note on implementation addressed to water authorities, industry and other relevant agencies throughout the United Kingdom. Today we are publishing our detailed proposals for reduction of dangeous substance inputs to rivers. Earlier in the year a new programme of regular aerial surveillance was launched by the Department of Transort to monitor illegal discharges by ships and offshore installations. In March, we hosted the inaugural meeting of the international scientific task force and, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is now reviewing licences for liquid industrial waste dumping and incineration.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking that, in investigating those issues, her Department will look closely at the development of "the polluter pays" principle so that the people who pollute our waterways pay for the cleaning up?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall certainly consider it with some urgency. I know that it is the subject of discussion, and I shall provide him with a more considered response.
  Many of the issues raised tonight—and many more— are covered in depth in the Government's response produced this week to the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, "Our Common Future". The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey paid his repects to and drew at length on the Brundtland report. Like his, the Government's response recognises the importance of a variety of Departments. They include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the ODA, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Energy, the DHSS—or rather the DH and the DSS—the Ministry of Defence, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, the Treasury and indeed the Prime Minister herself——
  Mr. Simon Hughes: That shows better than anything I could have said the importance of giving one Department a cross-departmental lead responsibility in environmental matters. In economic affairs, it is impossible for Departments to run their finances without someone from the Treasury taking charge. Clearly, as the Minister's list shows, the same needs to apply to environmental matters. Either her Department or another newly created one needs to be in charge and bring others together.
  Mrs. Bottomley: An excellent response has been produced by co-ordination and collaboration, and I find no fault or difficulty in that. I commend that response to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
  When the Brundtland report was launched in April 1987 the Government gave it an immediate and warm welcome. The response, "Our Common Future", examines the report point by point in more than 60 pages of detailed commentary. It demonstrates where we have already made progress in putting the message of the report in hand. For example, all Government Departments have been asked to examine their policies against it. But the report also recognises that many of the problems identified will require concerted international efforts if they are to be resolved. We are working hard through various international organisations, notably the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations environment programme, to follow up the report. And we have seconded a senior Government official to help the Norwegian Government with their preparations for a major follow-up conference in 1990 to review progress. Copies of "Our Perspective" have already been placed in the Library. I would thoroughly commend it as suitable holiday reading for all hon. Members.
  744
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says in her foreword, "Our Perspective" describes where we stand in the United Kingdom. It is intended to inform interested organisations and individuals at home, and to stimulate further international consideration of the report, notably within the OECD and the United Nations. I see it also as a contribution to the ministerial conference which the Norwegian Government will hold in 1990 to examine what progress we have made to safeguard "Our Common Future".
  The Prime Minister's remarks underline the nature of the task that lies ahead. Considerable and encouraging progress has already been made on international measures to protect the environment. The Government have played a leading and constructive role in a series of important achievements. In the past year the Montreal protocol was signed and the successful second North sea conference held. In the past few months agreement has been reached on the European Community large combustion plants directive and the Luxembourg vehicle emissions package. The EC ratification and implementation of the Montreal protocol, the endorsement of the Brundtland report by the Toronto economic summit and the publication of our formal response to it have all occurred in recent months. Only a consultation paper on integrated pollution control was published.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on raising this vital subject, and I assure him that I shall give serious consideration to what he said. This has been an excellent opportunity to emphasise the great importance that the Government attach to improving and preserving the environment, to highlight a number of the Government's achievements in this crucial area and to point the way ahead.

  National Health Service (Lottery)
  5.28 am
  Mr. Simon Burns: I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health for being present at this unearthly hour of the morning, and I apologise for subjecting her to being present for the debate.
  The purpose of the debate is not to discuss the funding of the National Health Service but to consider the effect of lotteries in providing additional funds for the Health Service.
  People in this country enjoy a justifiably high reputation for giving generously to good causes. The Charities Aid Foundation has calculated that in 1985 there were 160,000 charities in England and Wales, which raised over £12·5 billion for good causes. Just under 9 per cent. of those charities raised money for health-related services.
  Since that time, there have been the phenomena of Live Aid, telethons, the Wishing Well appeal and other fund-raising events, which have shown that we are a nation of givers.
  In addition to high-profile fund-raising activities, there are different forms of local lotteries across the country, which raise money for a variety of richly deserving causes, including the Health Service.
  In my constituency there is the excellent Friends of St. John's hospital, which is always raising funds through lotteries, even if they are called raffles. Two children's intensive-care cots were provided for the local hospital by people in the area joining together and raising money through fetes, collections and raffles.
  In the past two months, Trafford health authority has announced the setting up of a local lottery to help finance a breast cancer screening unit, a coronary-prevention programme and a scheme to help children who have special emotional and learning needs. All these enterprises are laudable, but I wonder whether the prizes of dinner for two in an air-raid shelter, a trip down the Manchester sewers or a day at an operating theatre as an observer will appeal to everyone.
  While raffles and other fund-raising activities have gone from strength to strength in the past few years, the same cannot be said of local lotteries, which are allowed under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. They must be registered with the Gaming Board for Great Britain or a local authority.
  In the past five years, total ticket sales and the number of lotteries have declined dramatically. In 1983–84 there were 4,045 local lotteries registered with the Gaming Board for Great Britain, with total ticket sales of £40·;4 million. In 1987–88 the number had fallen to 1,401 lotteries, with total ticket sales of £21·5 million. These figures show a decline of 76 per cent. and 59 per cent., respectively, over that period.
  Why have local lotteries, which raise additional funds for the Health Service and other good causes, fallen off so much while other forms of fund raising have done so well? The answer is that local lotteries are too small to generate enough interest to be a success. They dilute their effects, and the maximum prize money of £2,000 or £6,000 is too low. The fact that draws do not take place for weeks or
  746
  months after the sale of tickets dilutes excitement, anticipation and interest to the point where most people will not participate.
  I am convinced that the answer to that problem, which would bring immense additional financial benefit to the National Health Service, would be a single, legal national lottery. It would help to avoid the problems that we have seen over the past few months. Organisations, such as the National hospital trust, have tried to get round existing lotteries laws and jump the gun. With a properly run national lottery, over £1 billion could be raised for the National Health Service by the fourth year of its operation. That money could be spent on extra equipment, such as kidney machines, computerised axial tomographic scans, intensive-care cots or on providing more accommodation so that parents could live near the hospital when their children had to stay in hospital for more than a day.
  A national lottery would harness the deep-seated generosity of the British public and provide invaluable additional funds in a way that would create excitement and the reassurance that if somebody does not win a prize they will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the money they have lost has gone to a good cause. In that way they would not feel that it was money down the drain. The vast majority of British people are not puritanical. They enjoy a harmless flutter and would warmly welcome an initiative of this nature.
  It must not be forgotten that this idea is not particularly new or revolutionary. The first lottery in England was in 1569 to raise money for repairing the Cinque ports and our sea defences.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is more than one sort of lottery in life? Some people are born healthy and others are born unhealthy. Some people who are born with handicaps are able to go to court and come out with £500,000 if they can blame somebody else, but some people come out with nothing and have to carry a burden all their life. Any source of funds that can help the Health Service is of help to them.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and I agree with him.
  Since 1569 and the first lottery, lotteries have been used to raise money to bring fresh water to London and for the ransom of English slaves in Tunis in 1660. Just as the Sydney opera house was built by lottery money, so was the British museum in the 1750s, with the first prize being a staggering £200,000.
  Since then, supporters of national lotteries have ranged from the 1978 Royal Commission on gambling, which concluded that
  "there should be a single national lottery for good causes",
  to Sir Robin Day, who wrote in The Times in May 1987 that he believed that a national lottery
  "would greatly enrich the national life…and be hugely popular into the bargain."
  Even the noble Lord Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in a previous incarnation as Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1960s, supported the idea of a national lottery.
  A national lottery for the Health Service would be monopolistic. That might seem odd coming from someone like myself who believes passionately in deregulation. However, I have reached that conclusion because all the

  747
  advice I have been given from directors of state lotteries in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Ontario is that it is only with a single lottery that the scheme will work properly because it will not dilute the effect of maximising the fund-raising initiative or general excitement generated, which is so important to the success of a lottery.
  There should be an independent monitoring body such as the Gaming Board to ensure that the lottery was being run properly and honestly. The day-to-day running of a national lottery should be put out to private tender and a private company with proven expertise in that business should be appointed to run it. The successful company should have a fixed-term contract of three or five years and should provide all the money to finance the investment in setting up the system, as is done in the United States.
  I would envisage 20,000 to 25,000 retail outlets using the latest technology and all linked to a central computer to register the sale of tickets and make the draw. Points of sale would be in existing retail outlets such as tobacconists, confectioners, newsagents, supermarkets, corner shops and sub-post offices. It would provide a valuable additional income for those outlets. In certain instances it may help to keep open small shops in rural areas.
  There would be a series of games costing either 50p or £1 and would include lotto, which has proved to be so popular in newspapers such as The Sun, and instant games. The lotto games would be drawn daily and weekly with a number of smaller prizes and one large prize at the top of the pyramid. If the large prize was not won, it would be rolled over to the next draw and in that way substantial prizes could be won. Again, that would contribute to the publicity of the scheme and would help generate excitement and encourage people to buy tickets.
  Lotto, which is used in some of our national newspapers, and the football pools show that people are attracted by the idea of being able to win a substantial sum of money in one go. Looking at the money that would then go to the National Health Service, the costs would break down as follows. Operating and advertising would initially be no more than 15 per cent. of the total sales revenue per year. That figure should and could be reduced to between 8 and 10 per cent. once the lottery is firmly established. Prize money would be 50 per cent. of sales revenue and the money that would go to the National Health Service would start at 35 per cent. of sales revenue in the first year and rise to 40 per cent. by the fifth year.
  The example of other countries—we are the only country in Western Europe that does not have a national lottery—suggests that by the fourth year of operations a British national lottery could raise £1 billion for the Health Service on a total sales revenue of £2·8 billion. That figure is arrived at by projecting the revenue for the Health Service of £246 million in the first year on a sales revenue of £703 million; of £564 million in the second year on a sales revenue of £1·6 billion; and of £836 million in the third year on a sales revenue of £2·2 billion.
  If hon. Members doubt those figures, I suggest that they examine the sales revenues that have been generated in other countries. In Spain, in 1986, the sales revenue was £3·5 billion; in the 22 states in America that have lotteries it was £7·3 billion; and the story is similar in France, West Germany and Australia. With that sort of money being created, the Great Ormond street Wishing Well appeal
  748
  could have received its money in two weeks and Peter Pan's profits could have been used for further items of expenditure in that hospital.
  The other issue at stake is that when 1992 arrives and we have a European internal market I understand that there will be nothing to stop lottery tickets from France, Spain, West Germany or anywhere else in the Community being sold legally in this country. If there is no lottery here for the National Health Service or any other good cause, the people who buy those tickets in this country in the hope of winning a prize will be contributing their money to some foreign good cause rather than to one in this country. In my view, that would be a grave error.
  I should now like to deal briefly with those critics who claim that a national lottery for the Health Service would encourage gambling or take money from existing fund-raising activities. I accept that there are people who have serious misgivings about gambling, but I wonder how many take part in lotteries when they go to their local church fete, their Conservative garden party, their SLD Chablis and Brie do, or their Labour fund-raising functions. All such functions hold raffles to raise money. It is the most elementary form of lottery in this country, but nobody raises a hair because in the view of the people attending the money is going to a good cause. To my mind, a national lottery for the Health Service would come in the same bracket.
  Similarly, people will claim that a national lottery would deter other fund-raising activities. That is true but only with regard to the football pool companies. Over a number of years, their revenue would decline because the number of people who play the football pools would decline correspondingly as they bought tickets in the national lottery instead. Football pools are, to all intents and purposes, a national lottery, but with the difference that, although they pay taxes to the Treasury and donate about £16 million to the football clubs, any profits that they make go into the companies' coffers. Surely that money would be better going to the Health Service. Perhaps there should be a system that complements the football pools with a lottery. People would then have a choice between the two.
  Some people also fear that a national lottery would deprive existing charities of funds. I do not share that fear, nor do many charity organisations and organisers with whom I have discussed this. They also believe that a national lottery would simply complement the existing system and in some ways would help the charities because, by encouraging people to give money to good causes, they would be encouraged to give money to a local charity as well. The experience in Massachusetts and Ontario shows that charities do not lose out by the presence of a national lottery.
  There is also an argument that the Treasury would try to get its hands on the money and absorb it into general public expenditure. That is a too cynical view of the Treasury and how it behaves. The Treasury would not behave like that, because it would consider the experience in other countries where treasuries or exchequers do not poach the money.
  If people are worried that the Treasury would hover over the money like a vulture waiting to grab it, the money can be denied to the Treasury if it is never given to it. The money could be placed in a separate fund, organised by the great and the good who have experience of running charities or of the health care sector. Local hospitals could

  749
  contact them directly with appeals for money or equipment and hospitals that met the criteria could receive money.
  Lotteries have a role to play in providing additional funds for the Health Service. I believe that a single national lottery would fulfil that role, providing a great deal of money for the Health Service and an immeasurable amount of fun for millions of people who would welcome the idea by supporting it and buying the tickets. They would ensure that it was the success that I passionately believe it would be.
  5.46 am
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on his good fortune in being drawn in the ballot in such a position that his debate has been reached. I also applied for a place in this debate and was drawn at No. 16. However, it is unlikely that I shall be reached.
  I welcome all sources of additional funds for the National Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made an excellent case for a major lottery. I believe that a large national lottery could stimulate the collection of funds in small local lotteries. However, some people feel that a large national lottery would draw funds away from small local lotteries which have always done so much to raise funds for local hospitals.
  In Bolton a great deal of money has been raised for equipment for the local hospitals and for the larger hospitals in the region, such as the Christies hospital for cancer in Manchester. Such small local lotteries could well be stimulated by general interest in a larger lottery for the Health Service.
  I welcome the introduction of another source of funds for the Health Service, because health itself is a lottery. The point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford earlier is that it is all a matter of luck. Some people are born with good health and some without it. Some 2 per cent. of children are born with a registrable handicap. Scientists have said that cancer is, in many cases, a purely random process. It is all a matter of chance whether some of us will suffer from a disease that will kill us while others will live.
  About one child in 50 is born with a registrable handicap. Of those, a further one in 50 has a major handicap which presents massive problems to the family when the child is born. Many of the children fail to survive, but with modern medicinal methods increasing numbers survive to become adults. Parents may have been able to cope with young children, but as they grow old they struggle desperately to manage youngsters who may grow physically into adults, but have severe mental handicaps.
  If parents cannot manage, their children may have to go into a National Health hospital or into some other institution, or be adopted or fostered by other families who are able to cope. I draw attention to an appeal for funds by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, which says that it costs £2,000 to find new parents for each severely handicapped child. It is appealing for an extra £50,000 during 1988 to meet the increasing demand for its services. Perhaps that is the sort of cause that could benefit from the moneys raised in a national lottery.
  750
  Bolton has a better record than most both for care in the community and for the fostering and adoption of not only healthy, but handicapped children. It has been chosen as a pilot area for care in the community.
  I should like to address my remarks to the funding of this aspect of the Health Service which would benefit from the moneys raised in a lottery. Care in the community has been the Government's policy for 25 years, but it still causes a great deal of confusion. I was surprised to read that that confusion exists not only in the minds of the public, but in the minds of mandarins. New Society of 18 September 1987 stated that a former DHSS permanent secretary apparently said to his staff:
  "If you are not confused about community care, it shows you are not thinking clearly."
  I felt then that I had, perhaps, been thinking clearly about this subject all along.
  As I said, Bolton has been chosen as a pilot area for care in the community policies. Families who live in the area feel that there is good statutory provision up to the age of 19, but after that there is a cliff edge with little beyond. The families say that they need good respite care so that they can cope for part of the time themselves with the confidence that their handicapped young adult is being properly cared for during the rest of the week.
  In Bolton I helped to carry out a survey of families with handicapped children over the age of 19. That showed that many of them are unhappy with the services available to them. If respite care was more readily available, many. parents feel that the respite homes could become more permanent homes as their children become older and they themselves reach the end of their lives.
  In my constituency some of the most desperate cases that I have come across fall into that category. I have encouraged parents to form a handicapped action group, and I have helped them to prepare a survey of their needs. After interviews with some 40 carers with very severely handicapped children—that includes people who may have the minds of children, but have the bodies of 30 or 40-year-olds—it was clear that there was a need for much improved services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will be aware of the Audit Commission's report and the Griffiths report, which first reflected the tension which inevitably exists between individuals, the Health Service and other providers in the local area and central Government.
  We would all like to know what the Government's response will be to the Griffiths report on care in the community. I hope that the Government will make clear which Minister has responsibility for care in the community, especially after the division of the Department of Health and Social Security.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject, but at the same time I feel that he is poaching on another hon. Member's debate. If he relates his remarks much more to funding the National Health Service rather than to care in the community, I will hear him out. I ask him to try to relate his comments much more to the subject before us.
  Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful for your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  More funding is needed for Health Service provision in this area. The feeling that there is insufficient funding, and of uncertainty about how it is to be provided, has led to

  751
  confusion about provision for the mentally ill and those who suffer from some mental disorder. There is confusion nationally as well. Funds must be allocated properly.
  If additional funds were made available through a lottery, perhaps they could be used to smooth out the difficulties caused by funding by different local departments. The division of the Department of Health and Social Security may add to the confusion. I do not know whether responsibility for care in the community will lie with the Department of Health or with the Department of Social Security, the address of which may now be known as the DOSS house. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister has not been able to establish which is responsible in the short time that the two Departments have been established.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us how funds that are made available nationally will be divided between the two Departments. Griffiths said that the problem is essentially local. His solution is to give greater responsibility to local authorities. I take a different view, and ask the Government to carry out a full audit of every area in the country to assess how each area is coping. The audit could be carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate or the Audit Commission, or perhaps both, but the SSI will have to be beefed up for such a task.
  I have heard good reports of both bodies, so both could make a contribution. The Government have not said when the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 will be implemented in full. Reports, especially by the SSI, will be needed on sections 7 and 11 when they are implemented. Section 8 has already been implemented. It would be nice to know what advice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to give to local authorities on services that should be provided for the carers.
  The survey which has been conducted in my constituency shows considerable dissatisfaction with services provided by the health authority and others. One of the worries is that if someone who suffers from a severe mental disorder is to go to one of the new neighbourhood network homes, he or she must first go to one of the local large mental institutions such as Brockhall or Calderstones to qualify for funds to come out again into a neighbourhood network home. That is bureaucratic nonsense. We must provide for people to go straight from their own family home to a neighbourhood network home without the nightmare of two moves and going into a large institution, which the family will have struggled all their lives to prevent the child from entering. That was one cause of concern.
  Another was the fact that a child with a mental disorder could go to Pendlebury children's hospital, but from the age of 19 could not be seen locally and would have to go to a mental health institution to be provided with the necessary drugs or whatever. Great anxiety was expressed in the interviews, and perhaps I may write to my hon. Friend and tell her of the anxieties brought to my attention so that she can be aware of local feelings.
  Without taking up further time, I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for affording me time in his debate to draw the attention of the House and the public to some of the problems in this sector of the NHS which could be eased considerably if additional funds were provided by a lottery. I hope that it would be sufficiently flexible to sort out some of the difficult areas in the care-in-the community policy where
  752
  the bureaucratic nightmare of the provision of funds between all the Departments involved could be overcome by the discretion which could be exercised by the trustees of a large lottery-funded provision.
  6.1 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Edwina Currie): This has proved to be an interesting end to a lively week for this Minister and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for offering us, in a well informed and argued speech, this opportunity for considering once again some of the possible alternative forms of funding for the National Health Service. My hon. Friend will realise that policy on lotteries is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall ensure that he is aware of the points that have been made today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) did me the courtesy earlier today of discussing some of these matters with me and I hope that he will accept that at present I should like to note his thoughtful remarks. I know that he will send the fruits of some of his research in Bolton to me and I look forward to it. I take his point about exactly how the allocation of responsibilities for aspects of community care will be met, and I assure him that the announcement of ministerial responsibility will be made in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned some of the lotteries in the United States. A great deal of research work has gone into this. There is a strong tradition there because some of the earliest English public lotteries were run to support the new colonies. I think that the earliest was for Jamestown, Virginia. Contrary to some of the ecclesiastical history in this country, the colonists in America relied heavily on lotteries to support their churches, which were among the primary beneficiaries. There were a number of other good causes and many of those lotteries trace their history back to that time.
  At roughly the same time, European Governments seized on lotteries as sources of new money. Official lotteries were started in the Netherlands in 1726, in Denmark in 1754, in Spain in 1763 and so on, and some of these lotteries are continuing. By the mid-1800s Government lotteries were falling prey to abuse and fraud, as was everything else at that time. Licensing procedures and communications were simply inadequate to the task of ensuring the integrity of the games. Profits were diverted to middle men and to pay bribes, so that the money flowing through to the designated beneficiaries was no longer sufficient to make the operation worthwhile. Therefore, by 1900 there were virtually no official lotteries in the English-speaking world, although they continued un-broken in many parts of Europe. That is why there is such a diversity of experience now between us and Europe.
  Today Government lotteries are big business and represent important sources of money to many countries. Governments around the world use lottery profits to the benefit of good causes or to enlarge their general fund. Of all the countries in the developed world, not just western Europe, only the United Kingdom is without a national lottery.
  My hon. Friend mentioned some countries in detail. Many people come across the glossy promotions which they give to their national lotteries and think that we

  753
  should do something similar. They do not realise the cost of prizes and promotion. Administration in some established lotteries usually consumes a large proportion of the takings—sometimes as much as 60 per cent. The net benefit is comparatively modest.
  Apart from that, such schemes do not enjoy consistent support. After the first year or so people tend to lose interest and new incentives must be devised to try to maintain support.
  I have a little experience of lotteries myself. When I was a councillor in Birmingham, we tried to take the opportunity presented to us by a local lottery, which went very successfully for a while. A substantial sum was raised in the city. However, as with other local lotteries, after a couple of years interest dropped away and so did the money. Fairly rapidly, the administrative costs started to swallow a much larger proportion of the money that was being offered by Birmingham citizens.
  My hon. Friend will know that a Royal Commission on gambling reported in 1978. It concluded that it would be inappropriate to use a national lottery to help fund services such as the NHS which have a statutory source of funding. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if some of my remarks, which will show some sympathy for the report, seem a little negative. We always welcome additional ideas, especially for more money for the National Health Service. I suspect, however that a national lottery for the Health Service would neither produce the net return nor be as trouble free as my hon. Friend seems to claim.
  Even if the entire estimated net yield from a national lottery were devoted to the National Health Service it would probably continue to contribute only a tiny percentage to the costs of running the service. All sorts of figures have been bandied around, but given that the National Health Service is costing about £23·5 billion a year to run now, we could not expect a lottery to provide more than a tiny percentage. There would also be considerable problems in allocating this comparatively small sum to provide any worthwhile addition to normal funding, with no guarantee of a steady income.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the question of European Community countries selling lottery tickets here. However, he should be aware that our legal advice is that the development of the European Community's internal market cannot be used by other countries to set up a national lottery in this country. The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 does not permit a national lottery and other countries cannot escape that. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on 8 July:
  "There are no measures in the single market programme at present specifically relating to lotteries and, in their absence, the controls which United Kingdom law places on lotteries would not appear to be affected."—[Official Report, 8 July 1988: Vol. 136, c. 765.]
  Mr. Burns: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, but does she not accept that, although European countries could not set up a national lottery in this country, after 1992 there would be nothing to stop them selling tickets in this country for their own lotteries back home in France, Germany or Spain?
  Mrs. Currie: As I said a few moments ago, that is a policy matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand that it is not legal to sell such lottery tickets and that no change of the law is proposed in 1992. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall ensure that my colleagues in the Home Office have their attention drawn to this point. They will be able to give him a more substantive answer than I can.
  In the debate on the report of the Royal Commission on 29 October, most of those who spoke were firmly against the idea of a national lottery because of the difficulties that they mentioned of control and bureaucracy and especially because it would take money away from local voluntary effort. Although attitudes have shifted somewhat, those remain our concerns.
  There is a genuine fear that money might be diverted from the existing fund-raising effort for local good causes. The Health Services Act 1980 gave health authorities the power to raise money locally, but its provisions did not extend to local lotteries. In 1986–87, the most recent year for which I have figures, the fund-raising activities by the health authorities generated about £3 million, but that was only a small proportion of all their charitable income, which totals nearly £117 million, much of it from legacies and other such sources.
  Large sums of money can be, and are being, raised for health care through fund-raising activities and there is no doubt that the success of one-off appeals for funds—for example, the Great Ormond street appeal, which is proving to be very successful—or by national charities is to be commended and welcomed. But that is no indication of how successful a national lottery might be, whether it was organised by the Government or, as my hon. Friend wisely suggested, by some outside body.
  Charitable appeals seek unconditional donations and may be only an annual event or, as in the case of Great Ormond street, an event of a generation. A national lottery would be much more frequent, would have to run for a number of years, and would appeal mainly to gambling motives. We are genuinely concerned about the effect that a national lottery would have on many voluntary and charitable groups who do much good work to raise money locally for NHS hospitals.
  These people work to low overheads and are mostly volunteers. By choosing a specific fund-raising target, such as the purchase of an advanced piece of equipment, they attract considerable support from the local community. We would not want to see that support undermined by some counteraction, such as a national lottery with its conversely small net return.
  I suspect that my hon. Friend's letter dated 30 March 1988 to the present Secretary of State for Social Security recognised this problem, for he wrote saying that
  "such a measure …would help to harness the existing local charitable fund-raising activities".
  I am not sure what he thought he meant by "harness", but there is at least a slight suspicion that it might mean "compete" or "detract from." One must be aware that that danger would need to be dealt with.
  The other side of the issue is that some money could possibly be diverted from other forms of gambling, such as betting or bingo. That may be regarded as a thoroughly desirable change, but the NHS and national Exchequer do rather well out of the tax revenue from gambling; in Britain in 1986–87 it amounted to almost £800 million. The pools alone yield about £250 million in tax a year. A switch

  755
  in gambling habits to support a national lottery could cause the Government to lose as much or more in taxation as it might receive from a lottery.
  Some careful calculations on this have been done and they show that the lottery would not be starting from scratch. We are already getting a great deal of money from the gambling habits of the British people and we would be wary of challenging that behaviour in too dramatic or drastic a way for fear that we might end up losing more than we gained.
  We feel that these fears are genuine. For example, an article in The Economist of 9 July 1988 pointed out that bingo clubs felt that they had suffered badly from the introduction of newspaper bingo. Meanwhile, in Spain the national lottery suffered when the gambling laws there were liberalised. That too was pointed out in an article published on 16 January 1988 in The Economist, which seems to take a close interest in these issues. I notice that some of the reforms in Spain did not turn out to be quite what the Spanish Government intended.
  The Spanish spend about £13 billion a year on gambling, half of which goes through slot machines. Recently they have tried to reform some of their lottery legislation. For example, says the article, they have a
  "normal diet of three lotteries a week. One of these is the Primitivo, introduced by the Government three years ago as a supposedly simpler and easier-to-play lottery. However, Mr. Carlos Solchaga"—
  my opposite number there—
  "the economy minister, recently admitted on national radio that he did not know how to fill in a Primitivo lottery form."
  So it could not have been quite that easy. The Catalonian Government started two lotteries of their own last year and intend to use some of the money to help finance the Barcelona Olympic games in 1992.
  They found in Spain on the restoration of democracy in 1977 that the liberalised gambling laws presented gamblers with a feast of choices, and one result was that the lottery income was damaged. If it works one way, we suspect that it might work the other way as well and that if one were to promote lotteries heavily some of the other income which we already get from other forms of gambling might be
  756
  damaged. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would be unwilling to forgo much of the £800 million currently raised from such sources.
  We have said many times, and we remain of the view, that we wish to encourage the long-standing tradition of charitable support for the National Health Service. Such support is often aimed at specific goals such as research into or treatment of particular conditions or the provision of improved facilities or new equipment for a particular hospital, and such effort is extremely effective. In that sense, therefore, we should. recognise that the money currently coming in from gambling is already being spent on kidney machines, CAT scanners, parents' accommodation and so on, but we would always encourage and wish to benefit from the enthusiasm, interest and inspiration of local people who wish to express their appreciation of the work of the Health Service by raising money locally. I have been involved in such activities both as a local citizen and as chairman of a health authority and it is very valuable indeed. I often wish that those who object to such activities realised how much personal satisfaction the people involved obtain. It often helps bereaved people to express their appreciation and assuage their grief in this entirely laudable way. We must also take into account the fact that by its very nature income from lotteries is unpredictable and thus not always conducive to the system of longer-term service planning that we are trying to improve in the National Health Service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford wrote to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Social Security asking for lotteries to be considered as part of the review of the National Health Service. He should be aware that lotteries are being discussed rather more broadly by colleagues and if there is anything new to be said about our views it will be said in due course.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject today and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East for setting out once again his thoughtful views on care in the community for people with mental handicap. We shall take the views expressed by both my hon. Friends very seriously and will hope to make progress.

  Royal Naval Armaments Depots (Milford Haven and Trecwn)
  6.17 am
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I rise to speak on a matter of great concern to my constituency and to many people in the adjoining constituency of Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—the future of the two Royal Naval armaments depots at Milford Haven and Trecwn. The debate is of great importance to my constituents because the Milford depot in my constituency is one of the largest employers in the area. It is thus a matter of vital concern that the future of the depot should be resolved as quickly as possible so that we know where we are going in terms of employment in the area.
  I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who is present at this ungodly hour of the morning and who, throughout all the discussions that I have had with the Ministry, has shown great courtesy and concern about the future of the two depots. He visited both depots about two months ago, and all the employees there are grateful for his promise to have further meetings with them now that the report has been published.
  I pay tribute to the work of the two depots. Their work for national defence since 1939 has been invaluable and their work at very short notice in stocking the task force for the Falklands campaign should be on record for people in the town to note.
  I also pay tribute to the staff of the Milford depot, whom I know quite well, and in particular to three gentlemen who have been leaders of the work force—Peter Sizer, chairman of the joint union action committee who took over from George Noden, the previous chairman, and the local official of the Transport and General Workers Union, Mr. Danny Fellowes. I hope that it will not be the kiss of death for Mr. Fellowes' career in the TGWU when I say that he has acted in a most responsible and intelligent way throughout all the discussions about the future of the depot. He is representing the men in an exemplary manner. He has been giving them invaluable advice on the best course of action that they should take.
  The report has been awaited for a considerable time. In a letter to me on 20 July 1987, shortly after I was elected the Member for Pembroke, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he hoped that the unclassified consultative document would be issued later in the year. That statement was repeated to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) in a letter of 3 September from the Ministry of Defence. Yet we had to wait until July of this year for a report which was commissioned in 1986, a report which has been eagerly awaited by the people of Milford Haven.
  What do we get? We have a seven-page, double-space typescript, which could have been written during a day. I accept, of course, that the research would have taken longer than that. It has taken the gestation period of an elephant to produce a mouse. The report leaves unanswered far more questions than it attempts to answer. It is somewhat surprising that it has taken so long to produce a report that lacks so much detail. I have made numerous attempts to raise the matter by tabling
  758
  questions. I have raised the matter twice in debates. The first occasion was on 28 October 1987 during the Defence Estimates debate, when I said:
  "I appreciate that any inquiry or review into the future of those depots must start from the position of their importance to the future defence of the country. It is important that there is a role for the mine depot—ensuring that we have conventional mines for the Royal Navy for use in our waters for defensive purposes.—[Official Report, 28 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 368.]
  I asked my hon Friend the Minister to take into account also the important social and economic consequences for the depot and the town of Milford Haven. The town has 30 per cent. unemployment. If the depot were to close, or to be transferred, the effect on the town would be dramatic.
  I raised the matter again during the St. David's day debate on 2 March. I said then that there was considerable concern in Milford Haven about the depot, which employs nearly 300 people. I explained that there was great concern about the future of the depot and that I hoped there would be an early decision. Having seen the report, I am none the wiser about what the Ministry of Defence hopes will stem from its publication.
  I return to the background in 1986, when the report was commissioned. The study for the Ministry of Defence was at that time to be conducted by a Mr. John Glover, an official of the Royal Naval Supply Transport Service, which manages the depot. The terms were as follows:
  "(a) to review the current and future tasks, organisation and staffing of the RN Armament depots at Trecwn and Milford Haven and to determine how the depots' tasks can be achieved most economically and effectively.
  (b) to consider the implications of any changes that may be necessary, and to recommend how they should be achieved and over what time scale."
  The foreword added:
  "The study will need to cover the possibility of concentrating tasks at Trecwn and reducing or closing facilities at Milford Haven, but other options will also be fully examined and there can be no foregone conclusions about the outcome. Ministers will of course take the eventual decision on the basis of all relevant factors."
  I suggest that one of the most important things that needs to be taken into account is the impact on local employment at Milford Haven. A report issued by the local authority's steering committee in November 1986 observes that the majority of employees at the Milford Haven depot live within the former jobcentre area. The benefits from employment are localised, and if the depot were to close there would be the worst possible scenario.
  The local area of Milford will feel the brunt of closure. When I asked how many are employed at Milford—a figure that I thought would have been in the report, but is not—I was told that the information was not yet available and would be supplied later. I must therefore fall back on the figures given in the local authority's report, which showed that, of the then 285 people employed at the depot, 231, or 81 per cent., lived in Milford Haven itself. The implications for Milford Haven are therefore very important. The report points out that the jobs are predominantly male jobs, and will be difficult to replace. A high proportion of them are skilled and professional posts. The depot provides a higher-than-average local wage level, and work for registered handicapped people would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere in the area.
  There are implications not only for the work force but for the town. We must consider the wider effects of the

  759
  amount spent by the depot and by the work force in the surrounding area. The local authority's report calculates that the average annual amount spent directly by the Ministry of Defence is £270,000, which includes £63,490 commercial expenditure and £206,000 spent on utilities. The PSA annual expenditure on Milford and Trecwn combined is estimated at £1·9 million.
  The signs of the multiplier effect—the effect of a pound earned by the employees in the depot on the economy of Milford Haven—are impossible to calculate exactly, although evidence from various studies suggests that the local multiplier could be of the order of 1·15 to 1·3. That implies that another 85 jobs could be dependent on the Milford depot, and makes clear its importance to the local economy.
  On 17 November last year I asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
  "what estimates have been made by his Department of the economic impact of the location of its establishments on United Kingdom regional policy; and if he will make a statement."
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), said:
  "Whilst we aim to secure a more even spread of defence employment across the regions, decisions on all proposals affecting the future of defence establishments must be made on their own economic and operational merits."—[Official Report, 17 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 464–65.]
  I entirely agree with that sentiment, but I believe that, given the concentration of Government employment in the south-east and the desire of all Ministers to spread the impact of Government jobs to the rest of the country, the effects on the area of closing the depot ought to be considered in that light.
  The importance of defence establishments to the county of Dyfed, in which Milford Haven is situated, is clear from the figures given in a parliamentary answer on the same day as the one to which I have just referred. At the last count, 2,209 civilian personnel and 831 service personnel were employed by the Ministry of Defence in the county of Dyfed. I hope that the Ministry will pay great attention to the importance of ensuring that, if the depot has to close in its present form, every effort is made to, consider whether some other form of defence establishment can be established on the site.
  I said a few minutes ago—when I quoted from a speech that I made on 28 October last year—that I believed that the depot must justify itself on defence grounds. I see no reason to retract that statement. I have made my view clear to the work force, to my local press and during the last election. It is important to recognise that the Ministry of Defence faces a difficult decision. It is not a job-creation scheme; it is the defence of the country. Therefore, it must ensure that whatever it does is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Government for its role.
  I recognise that the role of the Milford depot, as now constituted, is coming to an end, and that it would therefore be unrealistic for the work force to argue for the status quo. The work force recognises that. However, that does not mean that we should simply fold up our tents and creep away. I believe that there is plenty of opportunity for the depot to be used for other MOD purposes.
  A recent article in the Western Mail announced:
  "The Property Services Agency Wales has been asked to investigate sites which could bring the Royal Navy's Sea Systems Controllerate under one roof."
  That would employ 4,500 personnel.
  760
  I am not suggesting that Milford Haven is the right location for that establishment, but it does have a deep-water port facility and I can think of worse places for it to be located. If that establishment cannot come to Milford Haven, the MOD should consider carefully what other naval establishments could be suitably transferred. If there is nothing for the Royal Navy at Milford Haven, a possible site for the other armed forces could be considered.
  Before the future of the depot is signed and sealed, we must consider whether the MOD's traditional use of it can continue. If that is not possible, we must consider the employment implications.
  The MOD report is feeble. As I have already said, it has had the gestation period for an elephant, but a mouse has been produced. The local authorities have been able to produce an 18-page, closely argued report, with a number of appendices, within a few months. Therefore, I am amazed that, after two years, the MOD has produced a double-space typescript of only seven pages. It has failed to address the main issues that are of concern to the employees and the local people. The report contains no detail of the work force—grading structure, age and sex profile, salary structure, and length of service of individual employees. The local authorities and the unions need to have that information so that sensible decisions can be made about the depot's future.
  If the depot is closed, the report states that between 40 and 50 or 80 and 90 staff could be transferred. That demonstrates that the report is vague and wishy-washy. There is no information about whether those who transfer will be given free transport, which was provided for those who were forced to move to Carmarthen when local government was reorganised in 1974. The staff are asking about such matters and they deserve answers.
  Little information is given about the possible redundancy package. I put down a written question about what constitutes the normal redundancy package at. the Ministry of Defence. That question was answered today and I received some additional information, but the staff, their families, the unions and the local authorities should have had such information made available in that report.
  The report gives no information about the possible future use of the site. One of the main anxieties in the town is that the site is reputed to have explosives impregnated in the ground. Before that site is used for any other purpose it must be cleaned. In a written answer, the Minister informed me:
  "The estimated cost of (a) certifying RNAD Milford Haven free from explosives is estimated at between £500,000 and £1 million."
  The absence of those figures from the report is a glaring omission. The author of the report did not set out to answer the questions that the local people needed to have answered.
  An apprentice training school is based just outside the main gates of the depot. We have been told that it could be unaffected by the closure of the depot. Will it be a viable training school if it is so far from any other RNAD complex? It is a long way to Trecwn when one is 17 or 18 years of age and without personal transport. Will it have a viable future as an MOD apprentice school, or should it become a general engineering school for the area? Should it continue to be run by the MOD, or would it be better run by the Training Commission and the local authorities? Those questions have not been answered by the report, or

  761
  even by the questions put forward and flagged. I recognise that it is a consultative report, but for consultation to take place the report needs to convey meaningful information so that the staff and the unions can discuss what should be done next.
  No information has been provided about other uses for the site, apart from use by the Ministry of Defence. How many other people have expressed an interest? What package will be made available should the site have to be closed to ensure that it is used for the benefit of employment in the Milford Haven area? That question is not answered.
  I very much welcome the reply to one question that has been answered. The people who live in Ministry of Defence houses, now owned by the PSA, welcome the fact that they may now purchase those houses under the right-to-buy legislation. I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance on that point, and the ending of the uncertainty that has lasted for a considerable time.
  I turn briefly to the Trecwn depot. I have concentrated most of my speech on Milford Haven because it is in my constituency. The Trecwn depot is half a mile outside my constituency, but the last count of employees in October 1986, provided by the local authority's joint committee, revealed that 46·5 per cent. were constituents of mine. Therefore, whatever happens to Trecwn is important to the people of Pembrokeshire, because it will have an impact on the local economy.
  I am very disappointed that after two years the report leaves the question of Trecwn in the air. Paragraph 14 of the report states:
  "The reduction of the mining support task will also have a substantial effect on the loading of Trecwn. This will be the subject of further study by the Ministry of Defence. These studies will include an examination whether other MOD tasks can be put to the depot. The outcome of this further work will not be known until 1989."
  I wonder why the MOD works at snail's pace when it comes to examining what it will do for the future of the depots. We waited two years for the report, and now we are told that we need another report, another study, on the future of Trecwn, which will take another year. I hope that it is a little more informative than the report which was published earlier this week.
  Finally, what will happen to the site should it be decided that there is no future for the depot in the Ministry of Defence and it becomes available for commercial use by private enterprise or by other Departments? An urgent meeting should be held between the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Office to ensure that that prime site of 260 acres, situated on the shores of the River Cladeau on the Haven, should be brought into use for other commercial undertakings if the Ministry of Defence does not want it. That should be done as quickly as possible. I have always made it clear that if the decision is taken to close the depot, it should not be death by 1,000 cuts over a long time. The closure of the depot should be fast, the site should be cleaned up and prepared for other uses, and there should be early advertising of the site for other enterprises.
  The Welsh Office should consider whether it has any uses for the site which would create employment and whether any other Government Departments which are
  762
  decentralising from London have any uses for the site. If that is not the case, we have to ensure that the site is made available for private enterprise.
  Yesterday's Western Mail states that workers at the depot have asked whether the MOD would make a gift of it to the town. That is highly unlikely. I am not sure that it would be right for the local authority to take over the site. It is not terribly experienced in running commercial undertakings or sites of that size. Of course the Welsh Development Agency would be the right body to take over the site and prepare it for business occupation after the MOD has cleaned it up. I do not say that it is the Welsh Development Agency's job to pay for cleaning up the site. That is an MOD responsibility. The Pembrokeshire business initiative could, with the WDA, help to identify possible uses for the site and attract employers to it.
  I finish on that positive note because I believe I should follow the example of the work force at Milford Haven, which has recognised the reality that the depot will not continue as a mine depot. It recognises that mine warfare and defence strategy have changed. The MOD must recognise that realism and reward the loyal service of the work force and the dedication of the people of Milford Haven to the depot since 1939. The MOD should ensure that, if the site is closed as an MOD depot, it will be made available for the future employment and prosperity of the people of the area.
  6.41 am
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who has the next debate, has not arrived yet, so perhaps we should continue this one for a while.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) with great interest. I thought at one point that he might have been converted to the views of the Opposition, but towards the end he covered his bets with the Conservative side. What he faces is something of great difficulty and concern for any hon. Member: the closure of a works, factory or—as in this case—depot, with the consequent unemployment. Many Opposition Members who represent industrial areas have had to face this problem often under this Government. I only wish that the hon. Member for Pembroke was as forthcoming in his support for other areas as he is for his own.
  Because Opposition Members have faced this problem so often, I want to speak in support of the depot, and I hope that the Government will change their mind about it. The area faces certain difficulties with employment. It is on the periphery of the European Community—that is one strike against it. Secondly, it is surrounded by a mainly rural area, so the development of service industries there will be extremely difficult. It cannot act as a nucleus for warehousing, so it will find it difficult to attract jobs. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the people of these communities have given a great deal of service to the country in war and peace and they deserve better than to be summarily dismissed.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke talked of dispersing MOD jobs. I noted with interest that that happened this week, with the dispersal of jobs to Llangennech, near Llanelli, and the people there are grateful. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman that the MOD's history of dispersal is not good. Some years ago it undertook to

  763
  disperse jobs to Glasgow. We found that jobs were leaving the south-east and going as far afield as Gloucester and a little north of London. Then those jobs shuffled up as far as Manchester, and by the time the ripples of the dispersal reached Glasgow there was little advantage to be had from the process. As a positive scheme, it was a disaster. That was recognised in a report of the Public Accounts Committee, which I think was published about two years ago. If I were the hon. Member for Pembroke, I would not rely too much on the Ministry of Defence dispersing jobs to replace those that are being lost.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke tried to change horses or face all ways in relation to local authorities. It was gratifying to hear him extol the virtues of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman praised the local authority's report, and I am sure that his praise will be received by the local authority with satisfaction. His damning indictment of its ability to run a small industrial site will not be so well received. I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that local authorities could do anything. On numerous occasions in debates over the past couple of years and on the Widdicombe report on the organisation of local government, Conservative Members have criticised local authorities for taking initiatives.
  The report that the hon. Gentleman praised could be illegal, if any political comment is made in it, under the new rules that the Government are introducing. I hope that when we debate the rules and regulations the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and condemn the Government for trying to strangle local authorities and prevent them from carrying out their duty to protect local communities.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to prolong the debate until his hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) turns up, and that he knows little about the subject and has not seen the local authority's report. The authority has made an excellent report that is not political but neutral and unbiased and deals with the problems facing the area.
  Mr. Rogers: That shows the political naivety of the hon. Gentleman. If a report that deals with an institution that provides jobs and bread to the community is not political, what is? The hon. Gentleman showed his bigotry and prejudice. He believes that all matters must be party political, and that was the view of the Government when they reorganised local government. The recommendations of the Widdicombe report were based on the sort of prejudices that the hon. Gentleman has just shown.
  The local authority has done a good job, but it would be illegal under the new rules that the Government have introduced. If a local authority fights for jobs in a community, the Government say, "You cannot do that because you are criticising Government policy and it is political." Throughout the country, Labour authorities —they are the only authorities fighting for jobs in their communities, unless a Conservative Member such as the hon. Member for Pembroke is affected by a proposal—are condemned for fighting for jobs in their communities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and will support our opposition to the Governments proposals. It is perfectly understandable —I speak from the arrogance of a large majority—that the hon. Gentleman wants to cover his back on this electoral issue. That is what it will be. The hon. Gentleman's
  764
  constituents will be looking not at what he did but at what the Government did to jobs in the area when they vote in the next election.
  The hon. Gentleman is not alone in his inconsistency. We have seen it time and again among Conservative Members. They talk about market forces and letting the market economy operate. However, when that affects their constituency it is a different story. In the previous Session some Conservative Members complained bitterly about the dumping of nuclear waste. However, they would vote for the Government in their nuclear energy development policy. I will tell the hon. Member for Pembroke what I told them then one cannot have it both ways. If one supports a nuclear industry, one has to be prepared to be the recipient of the waste from that industry. Significant Members of the Government fought hard against having a nuclear dumping ground in their constituencies.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke asked the MOD not to fold up its tent and creep away. It will fold up its tent, and I am afraid that the local authority, in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, will have to fight for it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the MOD should take the responsibility for clearing up the site. Many pits have been closed in the south Wales valleys and for a considerable number of years the sites were left derelict and were an eyesore. It is a tribute to Governments of all persuasions that they have developed, particularly over the past 15 years, extensive land clearance schemes that have restored areas to the community for housing, recreation or industrial development. I urge the Minister to pay attention to that point and follow the advice given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. If the MOD quits the site, it should clean it up and leave it in a decent condition so that it can be used for other purposes. I have more confidence in the local authority than the hon. Member for Pembroke. The local authority should be the agency to develop the site.
  Mention was made of the apprentice training school related to the site. Naturally the hon. Member for Pembroke is worried about the future of youth training in his area. It is a serious problem because, throughout south Wales and the rest of the country, the Government have been closing down skill training centres and depriving young people of the opportunity of becoming skilled. It is a real problem and I shall give an example to the hon. Gentleman.
  One county council area in south Wales was looking at where it should place the new schemes for next year. In that county there were bids for 77,000 places. The resources available will allow the county to develop only 8,000 places. That area is not far from that represented by the hon. Member for Pembroke. I have little hope that he will be able to obtain support for the development of the apprentice training school or that the Training Commission will put any substantial effort into it.
  I advise the Minister that he may have closed the depot, but he has a responsibility. He cannot pack up his tent and walk away; he should invest by clearing the site and ensuring that it is handed over in a fit and proper state for use by the local community.
  6.54 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for

  765
  Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on securing this debate. I know that for him, his constituents and other hon. Members, this is an important issue. He has demonstrated great persistence and great energy and courtesy in representing the interests of his constituents in this matter. I have visited the site with him and met some of his constituents. I have corresponded with him for a considerable time and we are now joined in debate. Doubtless this will not be the last time that we have the opportunity to debate this matter.
  Before I reply in detail to the points that my hon. Friend has raised it might be helpful if I were to remind the House of the main facts of this issue. The House will be aware that on 25 July the Ministry of Defence published a consultative document, which recommended that the Royal Naval armaments depot at Milford Haven be closed. At this stage I should like to deal with what may be a misconception in my hon. Friend's mind about the consultative document. It is not a report. It is not a document that purports to be a comprehensive study of the problem—that is a separate document, which is classified, and which we have in the Ministry of Defence. The consultative document is a brief summary. I believe that my hon. Friend referred to it as being seven pages long. I apologise for its brevity if my hon. Friend believes that it shortchanges him and a number of his constituents on some matters. I shall attempt to answer some of his points.
  It is important that we appreciate the purpose of the consultative document. The procedure is as follows. When I come to consider the closure of a particular base, garrison or depot, a report is commissioned internally in the Ministry of Defence. The issue is considered properly and thoroughly. Indeed, the criticism is often made that we take far too long to study the problem. I believe that when one is dealing with the future of loyal work people, who have spent a considerable period of time in a particular locality, it is important that the study should be comprehensive, factual, free of prejudice and emotion, and that, after consultation with other Government Departments, it should present the facts as fairly as possible.
  I make no apology for the fact that sometimes those studies take what may seem an inordinately long time. That is perfectly understandable and defensible. I would much rather get all the facts right, and have all the facts, than get half a story, sometimes tinged with emotion.
  Mr. Rogers: Why does the consultative document need to be classified? I can understand that there might be a section dealing with the grand strategy of the defence of this country—that might be in the first two paragraphs —and that that could be classified. However, we are talking about an industrial issue and I cannot see why the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) should not at least see the document. I do not see why the document should be classified.
  Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the consultative document is not classified. It is a seven-page document which was produced specifically for the trade unions. The report, which is something separate, and which runs to several hundred pages, is a classified document. It is classified for the simple reason that we are dealing with the technology of making,
  766
  distributing and laying sea mines for the Royal Navy. Therefore, for obvious reasons, the document must be classified.
  The consultative document is produced for consultation with the trade unions, so that they understand what recommendations and proposals have been made to me or to the relevant Minister for the future of the depot.
  The consultative document is not a sales document. It does not offer alternative uses for the site. It does not spell out redundancy terms; nor does it describe the real estate. It is a brief statement, stating that the recommendation is to close the depot. It sets out the main reasons for that and explains that we should like to enter into a brief period of consultation with the trade unions, to ensure that we have the facts right, and to take into account any other factors. Only after that will a decision be taken. Once the decision is made—and it has not yet been made in this case—what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke wants will be produced. The welter of detail about the future and welfare of the work force, and full details about the real estate involved, will be available for distribution and discussion in the Ministry of Defence, and with our allies and perhaps with other Government Departments and the private sector.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will draw a distinction between the report and the consultative document.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I appreciate the difference between the wider 200-page report to which my hon. Friend referred, with its defence implications and classified nature, and the consultative document, but does he agree that perhaps the MOD should reconsider what it produces as a draft consultative document, bearing in mind the importance of all the closures and decisions, not just for the work force and the unions—which may be well informed—but for the local authorities that will have to consider the matter, the Member of Parliament in this case, and anyone else in the area who is concerned about the future? In the next few months we are to be asked to consult and discuss a matter about which there is very little information. The information will not be of much use to us if we get it after the decision has been taken.
  Mr. Freeman: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). My hon. Friend has made a valid point, which I accept. When we prepare the next consultative document in the next case I shall look at the extent of the information included. If it would be more helpful to the work force and local authorities to have more information at an early stage, I shall bear that in mind.
  The consultative document that we are discussing gives the work force, the trade unions and local authorities two months in which to comment in principle on the proposal. We are seeking a reaction to our decision on the future of the depot. Only when I have had a chance to consider the replies will I be able to make a final decision about the future of the depot. We are not talking about the imminent closure of the depot at Milford Haven. That may be two or three years away. We are embarking upon a consultation process—albeit a fairly brief one. The MOD is committed to ensuring that the process is frank and open. I have already told the work force that I am prepared to meet a delegation, should the workers so wish. I made that promise when I visited Milford Haven and I am happy to repeat the assurance to my hon. Friend.

  767
  The Royal Naval armaments depot at Milford Haven was built in 1939 to wartime emergency standards and covers about 260 acres. The depot's principal tasks in recent years have been the storage and maintenance of exercise mines, the updating of high explosive mines, the upkeep of what is called replenishment at sea gear, the repair and maintenance of motor transport and the training of apprentices. At present there are 285 employees.
  As the result of long-term changes in mine technology and mining policy the size of the task performed at Milford Haven has been considerably reduced in recent years. If the depot were closed and the tasks transferred, capital expenditure of about £500 million would be necessary to provide new buildings elsewhere. The costs for extra staff at the new location, or locations, would amount to about £500 million per annum, or between 40 and 90 posts. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke chastised me for not being precise about the number of new jobs that would be created elsewhere. Perhaps we are being unduly cautious, but it would be foolish to be too precise at this stage, when work still has to be undertaken.
  Given that the operating costs of Milford Haven are £3·6 million per annum, the House will readily understand why, in our view, there is a persuasive argument in favour of closing the depot. It gives me no pleasure to announce the possible closure of one of our establishments, but the Ministry of Defence has an obligation to obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer within the defence budget. The task for which the depot was built has substantially declined, and there is no longer a defence requirement for it to remain open. We cannot ignore the reality of the situation, however grateful we are for the loyal service rendered by the work force in both peace and war.
  The news for west Wales is not all bad. On 25 July I announced that up to 250 jobs were likely to be created as a result of the transfer to Llangennech of the forms and publications stores of the three services, which we hope will take place early in 1991. In addition, we are examining the possibility of moving some other complementary activities to Llangennech, absorbing more of the depot capacity and creating additional local employment. That is evidence of our determination to make use of our assets, if at all possible, by moving other activities and departments within the Ministry of Defence.
  The consultative document is merely a short summary of the outcome of the Trecwn district study. The Trecwn district includes both the Trecwn and Milford Haven depots. The original report cannot be published, because it is classified. The consultative document is not intended to provide all the answers to the questions that the work force or their representatives may wish to raise. It is designed to form the basis for consultation. My officials will do their best to reply to the questions that arise during the consultation process.
  There have been criticisms of the length of time taken to publish the consultative document. As I have said, we are dealing with a highly complex subject—the future of the United Kingdom's mining policy and the storage capacity necessary to meet it. Last year it was necessary for all the Ministry of Defence branches to give full consideration to the implications of the Trecwn district study. We consulted the Welsh Office about the future of Milford Haven, and we shall consult it, too, about the future of Trecwn. I regret the time that all that has taken,
  768
  but to have proceeded more speedily would not have been in the interests of either the Ministry of Defence or the work force.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke is unhappy because the consultative document does not say what other defence uses were considered for the depot. The depot's facilities have serious shortcomings and its layout no longer meets stringent explosive safety prescriptions. Therefore, it is not an option to continue to use it efficiently as an explosives depot, and we have been unable to identify any non-explosive, Navy task that could be transferred there. The Army and Air Force departments have said that they have no need for any of the Navy's surplus storage space. If that changes, and a defence use for Milford Haven is identified, I shall inform my hon. Friend and the House as soon as possible.
  The possible use of the site by other Government Departments will be fully assessed if and when I take the final decision to close the depot, and the closure process will take three years. If no further use is found for the site, our normal procedure will be to offer it for sale on the open market. In reaching a decision about disposal I shall ensure that there is full consultation with the normal authorities, the Welsh Office and its agencies. I assure my hon. Friend that any disposal procedure will be pursued with vigour and with the objective of ensuring that the site is not left idle.
  My hon. Friend asked for some detailed information about the number of staff who might transfer to Trecwn and about a possible redundancy package. Yesterday I answered a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend giving him information about the Ministry of Defence's standard redundancy terms. It is impossible at this stage to be precise about how many staff could or would transfer if the depot were closed. That will emerge during the consultation process.
  As for the cost of certifying the site free from explosives and removing all existing buildings, the former would cost between £0·5 million and £1 million, and if the site leaves the ownership of the Ministry of Defence, I give the assurance that that will be done. Consideration of the removal and demolition of the buildings is an integral part of the disposal process. We shall consider what needs to be done when we examine other uses.
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to close the apprentice training school. I am glad to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall ask my officials to consider his suggestion about widening the scope of training there. In the event of the depot being closed, sitting tenants of Ministry houses will be given an opportunity to buy them on favourable terms.
  My hon. Friend's disappointment over the further study on Trecwn is understandable, but the proposal to close Milford Haven means that the residual task still performed there will have to be transferred somewhere. Trecwn is certainly the favoured option.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend consider providing transport for the transferred staff?
  Mr. Freeman: I said earlier that between 40 and 90 new jobs would be created at one or other location to which we transferred the remaining tasks performed at Milford Haven. I visited Trecwn shortly after visiting Milford Haven, and I know that the distance between them is not inconsiderable. I shall look into the possibility of assisting

  769
  with transport to carry workers who might be offered jobs and accept them at Trecwn but who live at Milford Haven. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to give any guarantees, but I shall look into the matter.
  I shall ensure that the work on the future of Trecwn is undertaken as quickly as possible, but the result cannot be expected before 1989. During Operation Corporate Milford Haven was involved in assisting with the supply of replenishment at sea gear to some Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, while Trecwn provided stocks of naval ammunition to the armaments depots at the base ports. The Government are grateful for the work undertaken by the work force at both depots during the operation, which was in accordance with the high standards of the Royal Navy supply and transport service.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this brief debate. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in ensuring that the site, if we close the depot, is used profitably and that the loyal, hard working and efficient work force finds alternative employment.

  Disarmament
  7.12 am
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Some people have called it a sideways shift following his row with his previous boss on the Housing Bill. If it is, he has done quite well out of it because he has got quite an interesting portfolio. He has a bit of a reputation as a stonewaller. Some people might think that that is appropriate for the Foreign Office, but I have to warn him that there is a spirit of glasnost now, so he might come up against a few problems if he stonewalls. I wish him well in his new job.
  One of the Minister's important jobs concerns disarmament, which is the subject of this debate. I recently received a postcard which simply had a picture of the globe. At the top, coming out of the shadow, was an arrow marked, "Them", and in the middle of the globe was another arrow marked, "Us". The legend said:
  "The Russians, being cunning and devious, hide their country behind the curve in the earth so that we can't see. We, on the other hand, are right out in the open on the flat part."
  I am afraid that that has been the cold war attitude of some people in the West. The result has been a disastrous build-up of military spending. It has meant a continuous cold war of the type to which the postcard refers, and an enormous drain on the resources of both sides which could be much better used elsewhere, and it has perpetuated impoverishment in the Third world because while we spend on arms we cannot relieve poverty and suffering there. It has also involved a high risk in terms of the potential destruction of our people, particularly from the nuclear element.
  In addition, there has been an increasing risk of accidents. Chernobyl is the prime case, arising from the drive to create more nuclear material, but the Iran Airbus is a more recent example of how accidents can happen. If it is said to be in defence interests to shoot down an Airbus, it may also be in defence interests to fire a nuclear weapon. Those are the consequences of the cold war and the material build-up that we have seen since the war.
  Mikhail Gorbachev has attempted to break the logjam, and since he came to office all the initiatives have come from the Soviet Union. As Frank Blackaby, the former director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said, a more liberal-minded, intelligent elite has risen to a position of influence in Soviet politics. The Soviet Union has enormous economic pressures. About 16 per cent. of its GNP is spent on defence, which is immensely crippling and wasteful. That pressure has brought about the initiatives.
  NATO has been reacting primarily. It has been intransigent in many respects, especially on short-range nuclear missiles. There was a great chance to get a deal on them, but the Prime Minister in particular would have none of it and that worked its way into NATO philosophy. Moreover, the Government have imposed great pressure to increase militarisation and military spending. That is what modernisation is all about. Only last week during defence questions, when the Secretary of State was asked about burden sharing and the Americans pushing more of the costs of NATO on to European countries, he made it clear that he was acquiescing in more defence spending and Britain picking up a bigger part of the bill. We should

  771
  be reducing expenditure when there is an opportunity to do so, not increasing it. NATO has not even produced a comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament. It has not got its mandate together to go to the negotiating table. That is poor when there is an opportunity to make big reductions.
  Recently the Government produced a leaflet entitled "The UK Role in Arms Control a short guide to British Government policy". Short is the right word because there is precious little substance in it. It should have had a photograph of the tea and salmon sandwiches that the Prime Minister gave Mr. Gorbachev at Brize Norton because that is about the biggest contribution that the Government have made to arms control. It even states:
  "The UK's national deterrent is a minimum force, and it will remain so when the new Trident submarines become operational."
  Trident represents an eightfold increase at a time when the super-powers are trying to get rid of some of their weapons in that category. Yet the Government still described that as a minimum force. One can only conclude that the Government use those words as they choose and that in that context "mimimum force" means just what they want it to mean.
  The document discusses the Geneva protocol and Britain's role in it back in 1925, as well as new efforts to reach agreement on getting rid of chemical weapons. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office for what it did up to halfway through last year in trying to get an agreement to a chemical weapons ban. Subsequently, however, there has been undue delay and foot-dragging by the Government on this matter. Out come the same old slogans about the Soviet Union's chemical weapons supply, and we are told the Russians have 300,000 tonnes. No justification has ever been given for that and the Soviet Union has said solemnly that it has 50,000 tonnes. Whatever it is, Conservative Members may laugh, but the Soviet Union is keen to get a deal. We should be taking the Russians up on it to ensure that they get rid of chemical weapons.
  The foot-dragging has come about because on 16 December the United States resumed its supply of chemical weapons—in particular the new binary and big-eye weapons. It already has enormous stocks even without the new binary systems. According to my information, the United States has over 1 million GB nerve gas artillery rounds, 13,000 GB nerve gas bombs, 300,000 nerve gas artillery rounds and over 1 million mustard gas artillery rounds. They must be in good condition because the West German Government have said that there have been no accidents or leakages in West Germany where they have been stored. The United States ambassador once said that many of the weapons could strike into Soviet territory. The Americans have stocks, although the United States has not published figures. If the Government are pushing for the release of true information from the Soviet Union, they should do the same with the United States; they should ask what its stocks are.
  The Foreign Office says that the United States provides information about the composition and location of its stockpile in order to build the confidence needed to underpin a comprehensive ban. Yet the Select Committee on Defence said that the United States had not published the figures to show the size of its chemical stockpile. The Secretary of State for Defence said to that Select Committee:
  772
  "There is no agreed NATO strategy covering the circumstances in which chemical weapons may be used."
  The Committee said:
  "From the evidence we have received, it seems that the arrangements for moving US chemical weapons to Europe or authorising their release has still not been adequately clarified within the Alliance. Until this is done, chemical retaliation in kind hardly remains a viable option for the Alliance; and a lack of clarity about the procedures involved carries with it other dangers. The urgency for progress to be made in this area remains undiminished."
  The Select Committee says that the urgency is undiminished, but the Government have actually slowed down. Now the Secretary of State has said that chemical weapons fall within the flexible response strategy, so he is even contemplating their use.
  The Government should get a move on and start getting together with the Soviet Union for a realistic ban on chemical weapons. We should get an agreement and get the United States involved as well.
  This foot-dragging has had appalling consequences because we have seen in the middle east, in the Iran-Iraq war, the use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, the combatants have had some success with these weapons —success in war terms though terrible in human terms —and this will result in other countries wanting chemical weapons and being prepared to use them. That is why we need an immediate global ban on chemical weapons. The British Government do not seem to be aware of the need to take urgent action in this matter.
  In terms of conventional arms, there is a chance for agreement to be reached on a degree of disarmament at all levels. Following a meeting of the Warsaw pact on 16 July, the pact renewed its initiative for sizeable cuts in conventional armaments in Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals. It called
  "for early talks to leave NATO and the Warsaw Treaty countries with forces and systems needed for defence but insufficient for a surprise attack or offensive operations, with a corresponding curtailment in military spending."
  Three areas were covered in that initiative. The first was
  "to achieve equal, lowered levels—roughly equal and balanced collective levels—in troop strength and convention-al weaponry"—
  certainly lower than currently exist on both sides—
  "mutually eliminating imbalances and asymmetries."
  That was achieved in INF terms for one category of nuclear weapons, so it could be achieved as well for conventional forces.
  The second point was designed to prevent a surprise attack, and it referred to
  "lowered arms level strips…zones created along the line of contact between the military/political alliance, again ensuring only a defensive capability; and confidence-building measures which would limit military activity in those zones."
  It went on to say that there should be a ban on major exercises and restrictions on troop movements.
  The third part of the initiative on conventional weapons was for data exchange and verification. That would, naturally, involve the exchange of information on both sides, with on-site inspections and possibly an international verification commission to check that all was working properly.
  Those were the main aspects of the initiative—
  "to strengthen stability and lower the levels of armed forces and armaments, with the principles of equality and equal security being observed and being verified."
  I make no apology for quoting at length from that text because it is an important initiative that is now on the

  773
  NATO stocks. It has been welcomed—in terms of a pan-European summit—by President Mitterrand, who is reported as having said that
  "the reduction of conventional arms was an absolute priority which should take precedence over any reinforcement of short or very short-range nuclear weapons."
  That was a direct snub to the British Government, who take the opposite view and who do not seem to be interested in that aspect. They seem interested only in increasing that type of short-range weaponry.
  The West German Government have welcomed the idea of new talks on lowering conventional arms levels. They have every reason to take that line because, demographically, the numbers in the West German conscript army will be 40 per cent. lower in the coming decade, so they desperately need reductions in convention-al arms.
  The British Government do not seem to be worried about the concerns of our allies in this matter. We seem prepared to allow them in the coming 10 years to be in a perilous position, which we have already done in terms of short-range nuclear weapons, a subject to which I will come shortly. So, again, the British Government are foot-dragging. They are among the few Common Market Governments not to have welcomed the idea of a pan-European summit. The block is the weapons with dual capability, conventional and nuclear, which the Government refuse to include in any conventional arms reduction talks. That is what is stopping NATO getting a mandate together and getting realistic talks started. Dual capability weapons should be part of the negotiations. Why should a whole category of weapons not be subject to arms control or even negotiations? In this area, as in any other, asymmetry can apply, with cuts in different types of weapons on each side. If such weapons are not included in conventional arms talks, they should be the subject of separate but simultaneous talks.
  The Government must take up those initiatives in a big way. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who was recently appointed to a post in Europe, wrote a pamphlet supporting the idea of a demilitarised zone free from tanks, heavy artillery and nuclear weapons. That would create greater stability. Only the Government seem to believe the opposite. At Defence Question Time the Secretary of State spoke ominously of having nothing to do with demilitarised zones, but NATO must take up those initiatives as well as getting rid of all tactical nuclear weapons systems and limiting the total number of heavy battle tanks in Europe. Those initiatives could release money from defence to be used for social purposes.
  I shall deal briefly with the nuclear aspects as others may wish to participate and I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister. The INF agreement is to be welcomed, although it represents only about 3 per cent. of the world nuclear stockpile, following a huge build-up of such weapons before the talks, so it is not such an amazing achievement. The Russians have issued a postage stamp commemorating it, and that is about what it amounts to proportionately in terms of the total number of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
  Short-range nuclear weapons should have been included in that agreement. We should have had the triple zero. The West German Government wanted that because
  774
  they realise that blowing up part of one's own territory is self-defeating. That should have been taken into account and we shall have to come back to it in future talks. Strategic arms reduction talks are going on for a 50 per cent. cut in strategic weapons, but I do not believe that it will really be 50 per cent. on a strict count. They are already fiddling with the arithmetic so that short-range attack missiles count as only one, and so on. Nevertheless, an agreement would be extremely welcome.
  There are two blocks in the way of such a development. The major block is star wars, to which I shall come in a moment, but the other is the sea-launched nuclear weapons. It is shocking that the United Kingdom's Trident and Polaris missiles are not on the negotiating table. In my view, they should be in the negotiations. Sea-launched nuclear weapons could get in the way of strategic arms reduction talks. If they remain uncontrolled —there are now 16,000 weapons at sea—they could destroy a START agreement. They must be brought within the limitation and verification procedures. I appreciate that verification would be difficult, but the Government should insist that the super-powers start talking about sea-launched nuclear weapons and should put their own on the table, as it were.
  Star wars—SDI—is a dangerous development. It is a first-strike capability and an enormous continuation of the arms race. It breaches the ABM treaty and it is a block to START. I have heard it said that the Russians are unlikely to agree to START while the star wars development remains in being. That could be the position. At Congress, the office of technical assessement has said that technically SDI is not feasible. It is wrong that the Government should be acquiescing to star wars. They are pursuing every contract that they can get and giving the impression, with the memorandum of understanding, that they are in favour of the project. They should come out against it so that we can secure a START treaty.
  The Government seem still to take the view that a limited nuclear war could be fought and won. They are still wedded to the possibility of first use of nuclear weapons. They are still wedded to the modernisation of nuclear weapons when the world wants to see countries getting rid of these weapons. Modernisation would cheat on the INF and on a START.
  The Government should be pressing for a comprehensive test ban treaty and a non-proliferation treaty. Unfortunately, the Government are still wedded to nuclear weapons for whatever and for ever. That seems to be their attitude, and that is a block to disarmament. They should wake up to the new world attitude. The peoples of the world are not interested in nuclear weapons and ever-increasing military spending. They are interested in life, health and the progress of mankind. They want more social spending. The Tory Government are a dinosaur. It seems that they are incapable of recognising world opinion. The British public want disarmament. They understand that world-wide agreements are necessary, and they will be angry when they realise that it is the British Government who are blocking these agreements at every turn.
  7.38 am
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, especially as there is now litte chance that the debate in my name will be

  775
  reached. As I can find no way, even with the greatest ingenuinty, of introducing the financing of the University of London into a defence debate, I shall turn to what has been said by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
  Before taking up the remarks of the hon. Member for Leyton, I add my congratulations to those that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Minister. I wish him well in his new role, to which I am sure he will bring the distinction that he has brought to other roles in his career in government.
  Before the hon. Member for Leyton commenced his oration, if it could be called that, we were all in great suspense waiting for him to wake up and get here. Having listened to his speech, I am still waiting for him to wake up. He appears to have no appreciation of the true state of affairs when it comes to arms negotiations and of who has been giving the lead in arms reductions.
  The hon. Gentleman paints NATO as the dragon of the picture. He ignores the unilateral withdrawal of 1,400 warheads, the destruction of the United Kingdom's stocks of chemical weapons, President Reagan's initial zero-zero option, and the long lag before NATO introduced updated weapons to match the Russian SS20s in the form of cruise. None of those actions of restraint met with any reaction of equal restraint from the Soviet Union. Rather, they resulted in an escalation on the part of the Soviet Union. It is very much to the credit of the British Government and, indeed, the United States that they insisted on negotiating from a position of strength, which has brought about the very arms agreements that we have been seeking for so long.
  Perhaps it is somewhat unfair to refer to the Soviet Union before the days of Mr. Gorbachev. Perhaps we should now try to look at the Soviets in a rather more trusting light. The position has changed, and we now have the prospect of major arms agreements. That, however, leaves us in a position completely ignored by the hon. Member for Leyton, in which we still face overwhelming conventional superiority on the part of the Soviet Union. We also face the prospect of severe cuts in land-based nuclear missiles.
  Because the nuclear missile has always been designed to deter not only a nuclear but a conventional attack, it is doubly important for us to ensure, when reducing our nuclear stockpile and still facing conventional superiority, that we have the most modern and effective weapons in those categories that are still left to us. That is the purpose of the modernisation so derided by the hon. Gentleman. It should be seen not as an escalation, but rather as making effective what we have left and could use.
  It is easy to say that we are wedded to first use. We are not, but it would be totally ineffective to set something up as a deterrent and say, "This is what we could use," and then deny that we would use it. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. He is well aware that for a deterrent to be effective a potential enemy must understand that we would actually use it. He is also well aware that nothing that NATO has done has met with much response from the Soviet Union, that the present cuts have been brought about as much from economic pressure within the Soviet Union as from some great enlightenment, that we are still faced with overwhelming conventional superiority and that we are pursuing an enlightened policy of gradual, verifiable and mutual arms reductions. That policy is the surest method of retaining peace, as it has done for the past 40 years.
  7.43 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) both for his kind words and for enabling me to address the House—although not a packed House—on such important matters so early after my new appointment. I am not sure that it is entirely truthful to say that I wished to speak about them first at this time of day, but one must not complain.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that she has answered the debate very thoroughly herself, and she made a number of sensible points, some of which I shall echo.
  I could not forbear from a wry internal smile when the hon. Member for Leyton teased NATO for not having got its mandate together. There may be clear mandates in some parts of his party's activities, but it must be said that, in whatever order I read the words in which the leader of his party expresses his mandate, they do not seem any clearer. I have tried the moving interview that he gave to my good friend John Mortimer, but I think that it must have been printed backwards, because it did not seem to make much sense. I had some difficulty in understanding the exact thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's mandate. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton a great deal clearer and I pay tribute to him for that, but it is not a great competition to have won.
  Within the first week of my appointment to an extremely important portfolio I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton will not expect me to have sketched out any new directions or to say anything that will surprise him. However, I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to put certain things on the record.
  The range of the hon. Gentleman's speech was wide, and he covered the subject comprehensively. I shall try to cover some of that ground. The North Atlantic Council meeting in June 1987 at Reykjavik is a good place to start. At that meeting we and our allies set out our future arms control priorities. We strongly refute the idea that it is the Soviet Union that has set the agenda. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman should agree that it was the West that suggested the zero proposals on INF. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the contribution of the Foreign Office and its efforts to eliminate chemical weapons. The West also took the lead in that respect.
  After Reykjavik, the agenda set out for the future meant 50 per cent. cuts in United States and Soviet strategic nuclear weapons, the global elimination of chemical weapons and the elimination of the imbalance in conventional forces in Europe. I shall survey the progress that has been made in each of those areas since last year.
  It is worth considering the implications of the word "disarmament", which is the title of the debate. The Government consider that the agenda is about arms control. The Government support balanced and verifiable arms control agreements which are consistent with maintaining our security. We must beware of proposals for wholesale disarmament which see the reduction of weapons as an end in itself. That is not the end. The end is greater security, and that is an important distinction. The Government believe that nuclear weapons will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future for maintaining deterrence. We take a different view from the hon. Gentleman. We shall continue to support NATO's

  777
  policy of keeping only the minimum number of nuclear weapons necessary to achieve that. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone said that the Alliance has reduced its stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe by 35 per cent. since 1979. However, we must record the fact that there has not been a comparable reduction in the Soviet Union.
  Reducing the numbers of our weapons to the minimum necessary is one side of the coin the other side is the requirement to keep them up to date. If they are to provide an effective deterrent, our nuclear weapons must be credible. So we firmly endorse the determination, expressed by NATO Heads of Government at their meeting in Brussels in March, to ensure that all the Alliance's forces, conventional and nuclear, are kept up to date.
  Two of the arms control priorities I mentioned earlier related to nuclear weapons. Since Reykjavik, the INF agreement has been finally accepted by the Russians, and the INF treaty entered into force on 1 June 1988. That was a major step. The significance of the treaty and the credit which the achievement of it reflects on the Alliance have been, as my hon. Friend for Maidstone has said, fully discussed in this House on earlier occasions. I need not dwell further on it today.
  As the hon. Member for Leyton said, the negotiations between the Americans and the Russians about reductions in their strategic nuclear weapons are continuing in Geneva. The Government warmly endorse the determination shown by the United States Administration to negotiate carefully on the many difficult areas still to be resolved. We are convinced that there should be no question of allowing political time tables to dictate our security requirements. If anyone is tempted to become impatient at what may seem slow progress in Geneva, he should consider—the hon. Gentleman has considered the subject in detail and is similarly aware—how complicated the issues are that are being discussed. The verification regime for a START agreement, for instance, would be far more complicated even than that established under the INF treaty, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. After the two nuclear parities are achieved, the nuclear situation in Europe will have received enough attention for the time being and the spotlight should focus on the conventional and chemical theatres.
  Despite our welcome for the hope for the world that the regime of Mr. Gorbachev represents—and I would not underplay that—it is our duty to be careful about the security of our own peoples, and we must be on our guard against any attractively-packaged offers to denuclearise Europe. Whenever attention shifts to conventional forces, the Russians try to divert it back to denuclearisation. We must not let that ploy succeed, and it will not. History has shown that, tragically, even a complete balance of conventional forces has not been enough to guarantee peace.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the shorter-range nuclear forces. NATO is united in rejecting a zero solution on SNF, which would be the third zero. We and our allies are currently engaged in considering what the Alliance's future SNF requirements will be. We are determined to keep our holdings to a minimum—again, in contrast to the
  778
  Soviet Union which now has a 14 to one advantage in SNF missile launchers—but we are sure that NATO must retain an effective SNF capability.
  Arms control is not just about nuclear weapons. Progress in the nuclear area increases the importance of improving conventional security. Britain and Europe have suffered dreadfully from conventional wars during this century, and modern conventional weapons are many times more destructive than those of 40 years ago. The present concentration of conventional forces in Europe of NATO and of the Warsaw pact comprises the greatest conventional destructive potential ever assembled. That is why we must insist that nuclear arms control must not make Europe safe for conventional war and why we attach so much importance to redressing the imbalances between NATO and Warsaw pact conventional forces.
  In Europe, the Warsaw pact has three times as many tanks as NATO, more than three times as much artillery and nearly twice as many tactical aircraft. Furthermore, its forces are configured and deployed in ways which would permit them to initiate a surprise attack and to undertake large-scale offensive action.
  That is why the elimination of that imbalance, which so favours the Warsaw pact, is the Government's major arms control priority, now that the INF treaty has been concluded and START negotiations are in train. To that end, we and our allies are discussing with representatives of the Warsaw pact in Vienna the terms of reference for new negotiations on conventional stability which would cover an area from the Atlantic to the Urals. The aim of the negotiations will be to establish a stable and secure balance of conventional forces at lower than the present levels. We shall also seek to eliminate disparities of forces which are prejudicial to stability and security. We want to eliminate the capacity to launch surprise attacks and initiate large-scale offensive action. That is very important. Mr. Gorbachev's proposals of 16 July are a welcome move towards the Western approach. We need more detail, but the proper place for the deployment of the detail is the conventional stability talks.
  The Government hope that the negotiations will start during this year. They will take place within the framework of the CSCE process. The outcome of the current CSCE review meeting in Vienna must be balanced. We cannot conclude agreement on that section of the review without progress in other areas, notably in respect of human rights. Hence, our concern to make progress in all the sectors of the review.
  I now turn to the hon. Gentleman's comments on chemical weapons. He was generous in saying that, over the years, the British Government have played a real part in the pursuit of a verifiable, comprehensive and global ban on all chemical weapons. We have submitted detailed technical papers to the conference on disarmament in Geneva. Two years ago we chaired the negotiations. Last year my predecessor set out in Geneva the detailed steps that remained to be taken to make the chemical weapons ban effective.
  We are both pleased that during the past two years there have been some real signs of progress. The issues are complex, and much effort will be required if we are to develop effective solutions. We seek a convention that will enhance and will be seen to enhance security. To do that, once again there will be a need for reliable verification. I

  779
  assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no foot-dragging here. The nearer one gets to a substantive agreement, the more complex things become.
  All countries must have confidence in such verification. There is still some way to go, because unless the small print of verification can be seen by all to work in practice countries will not sign an agreement, even if one can be reached. The urgency of achieving a meaningful treaty which we could press others to join is only re-emphasised by recent events of the Gulf war. The negotiations have not, therefore, been a matter only for East and West, as the latest tragic events have shown.
  Proliferation underlines the vital need for the convention to be global, yet that raises is own problems. Even the modest provisions of the 1925 Geneva protocol have yet to be universally agreed to. At the United Nations special session in June, my hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary called for renewed impetus to be given to the 1925 protocol. Countries which have not yet signed it—50 in all—should now do so. He called also for prompt international investigation of allegations of the use of chemical weapons. When use had been demonstrated, he said that there should be effective action by the international community. We are working to build on that call.
  Openness is crucial. The United Kingdom unilaterally gave up its chemical warfare capability in the 1950s, as the hon. Member for Leyton mentioned. The Soviet Union possesses a substantial chemical weapons capability—but it did not acknowledge that until last year. In fact, no more than three countries admit to possessing chemical weapons. That shows how far there is still to go. If all countries are committed to a ban, as they say they are, why are they so reluctant to come clean? How could we be confident that a ban would work unless there was certainty about what it covered?
  The hon. Gentleman may be interested to hear that we have just conducted a significant experiment. In May this year a Soviet delegation visited the United Kingdom chemical defence establishment at Porton Down. There, chemical weapons experts discussed the full range of chemical weapons related activity. Many of these issues were directly related to the work of the conference on disarmament. Other discussions ranged more widely.
  At the beginning of this month the Soviet Union reciprocated with an invitation to Britain to visit its chemical plant at Shikhany. We were pleased to have had that opportunity, but it was evident from the exchanges
  780
  that attitudes to secrecy remain different in the Soviet Union. Glasnost has not yet reached all the parts of Soviet military thinking.
  Many questions and concerns about Soviet capability remain. We have a long way to go in the chemical weapons negotiations. The Government are determined to continue to work energetically for the goal that we have set ourselves over many years. It is important to remember that that goal is a convention with robust verification which adds to our security, not a rushed, skimped exercise that would leave crucial problems unresolved.
  A ban that works is a prize for which the world has striven ever since chemical weapons were first invented. The progress that we are making now must not cause us to rush in any way that would let that major prize slip from our grasp.
  The hon. Member for Leyton repeated the argument, sometimes advanced, that the SDI breaches the ABM treaty. No doubt he has debated this subject often before and will know that we strongly believe that to be wrong. We think that SDI, as a research programme, is allowed under the ABM treaty. The Soviet Union has admitted that it is conducting similar types of research.
  As for modernisation, NATO is not in the business of building up stocks of nuclear weapons for their own sake, but in order to deter, and our deterrent must be modern and known to be effective. A threadbare deterrent is perhaps the most dangerous thing of all.
  The hon. Member for Leyton said that all the disarmament initiatives had come from the other side. That is not fair, and it is easy to refute by reference to the list that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. The arms control agenda has been set by the West and by the democracies, as one would expect. The INF zero proposal was made by the West, and Mr. Gorbachev is coming round to our conventional arms approach. The West is taking the lead in conventional arms reductions.
  In the short time available, I have been able only to refer briefly to the Government's objectives in arms control, in which traditionally we have played a prominent role and will continue to do so. The problems are often intractable, partly because we are seeking not simply to reduce weapons but to improve security, which is not necessarily the same.
  It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Warehouse Fires
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  8 am
  Mr. Terry Fields: I apologise in advance to the Minister if I do not allow him the customary amount of time to reply. My speech is so extensive that I could have done with an hour and a half. I hope that the Minister will understand that I do not expect a detailed reply. I shall give him a document and ask him or his Department to write to me about it.
  The specific problems facing the fire service that I want to deal with concern warehousing. Uncharacteristically, perhaps, the only political statement I wish to make is that Britain used to be the workshop of the world, but we are fast becoming the warehouse of the world. The proliferation of warehouses up and down the country is there for all to see.
  Warehouses, by the nature of their use, can pose extreme problems in the event of fire for the people working in them, the firefighters attending them and the population living around or working in them. There has been an upsurge in the warehouse industry in recent years. As the growth of imports has risen, so the number of warehouses has similarly increased.
  The growth in the warehousing industry has led to an increase in large and costly fires in warehouses, many of which have been extremely costly—often more than £250,000 and, with increasing frequency, they are in the multi-million pound category.
  The two fires at the Ministry of Defence establishment at Donnington in Shropshire are conservatively estimated to have cost £265 million. As that loss is borne by the taxpayer, central Government budgets must be cut and savings must be made in other expenditure. Fires in private warehousing mean an increase in insurance costs for all insurance customers. This scenario deals only with direct losses and takes no account of consequential losses, which often can be equal to the direct loss and, in certain circumstances when contracts are lost or default clauses operate, they exceed the direct loss. A company's long-term viability and profitability may also be affected. When foreign goods are lost, effectively imports are doubled, which may be reflected in the balance-of-trade figures.
  The Fire Protection Association's figures for the period December 1986 to November 1987, which were published this year in its "Fire Prevention" magazine, show that of more than 250,000 fires, 20 occurred in warehouses totalling a direct loss of £25,269,000. That was 9 per cent. of the total for all fires in that cost bracket and accounted for 11·46 per cent. of total cost figures.
  Another article published by the Fire Protection Association in 1985, "The Warehouse Fire Scandal", by Dr. R. B. Ward, showed that, between 1979 and 1984, 11 warehouse fires occurred in the £5 million cost bracket totalling £377 million, a rough average of £34·25 million per fire.
  The same article shows that between July 1983 and June 1984 there were 213 fires, approximately 17 per month, in storage premises, which cost the country £137,302,000. In 20 fires in sprinklered warehouses, the cost was £12,981,000, and one fire alone cost £10 million because of
  782
  inadequate provision of sprinklers. That means that the remaining 19 fires cost a total of £2,981,000, which is absolute peanuts compared to unsprinklered losses.
  I shall deal with five particular fires. I will list them chronologically and explain the lack of control over the warehouse industry in the past decade.
  In Braehead container depot in Renfrew on 4 January 1977 there was a fire in a warehouse used for transport and storage. The fire spread to a bonded warehouse and the fire and explosions caused by the storage of commercially pure sodium chlorate destroyed properties and caused widespread damage to domestic, commercial, industrial and public buildings within a one-mile radius. Twelve members of the public and one watchman were treated for shock and minor injuries. Burning debris from the explosion fell on fuel tanks at a nearby power station. Fortunately, they did not ignite. In that instance, no fire safety legislation was applicable on the site.
  In February 1980, at the Permaflex company in Stoke-on-Trent, there was a fire and a series of explosions. The fire originated from arcing on a fork-lift truck in an area where flammable gas, LPG—liquefied petroleum gas —was present. The warehouse was used for storing cartridges and aerosols, containing 49 tonnes of LPG. The aerosol and butane fuel containers were exploding and being violently expelled from the building. Local residents and commercial and industrial premises were evacuated. Five hours later the fire seemed to be under control. Then, two massive explosions occurred causing damage to adjacent property. That led to a re-evacuation of the area. The fire burned for a further 60 hours—2·5 days. The local authority concluded that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 did not apply.
  A fire at B and R Hauliers in Salford in 1982 involved a warehouse where some 2,000 tonnes of chemicals stored included 25 tonnes of sodium chlorate. Sixty people attended the local hospital after inhaling smoke and fumes and suffering from shock. One person was admitted with breathing difficulties, nine were treated for cuts and lacerations, one for eye injuries and four for nausea and vomiting. Later, 100 people attended the Salford Royal hospital with chest ailments, sore throats and so on. Surrounding properties suffered varying degrees of damage. Several hundred people were evacuated. A cloud of hydrogen chloride—hydrochloric acid—formed around the area but, because of the nature of the premises, the Fire Precautions Act did not apply yet again.
  In 1982 there was a fire and explosions in Cary's warehouse in Ipswich. The warehouse stored wickerware, ammonium nitrate fertilisers, compound fertilisers and potassium nitrate. Between 750 and 1,000 people were evacuated from local housing estates, shops, old people's homes and a primary school in an area three quarters of a mile long and half a mile wide. Five people were rescued by firefighters. The explosions were so powerful that they ejected burning materials and lethal sized pieces of corrugated iron and glass into adjoining premises within 100 m of the incident. Again, the Fire Precautions Act did not apply.
  In the Brightside lane warehouse in Sheffield in 1984 a fire started in a furniture repository. The repository formed one unit of a large building sub-divided into five smaller units. In two days the fire destroyed the whole warehouse complex with the exception of one unit. That survived due to the effectiveness of fire separation between it and the rest of the complex. The building was not

  783
  dissimilar to Braehead and the fire was similar to that which occurred there in 1977. It is obvious from the catalogue of fires I have listed that the lessons have not been learned. The Fire Precautions Act did apply in that case, but only to one of the units which was put to a "designated use".
  The risks in all those cases are covered by many pieces of legislation and regulations. There is the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Building Act 1984, the Fire Certificate (Special Premises) Regulations 1976, the Notification of lnstallations (Handling of Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1982, the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, the Fire Precautions Act 1971, the Fire Services Act 1947, the Storage of Flammable Liquids Regulations, and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
  None of those pieces of legislation had any real effect on the control of what was stored in those premises, nor did they put any responsibility on the owner or occupier to take the course of action which the fire service would demand. For instance, should someone want to develop a new site or redevelop an existing building for warehousing, it seems politic to examine what controls the planners would or would not have over such a development. By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 classifies warehouses as class B8 storage and distribution. That means that if the development of a site is new, planning permission would be required. If, however, the site is an existing one and is already classed as the same usage group, no planning permission is required.
  However, nowhere in the planning legislation is there a requirement for the fire authorities to be consulted, nor is the fire authority given any power to act as an objector to a proposal. Hazardous sites which do not fall within the scope of the Health and Safety Executive Regulations 1982 and therefore the 1987 order can gain automatic planning permission where there is no change of use. The Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the 1987 order made by virtue of it have one serious failing. They fail to differentiate between risk, and nowhere more so than where a class B8 building or site is under consideration. In effect, that means that a low fire risk-load warehouse, for example, steel stockholders, can be transformed overnight into a high risk-load premises, for example, for the storage of foam plastics, without any requirement for any form of planning consent and, therefore, no facility for local population objections.
  The Building Act 1984 and the regulations made by virtue of it deal with fire safety in two ways. One is life safety in the form of means of escape from fire, and the second is the ability of a building, structure or fabric to resist the effects of fire. I shall deal primarily with the second aspect. Warehouses, for the purpose of the building regulations, are classed in the purpose group identification system as "other non-residential". As with the planning controls, the building regulations fail to differentiate between user risk. The final anomaly with the building regulations is that there is no on-going control so that, as with the planning control, once a building is within a purpose group no account is taken of the risk that the building poses. Therefore, a change of occupier or risk causes no reassessment of the building.
  There is no reason to believe that certain warehouses, used purely for the storage of agricultural products—for example, fertilisers—would be exempt from any building
  784
  regulation control by virtue of definition as an agricultural building. Bearing in mind that fertilisers have played a significant part in some warehouse fires, that is not a happy scenario. The Fire Certificate (Special Premises) Regulations 1976 also apply to warehouses, but the quantities of hazardous substances to be specified are such that there would almost certainly be an overlap with the next two regulations with which I want to deal.
  The first is the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982. It should be noted that these regulations rely on notification being given to the Health and Safety Executive by a premises or site occupier. Of course, in many instances, such people can be shady characters who refuse or neglect to give information to the Health and Safety Executive and, as a consequence, stuff is stored there which should not be there. No controls or regulations cover that.
  The second piece of legislation in that category is the Control of Industrial Major Accidents Hazards Regulations 1984, which rely for application on the storage or use of quantities of specified hazardous substances. There are certain areas of overlap so that both sets of regulations may apply simultaneously. In effect, that means that only specific commodities stored in a particular warehouse are covered by the legislation. The legislation would not apply to other goods which could be stored in the warehouses without any controls and as a consequence the warehouses would be a danger to the public and to the fire service.
  The fire service prepared the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which is a major piece of legislation. Its main thrust is to provide for life safety for persons within premises to which the Act applies. Two separate premise types have been designated so far. The first covers hotels and boarding houses and the other covers places at work. However, the designated titles serve to deceive because under the heading of "places of work" only premises to which the definitions contained in the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 are put to what is called a designated use.
  The two definitions under the 1961 and the 1963 Acts apply only to certain types of warehouses. There is a range of warehouse types which do not fall neatly into definitions in the Factories Act 1961 or the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. Therefore, while certain provisions in the 1971 Act apply, the main fire safety sections do not simply because the building is not put. to what is called a designated use.
  Section 12 of the 1971 Act enables the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to any matter that appears to him to have an effect on fire safety. That power has been exercised only once to make certain regulations relating to fire safety in small places of work which, while they are put to a designated use, because of the small number of persons employed, do not require a fire certificate.
  The 1971 Act is at present in the first phase of four-year alteration due to the provisions of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. It is generally understood that in other areas the status quo could be maintained.
  The Fire Services Act 1947 is rather important to firemen, particularly section 1 (1)(d) which gives licence to fire authorities and requires that the fire authority make

  785
  "efficient arrangements for obtaining, by inspection or otherwise, information required for fire-fighting purposes with respect to the character of the buildings and other property in the area of the fire authority".
  However, even with those wide sweeping powers under the 1947 Act, the only restriction is that entry cannot be demanded unless 24-hour notice is given.
  To the layman, quoting all this legislation is absolutely meaningless. My point is that there are warehouses that may be covered by specific areas in all the legislation to which I have referred, but without sufficient clarity to give the fire service any confidence that a proper job is being done, looking after the interests of the general public, of fire service personnel, and property in close proximity to some of the buildings that store these dangerous commodities.
  There are regulations covering the storage of flammable liquids and the Petroleum (Regulations) Acts of 1928 and 1936 and the Highly Inflammable Liquids and Liquified Petroleum Gas Regulations 1972 apply. However, warehouses that store flammable liquids could fall within the arena of that legislation. However, it should be understood that the regulations are very specific in application and will apply only in certain specified conditions which are fairly detailed. They are beyond the scope of what I want to say.
  If we compare the five warehouse sites to which I have referred with current legislation and assess the control of, planning and building regulations purposes, three of the sites would not require planning permission by virtue of the fact that the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 would apply. No building regulation application for three of the warehouses would be necessary. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 would apply generally to all the sites and did at the time of the incidents. It is therefore a matter for anxiety that it appears to have failed, because, despite the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, fires of a major magnitude did take place, with severe damage to property and with severe risk to people and firefighters in the area.
  It must cause anxiety that in the majority of the cases that I have detailed, which are but the tip of a very big iceberg, there was fragmented control over the sites and little effort to deal with the risks that the sites posed. The dangers of the sites were very real. It could almost be said that it was by divine intervention that no one was killed in those incidents rather than by the efforts of those bodies charged with looking after the public good.
  Even more worrying is the fact that in two of the instances—40 per cent. of the instances—analysed the sites would still be bereft of legislative control and could be in business today. There appears to be no common goal of the safety enforcers. The controls, such as they are, are not complementary and do not inspire confidence. There is no interplay between the enforcers who operate independently of each other and have very little input into each other's areas of control. The anomaly in the Fire Precautions Act 1971 whereby certain warehouses are classified as "designated" and others are not is indefensible, as is the anomaly that only factory buildings that store or use highly flammable or explosive materials require a fire certificate, irrespective of the numbers employed.
  The fact that the public purse in the form of the fire authority must always pay the cost of the provision of
  786
  adequate water supplies for fire-fighting purposes is an antiquated and dangerous precedent in times of restricted budgets.
  The failure of both planning and building regulation controls to differentiate between the potential risk of a building or a site because of the use of blanket purpose group headings is worrying in the extreme. The hypothesis that a steel stock warehouse in the middle of a residential area could be changed overnight into a chemical storage depot without any form of control is worrying.
  I shall provide the Minister with a list of 12 recommendations, but I shall briefly mention them now. I shall be demanding—and the fire service through the Fire Brigades Union will be demanding—the classification and grading of warehouses. There will need to be notification of change of storage and planning and building regulation consent will be required. There would be a need for designation of warehouses for the purposes of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. There would need to be fire protection measures for warehouses, because I believe I have demonstrated that a sprinkler at warehouses can give fire protection. There needs to be a draft marking of building regulations, which I believe that the Health and Safety Executive is circulating for discussion. On non-public sites, water supplies should be paid for by the developer or the user of the site, and not by the local authority whose finances are presently a little strapped. Fire certificates and annual inspections with reports should be mandatory, so too should be the keeping of an up-to-date list of all materials stored at a site, which should be accessible to firefighters.
  I apologise for going on so long, but this is a detailed and complex matter which needs to go on record. I was a fire officer for 26 years. We must protect the firefighters who are entering unknown territory in certain factories. We must protect the general public and ensure that we make a contribution to fire safety and reduce fire losses.
  8.23 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten):
  I understand the wish of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to set out his points in some detail. I know he will realise that, because of the lack of time, I shall not be able to go into all of his points in as much detail as I should have liked. I am sure the House will agree that we should listen with care to what the hon. Gentleman says about the fire service, because, as he said, he was a member of the fire service between 1957 and 1983. He has great experience in these matters and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has spoken this morning. I shall ensure that the document that he passes to me is examined in detail in the Home Office.
  While I agree that we should listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman about firefighting, I am not sure that we should listen to him quite so carefully when it comes to the national economy. The country is certainly not one great warehouse now. It has a lot of warehouses, but it also has a lot of workshops, a lot of innovation, and a lot of technical expertise. There is much selling of that expertise and of financial services abroad, which makes Britain one of the economic leaders of the Western world. We have begun the eighth successive year of economic growth. That is an unparalleled record in recent history.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity, albeit briefly, to pay tribute to the fire service,

  787
  which frequently combines with other emergency services to provide an invaluable source of help and assurance for the public when disasters occur. It occasionally rescues people from terrible situations and deals with warehouse fires, which can sometimes be considerable conflagrations.
  Firefighters are sometimes led into the unknown. It is a sad fact of life that the demand on their services shows no sign of diminishing. The hon. Gentleman has some detailed suggestions to make on how the work of the fire services in dealing with warehouse fires can be improved. It is perhaps appropriate, even at this early hour, to say something about finance as a background to my remarks about the fire service and warehousing.
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of an efficient and effective fire service. They provide support through the block grant mechanism of the rate support grant settlement. Support will continue in the form of revenue support grant under the new local government finance system, which comes into operation in 1990. Since 1982–83 the Government have increased by 12 per cent. expenditure on the fire service. Some of the money and the effort of the fire service goes on fighting fires in warehouses. I agree that warehouse fires have often been a cause of concern, but, happily, the fire service has always risen to the occasion—as we have all grown to expect and appreciate.
  All brigades take account of warehouses and other special risks, such as chemical plants and others that the
  788
  hon. Member mentioned, when arranging fire cover in their areas. Fire service resources are also deployed to meet the risk categorisation of plants, factories and warehouses. Brigades ensure that they deploy appliances so that if some disaster should occur it is dealt with as quickly as possible.
  The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council keeps all new risks under review and gives operational advice to the fire service. It can also recommend to the Government any changes in law that are thought appropriate. The hon. Gentleman told the House about some of the 12 recommendations that he will let me have after the debate so that I can ensure that my noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility for these matters in the Home Office, can consider them.
  I expect that the Home Office and the Department of the Environment will examine the important matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised about building regulations and planning, as well as about the fire brigade, so that we can send him a consolidated reply as soon as possible. I do not know whether that reply will reach the hon. Gentleman before, or after, the summer holiday. I wish him well for the holiday, which I hope gives him rather less time for what "DOD's Parliamentary Companion"' lists as his special interest, which is working-class struggle, and rather more for his recreation, which is wine making.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eight o 'clock on Friday morning.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Japanese Cars
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Her Majesty's Government agree with the

  Import Penetration

  Ratio 1 (Imports/Home demand)

  1980 = 100

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Divisions 2–4 Manufacturing industries

  100

  106

  111

  118

  127

  131

  131

  134

  Division 2 Ores, metals, chemicals and non-fuel minerals

  100

  99

  106

  114

  128

  133

  132

  135

  Class 21 Extradition and preparation of metalliferous ores

  100

  99

  99

  98

  95

  97

  —

  —

  Class 22 Metal manufacturing

  100

  87

  98

  107

  131

  136

  139

  147

  Class 23 Extraction of minerals nes

  100

  97

  118

  126

  126

  130

  113

  109

  Class 24 Non-metallic mineral products

  100

  101

  109

  124

  138

  143

  177

  186

  Class 25 Chemical industry

  100

  108

  118

  124

  137

  142

  144

  146

  Class 26 Production of man-made fibres

  100

  106

  121

  127

  123

  127

  122

  119

  Division 3 Metal goods, engineering and vehicles

  100

  110

  117

  126

  134

  138

  138

  140

  Class 31 Metal goods nes

  100

  97

  109

  115

  126

  139

  145

  156

  Class 32 Mechanical engineering

  100

  108

  108

  111

  118

  123

  125

  131

  Class 33 Office Machinery and data processing equipment

  100

  99

  109

  111

  109

  104

  104

  96

  Class 34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  100

  117

  126

  135

  141

  151

  150

  157

  Class 35 Motor vehicles and parts

  100

  109

  121

  134

  131

  130

  133

  125

  Class 36 Other Transport Equipment

  100

  107

  104

  110

  134

  119

  119

  110

  Class 37 Instrument Engineering

  100

  112

  107

  105

  111

  109

  105

  111

  Division 4 Other manufacturing industries

  100

  107

  106

  112

  119

  120

  121

  125

  Classes 41/42 Food, drink and tobacco

  100

  102

  102

  107

  115

  115

  116

  115

  Class 43 Textile Industry

  100

  114

  115

  120

  128

  130

  132

  138

  Class 44 Leather and leather goods

  100

  105

  105

  109

  111

  121

  115

  122

  Class 45 Footwear and clothing industries

  100

  114

  113

  114

  124

  123

  123

  133

  Class 46 Timber and Wooden Furniture

  100

  105

  107

  118

  119

  112

  115

  114

  Class 47 Paper, printing and publishing

  100

  107

  102

  104

  113

  112

  111

  118

  Class 48 Processing of rubber and plastics

  100

  116

  124

  134

  139

  147

  148

  154

  Class 49 Other manufacturing industries

  100

  116

  92

  92

  95

  93

  94

  111

  Ratio 2 (Imports (Home Demand plus Exports)) 1980 = 100

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Divisions 2–4 Manufacturing industries

  100

  105

  111

  120

  127

  129

  130

  133

  Division 2 Ores, metals, chemicals and non-fuel minerals

  100

  98

  105

  112

  122

  123

  120

  122

  Class 21 Extraction and preparation of metalliferous ores

  100

  99

  98

  99

  96

  98

  —

  —

  Class 22 Metal manufacturing

  100

  85

  96

  103

  120

  123

  122

  125

  Class 23 Extraction of minerals nes

  100

  97

  137

  147

  147

  152

  134

  127

  Class 24 Non-metallic mineral products

  100

  102

  110

  126

  139

  142

  173

  182

  Class 25 Chemical industry

  100

  108

  116

  123

  132

  132

  135

  138

  Class 26 Production of man-made fibres

  100

  118

  134

  131

  127

  133

  138

  141

  Division 3 Metal goods, engineering and vehicles

  100

  108

  117

  130

  136

  138

  141

  142

  Class 31 Metal goods nes

  100

  98

  110

  117

  128

  140

  147

  158

  Class 32 Mechanical engineering

  100

  105

  108

  120

  126

  131

  134

  142

  Class 33 Office Machinery and data processing equipment

  100

  108

  116

  119

  113

  104

  106

  100

  Class 34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  100

  117

  126

  136

  142

  146

  146

  154

  Class 35 Motor vehicles and parts

  100

  107

  126

  144

  140

  140

  147

  137

  Class 36 Other Transport Equipment

  100

  97

  90

  94

  106

  104

  97

  90

  370
  proposals of the EEC Commission to curb the import of Japanese cars; if the issue will be determined by majority vote; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Commission has not yet put forward proposals for future policy towards imports of Japanese cars into the Community. If and when it does so, the Government will study the proposals carefully.

  Imports
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, using 1980 as the base year, he will publish an index of the degree of import penetration in each major industrial grouping for each subsequent year, using both of the ratios normally used to measure such penetration.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:
  371

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Class 37 Instrument Engineering

  100

  111

  108

  114

  120

  121

  118

  121

  Division 4 Other manufacturing industries

  100

  107

  107

  113

  121

  120

  122

  126

  Classes 41–42 Food, drink and tobacco

  100

  102

  102

  107

  115

  114

  116

  114

  Class 43 Textile Industry

  100

  115

  118

  126

  134

  134

  137

  143

  Class 44 Leather and leather goods

  100

  107

  105

  109

  109

  118

  114

  117

  Class 45 Footwear and clothing industries

  100

  114

  115

  116

  126

  123

  125

  133

  Class 46 Timber and Wooden Furniture

  100

  106

  108

  119

  120

  113

  117

  116

  Class 47 Paper, printing and publishing

  100

  107

  102

  105

  114

  112

  111

  118

  Class 48 Processing of rubber and plastics

  100

  116

  125

  137

  143

  150

  153

  159

  Class 49 Other manufacturing industries

  100

  117

  99

  100

  102

  99

  102

  116

  West Lancashire District Council
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total amount awarded to firms in the West Lancashire district council area in regional development grants and regional selective assistance in 1987–88;

  (2) how many regional development grants and grants of regional selective assistance were made to firms in the West Lancashire district council area in 1987–88.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:

  RDG1

  RSA4

  Number

  1652

  15

  Value (£ million)3

  6·1

  1·1

  1 Data are only available for the revised RDG scheme, introduced on 29 November 1984.

  2 Approvals.

  3 Amount expected to be paid if the projects proceed as planned.

  4 Offers of industrial grants.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will bring up to date the figures on direct investment in manufacturing in table 9 of the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the financial and economic consequences of United Kingdom membership of the European Communities (page 25 of HC57-II Session 1984–85).

  Mr. Maude
  The available information is given in the tables:

  United Kingdom net direct investment in manufacturing in the EC1 2

  Table 9

  United Kingdom inward direct investment in manufacturing

  United Kingdom outward direct investment in manufacturing

  Net outward investment in manufacturing

  1960

  4

  21

  17

  1961

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1962

  -2

  16

  18

  1963

  4

  24

  19

  1964

  12

  22

  9

  1965

  10

  15

  6

  1966

  4

  35

  30

  1967

  37

  16

  -22

  1968

  16

  47

  32

  1969

  23

  99

  76

  1970

  38

  74

  37

  1971

  26

  191

  165

  1972

  17

  128

  111

  19733

  29

  299

  270

  1974

  28

  196

  168

  1975

  33

  118

  85

  1976

  86

  302

  217

  372

  United Kingdom inward direct investment in manufacturing

  United Kingdom outward direct investment in manufacturing

  Net outward investment in manufacturing

  1977

  109

  352

  243

  1978

  121

  326

  205

  1979

  104

  114

  11

  1980

  -91

  161

  253

  1981

  57

  443

  386

  1982

  -66

  163

  229

  1983

  201

  257

  56

  1984

  219

  305

  86

  1985

  100

  687

  587

  1986

  161

  777

  616

  1 Figures for 1960–1963 exclude oil companies.

  2 EC includes Denmark, Irish Republic, Greece, Spain and Portugal in all years.

  3 United Kingdom joined EC.

  Source: Overseas Transactions Inquiry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the causes of the fall in the unit value of imports of finished manufactures in terms of the pound sterling in May; and what effect this has had on the volume of imports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The type of assessment sought by the hon. Member is hardly appropriate to a movement over such a short period.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany, (c) Japan, (d) France, (e) Italy and (f) the United States of America information on imports of finished manufactures as a percentage to one place of decimals (i) gross product and (ii) manufacturing output in 1986 and in 1987; and if he will provide the same information for exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Data on international trade in finished manufactures and on manufacturing output are not available on a common basis, and no valid comparison is possible. Information on imports and exports of finished manufactures in relation to gross domestic product is in the following table:

  Trade in Finished Manufactures1 as a Proportion of Gross Domestic Product

  Per cent

  Imports

  Exports

  1986

  1987

  1986

  1987

  United Kingdom

  10·4

  10·9

  9·1

  9·7

  Federal Republic of Germany

  8·6

  8·8

  15·9

  15·1

  Japan2

  1·1

  1·3

  8·4

  7·7

  France2

  7·5

  8·2

  7·4

  7·5

  Italy2

  5·2

  5·7

  9·5

  9·2

  United States of America

  5·2

  5·5

  2·7

  2·9

  373
  1 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 7 and 8.

  2 Imports, but not exports, valued inclusive of insurance and freight charges.

  Sources: OECD, National sources.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the change in the volume of imports of finished manufactures in the latest three months; what was the average change per month for 1987; what assessment he has made of the causes of the change; and what further change he anticipates as a result of the increase in the real exchange rate for the pound sterling since the fourth quarter of 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The volume of imports of finished manufactures rose by 11 per cent, between the first and second quarters of 1988. The average monthly rate in 1987 was + 1 per cent.

  There are of course many factors which may lead to a rise in import volume, such as a strong and growing economy, but no formal assessment of these various factors has been made by my Department.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the United Kingdom share of the volume of trade in manufacturers by the main manufacturing countries in each quarter of 1986 and 1987; what is his forecast of the share in the first two quarters of the current year; and what assessment he has made of the causes of the changes in the trend.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Department does not make such forecasts. Data for 1986 and 1987 are in the following table.

  United Kingdom volume share of main manufacturing countries' exports of manufactures

  (1980 prices)

  United Kingdom share

  Per cent.

  1986

  1

  8·8

  2

  9·2

  3

  9·0

  4

  9·7

  1987

  1

  9·6

  2

  9·4

  3

  9·6

  4

  9·6

  The figures suggest that the volume share of the United Kingdom has remained broadly stable over this period.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much he expects investment by manufacturing industry in new plant and machinery to exceed allowances for depreciation in the current year; and if he will give comparable figures for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Atkins
  No assessment has been made for the current year. 1986 is the most recent year for which figures of net domestic fixed capital formation are available. Details for the 10 years 1977–1986 are shown in the following table:374

  Net domestic fixed capital formation (NDCF) in plant and machinery hy manufacturing industry 1977–1986

  (at 1980 prices)

  Year

  NDCF in plant and machinery £ million

  Year

  NDCF in plant and machinery £ million

  1977

  1,122

  1982

  -570

  1978

  1,297

  1983

  -588

  1979

  1,477

  1984

  90

  1980

  879

  1985

  763

  1981

  -385

  1986

  336

  Note: Figures include assets leased to manufacturers from the financial industries.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Hourly Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effect changes in hourly earnings in the internationally tradeable goods industries have had on the level of competitiveness since the fourth quarter of 1986.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Earnings: in manufacturing increased by 8·4 per cent, between the fourth quarters of 1986 and 1987, a larger increase than in most competitor countries. Rising productivity offset much of the increase in earnings in the United Kingdom, but in some of our major competitors, unit labour costs fell.

  Airbus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the written reply dated 6 May 1987,Official Report, column 417, on aid to Airbus Industrie, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to satisfy themselves that the projects have sound prospects of economic and commercial viability; whether they expect to earn a market rate of interest on the loan throughout its life; and when they expect to receive a real rate of return on its investment, including a return on any interest forgone.

  Mr. Atkins
  Before agreeing to provide British Aerospace with launch aid in respect of the Airbus A320 and A330/340 programmes, the Government undertook a detailed appraisal of the economic and commercial prospects of the programmes. Details of these appraisals, and of the rates of return and repayment profiles of launch aid contracts must remain commercially confidential between the Government and the company.

  Companies Act Inquiries
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his Department's record in completing inquiries under section 432, section 466 and section 442 of the Companies Act; if he has any proposals to speed them up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  A number of representations have been received in the past about the length of time taken by inspectors appointed in major Companies Act investigations to complete their inquiries. As my right hon. and noble Friend announced on 11 May, a review of existing investigation powers and procedures was conducted in 1987 with a view to ensuring that investigations are
  375
  undertaken as effectively and as quickly as is compatible with a fair inquiry and, as a result of that review, a number of new measures were announced.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) when he expects his inquiries under section 432 of the Companies Act into the Animal Defence Society Limited to be completed;

  (2) when he expects his inquiries into Bremner plc under section 442 of the Companies Act to be completed;

  (3) when he expects his inquiries under section 442 of the Companies Act into Consolidated Gold Fields plc to be completed;

  (4) when he expects his inquiries into Pennine Commercial Holdings Limited under section 432 of the Companies Act to be completed;

  (5) when he expects his inquiries into Bank Street Securities Limited under section 432 of the Companies Act to be completed;

  (6) when he expects his inquiries into Link Service Stations Limited under section 432 of the Companies Act to be completed;

  (7) when he expects his inquiries into Graylaw Holdings Limited under section 432 of the Companies Act to be completed;

  (8) when he expects his inquiries in Signal Life Assurance Co., Ltd. under section 432 of the Companies Act to be completed;

  (9) when he expects his inquiries into WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd. under section 432 of the Companies Act to be completed;

  (10) when he expects the inquiries under section 432 of the Companies Act into Minet Holdings to be completed;

  (11) when he expects the inquiries into Guinness plc under sections 437 and 442 of the Companies Act to report.

  Mr. Maude
  The investigations into the companies mentioned continue, and I am unable to say when they will be completed.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects his inquiries into Sumrie Clothes plc under section 466 and section 442 of the Companies Acts to be completed.

  Mr. Maude
  The inspectors were appointed under sections 442 and 446 of the Companies Act 1985. They submitted their report to the Secretary of State on 11 July, and it is currently being considered.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the inquiries under section 432 of the Companies Act into House of Fraser Holdings plc to be completed.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive the report of the inspectors studying the circumstances in which House of Fraser and Harrods were acquired; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) yesterday.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Duchy of Lancaster if he will now implement section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979.
  376
  Mr. Forth
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Stainless Steel (Competition)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy that before British Steel is privatised, the current anti-competitive policies in relation to stainless steel practised by the Sendzinir Club will be revoked.

  Mr. Atkins
  Alleged violations of European Community competition rules are a matter for the European Commission. The Commission is currently investigating allegations of anti-competitive arrangements among certain European producers of stainless cold rolled flat products, but has not yet made its findings known.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply of 18 July,Official Report, column 446, for what purpose he proposes to exchange documents with the European Commission in relation to the Rover Group after the company has been transferred to full private ownership.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are required, as a condition of the state aid approval, to supply six-monthly reports to enable the Commission to monitor the implementation of Rover Group's corporate plan.

  Bosphorus Bridge
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much financial assistance he has offered to provide to the Trafalgar House-led consortium in connection with its bid to win the contract for the third Bosphorus bridge.

  Mr. Alan Clarke
  The extent of financial assistance by the Department of Trade and Industry to companies pursuing major projects overseas must remain confidential between the company and the Department.

  Feature Films
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of feature films classified as British and produced in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Atkins
  Before the passing of the Films Act 1985, films released for public exhibition in cinemas had to be registered by my Department. The 1985 Act, however, removed these registration requirements with effect from 23 May 1985, and there are no official statistics of films since that date. The information available on British feature films (that is, those with a playing time of over 72 minutes) is as follows

  Over 72 minutes

  1974

  78

  1975

  70

  1976

  64

  1977

  42

  377

  Over 72 minutes

  1978

  51

  1979

  40

  1980

  41

  1981

  32

  1982

  29

  1983

  36

  1984

  37

  11985

  18

  1To 23 May.

  Industrial Research and Development
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures are being undertaken by his Department to encourage industrial research and development expenditure in the regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have created the right climate to enable industry to invest more in research and development in all parts of the United Kingdom. Within my Department's enterprise initiative, particular attention is given to the needs of the regions. In the assisted areas and urban programme areas, support of up to two thirds of the cost of consultancy projects is available, rather than half elsewhere. We have also introduced a special scheme—regional enterprise grants—to help firms in the development areas, with fewer than 25 employees, to finance their innovation projects and have expanded SMART (small firms merit award for research and technology), reserving 20 awards for the urban programme areas. Applications for this year are currently being assessed.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about preparations for competing in Europe in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  Over 80 per cent, of British businesses are now aware of the 1992 target date for completing the single European market. This is an excellent base from which to launch the next stage of DTI's "Europe Open for Business" campaign to encourage action in firms throughout the country to prepare for the single market.

  Engineering Industry
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the engineering industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  I have not yet had the opportunity to meet representatives of the engineering industry in my new capacity.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of Department programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Forth
  Evaluation of departmental programmes is carried out principally by specialist staff and consultants.378
  Many of the staff concerned are also engaged on other work, so it is not possible to give precise figures for the cost of evaluation. The following figures give an approximate indication:

  £

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  DTI specialist staff

  440,000

  440,000

  430,000

  Consultants

  109,000

  52,000

  131,000

  Total

  549,000

  492,000

  561,000

  These figures do not take account of the contribution to evaluation of staff concerned with programme management in the relevant line divisions, or of the cost of consultancy studies financed from line divisions' budgets. Such costs, and costs for years before 1985–86, cannot be separately identified without disproportionate cost.

  My Department does not have a separate allocation of funds for evaluation work. The objective is for evaluation generally not to cost more than 0·5 per cent, of the total expenditure of the programme under evaluation. The proportion of total expenditure for which my Department has policy responsibility, represented by the above figures is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  0·03

  1986–87

  0·02

  1987–88

  0·05

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has received a report from the Securities and Investments Board on the exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the board's report, made in accordance with section 117 of the Act. The report covers the period from 1 April 1987 to 30 June 1988.

  Export Credits Guarantees
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the accounting treatment of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's comprehensive external trade and comprehensive bank guarantee facilities.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The comprehensive external trade facility insured United Kingdom companies trading in goods shipped directly from one overseas country to another on short terms of payment. It was discontinued in July 1987 because losses accumulated on confirming house business and no viable basis could be found for continuing cover for that sector. Cover for multi-sourcing business of manufacturers and merchants continues to be available under the comprehensive short term facility.

  The comprehensive bank guarantee facility, which guaranteed banks against non-repayment of advances made to exporters in respect of insured short-term export contracts, was discontinued in October 1985, as the original need for the scheme no longer existed and demand had fallen because alternative sources of such finance were

  379
  available to viable companies. Residual claims payments and recovery action are likely to continue on the facility for several years.

  At 31 March 1987, the ECGD had incurred cumulative cash flow deficits of £135·8 million (CBG) and £340·0 million (CET). These figures include notional interest on the borrowings from the Consolidated Fund. These deficits would continue to grow at an accelerating rate as notional interest accrued, thereby becoming a burden on the ECGD's other trading activities. It has therefore been decided that these facilities should properly be accounted for as public expenditure programmes and the losses incurred to date written out of the ECGD's trading account. The transfer will not affect the Government's aim to. minimise the ultimate losses on the facilities.

  The necessary changes will be made in the ECGD's 1987–88 trading accounts. Their precise effect will not be known until those accounts have been finalised, but the best current estimate is that reserves reported at 31 March 1987 will be increased by £360 million, reflecting trading losses accumulated in previous years. Retrospective adjustments to public expenditure for the years 1982–83 to 1988–89 will be made as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  58·0

  1983–84

  45·6

  1984–85

  84·7

  1985–86

  36·8

  1986–87

  17·7

  1987–88

  112·7

  1988–89

  2-4·4

  1 provisional.

  2 estimate.

  These figures represent the net annual cash payments to exporters. They do not include notional interest, administration expenses and accrued income and expenditure.

  Trade Descriptions
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 and the successor arrangements will come into force.

  Mr. Forth
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft order to bring into force section 48(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which repeals the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. Subject to parliamentary approval, the repeal of the 1972 Act will come into force on 31 December 1988.

  Net central Government expenditure on R and D—social science and humanities and total £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Social Science and Humanities

  214·7

  214·5

  223·8

  236·6

  236·9

  TOTAL

  3,689·8

  3,986·9

  4,262·7

  4,575·7

  4,589·2

  Satellite Television (Dish Installations)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he has received any representations on the safety implications of faulty installations of roof-top dishes capable of receiving television programmes broadcast by satellite; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to introduce a licensing system for installers of roof-top dishes capable of receiving television programmes broadcast by satellite; and if he will make a statement.
  380
  We propose to replace the 1972 Act with an order under section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which would require an indication of the place of production of goods to be given if the goods are presented in such a way that potential purchasers are likely to be misled about where the goods were produced. Consultations on a draft order for this purpose were carried out earlier this year.

  In the light of the responses to the consultation, a number of amendments designed to clarify and strengthen the draft order have been made. In particular, the core provision of the order (article 2(1)) have been simplified; a requirement to indicate country of production if the place of origin could be misleading has been introduced; and the provisions dealing with the use of trade marks and language have been redrafted to make it clear that these factors are to be taken into account in assessing whether the presentation of goods is misleading as to their origin but they are not by themselves necessarily to be regarded as indicative of origin. These amendments should ensure that the order provides effective protection against misleading indications of origin.

  Copies of the revised draft Trade Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order have been placed in the Libraries.

  As required by section 38 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968,1 shall tomorrow advertise formally in the press and the London and Edinburgh Gazettes my intention to make this order. A period of at least 28 days during which representations may be made must then elapse before the order can be made. This will allow us to lay the final order before Parliament in good time before the necessary debates on the draft commencement order takes place.

  Research and Development
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total expenditure over the past five years by Her Majesty's Government on research and development; what has been the total expenditure on social science research; and what figures he has for other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: The available information relates to central Government expenditure, net of receipts, on research and development in total and on R and D for social science and humanities. Comparable information from international sources is not available. The information is given in the table:

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: I am aware of no such representations. The industry operates a code of practice on the installation of satellite dishes, and I see no need to introduce a licensing system.

  It is a criminal offence to supply goods which do not comply with the general safety requirement imposed by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and where a defective dish or faulty installation gives rise to damage or injury there may be grounds for a claim for damages for negligence or for breach of contract.

  Steel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing the number of employees employed by the British Steel Corporation in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England in (i) 1979, (ii) 1982, (iii) 1985 and (iv) June 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The following table gives the total number employed by the British Steel Corporation at the end of September for the 1979, 1985 and for 1987, the latest date at which the total was broken down as follows:

  1979

  1982

  1985

  1987

  Scotland

  18,970

  11,250

  7,970

  6,110

  Wales

  50,630

  22,310

  19,060

  18,610

  England

  114,040

  58,550

  37,130

  26,680

  The average weekly number of employees in the United Kingdom as a whole was 53,720 during the financial year 1987–88.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the organisations which have submitted a bid to take over the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [pursuant to the reply, 25 July 1988, c. 23.]; I can now disclose that bids and proposals were received on 22 July from:

  The Management of NEL

  Production Engineering Research Association (PERA)

  British Maritime Technology Group

  British Hydro-Mechanics Research Association (BHRA) joint with Strathclyde University

  YARD (a subsidiary of CAP Group plc)

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  RAPRA Ltd. (a proposal also involving other companies)

  SGS Moore Barrett and Redwood Limited

  A partial bid for the Internal Combustion Engines Development Unit of NEL from the staff there.

  Initial Training
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Worsley of 20 July, he will now list in the Official Report all exempted categories of persons in the Manpower Services Commission initial training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Further to my reply to the hon. Member on 20 July, the Training Commission is planning to introduce initial training as part of YTS, to provide a short period of preparation and assessment for young people who are not ready to enter a vocational training course, and need help to overcome special problems.

  There are no predetermined categories of young people who would be excluded from initial training and anyone will be eligible if it is considered that they will benefit from this training provision.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid to Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on 11 July 1988 at column 10. Since that date, in view of the serious plight of Sudanese and Somali refugees in Ethiopia, we have made available additional relief assistance totalling £444,000, together with a further contribution of £1·5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In addition to relief aid, we provide technical co-operation and famine rehabilitation, currently running at around £1·5 million a year.

  Southern Africa (Front-line States)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards aid to the front-line states in southern Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 July, at column 503.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total United Kingdom bilateral aid given to the whole of sub-Saharan Africa in each year from 1979 to the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Gross bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa 1979 to 87

  £ thousand

  1979

  212,504

  1980

  243,894

  1981

  278,706

  1982

  234,760

  1983

  225,899

  1984

  249,808

  1985

  285,497

  1986

  267,489

  1987

  283,720

  Poverty Alleviation
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much, and what proportion of the British aid programme in 1986 was spent directly on poverty alleviation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am currently reviewing the extent of our activities on direct poverty alleviation. The conclusions of this review will be available in the autumn.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the phased programme of surveys of staff being carried out by and within the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department, respectively; what are the
  383
  phases and when each will be completed; and whether on completion he will place copies of such results in the Library.

  The Solicitor-General
  Both Departments have completed their programme of surveys of ethnic origins of serving staff. Results of east and west midlands, north-west and Avon, and London and the south-east have been published by the Cabinet Office and copies are in the Library.

  Recruitment Schemes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what surveys of applicants have been carried out in recruitment schemes by the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department, respectively, in respect of the sex and race of applicants and of those appointed; and with what results.

  The Solicitor-General
  Since the beginning of this year, applicants in all local recruitment schemes carried out by the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department have been asked to complete an ethnic origin form. This information is being analysed on a servicewide basis by the Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister for the Civil Service).

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he proposes to take any positive action measures in accordance with the code of the Commission of Racial Equality by reason of there being at present no black or Asian members of staff in the Law Officers' Department.

  The Solicitor-General
  All members of staff in the Law Officers' Department are seconded from other Government Departments, who recruit in accordance with the code of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality. The Law Officers' Department has no recruitment function.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how many new entrants to the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Department, respectively, were from ethnic minority groups in the year ended 31 May.

  The Solicitor-General
  In the year ending 31 May 1988, of those new entrants to the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Department who responded to the ethnic origin survey, the numbers who were from ethnic minority groups were 83 and eight respectively.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.

  The Solicitor-General
  There are no such bodies or organisations under the aegis of the Attorney-General.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the full result of the survey of ethnic origin of staff to become available; and whether he will then place a copy in the Library.
  384
  The Solicitor-General
  The results of the survey are being collated and analysed by the Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister for the Civil Service) on a servicewide basis.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Attorney-General how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of Department programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  The Solicitor-General
  The process of evaluation of my Department's programmes is part of the work itself. It is therefore not possible to identify separately the resources involved.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 9 June, when we discussed various issues affecting the dairy industry.

  Farming Unions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the farming unions; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I meet representatives of the farming unions frequently to discuss agriculture matters. I last met members of the National Farmers Union on the 11 July, when we discussed sheepmeat and beef.

  Agriculture Ministers (Meetings)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his counterparts from the other European Community states; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met my counterparts from other European Community states at the Agriculture Council on 18–19 July. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverly (Mr. Cran) on Wednesday 20 July, at columns 633–34.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as the written reply of 7 July, Official Report, columns 751–52, 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.
  385
  Mr. MacGregor
  For receipts in respect of programme expenditure I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 July 1988, at columns 751–52. Receipts in respect of running costs expenditure for which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility are given in the table. In no year did receipts in respect of running costs included in other Government Departments' running costs exceed £ ½ million.

  Running costs receipts

  1982–83 outturn

  8

  1983–84 outturn

  8

  1984–85 outturn

  9

  1985–86 outturn

  9

  1986–87 outturn

  10

  1987–88 outturn

  20

  1988–89 plans

  23

  1989–90 plans

  29

  1990–91 plans

  31

  Note: Figures for the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce are de minimis.

  The Forestry Commission has no running costs receipts.

  EC (Membership Consequences)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the figures in table D of the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the financial and economic consequences of United Kingdom membership of the European Communities (page 67 of HC57-II Session 1984–85).

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information will take some time to prepare. I shall write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the figures in annex V of the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Treasury and Civil

  Yields of selected agricultural products: 1986

  United States of America

  Japan

  Australia

  Canada

  Wheat (tonne/ha)

  2·31

  3·57

  1·55

  2·24

  Barley (tonne/ha)

  2·74

  3·21

  1·55

  30·3

  Sugar beet (tonne/ha)

  51·29

  53·99

  n.a.

  42·00

  Oilseed rape (tonne/ha)

  n.a.

  1·68

  1·12

  1·40

  Potatoes (tonne/ha)

  32·69

  29·23

  25·22

  25·12

  Milk (kg/cow)

  6,048·00

  5,000·00

  3,395·00

  4,837·00

  Source: FAO Production Year Book.

  n.a.—not available.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report the highest recorded price per 1,000 litres on the sale of a United Kingdom milk quota, the capital value in terms of a cow with a representative milk yield and a representative price for the cow itself.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Ministry does not collect this information.
  386
  Service Committee on the financial and economic consequences of United Kingdom membership of the European Communities (pages 53–4 of HC57-II Session 1984–85).

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the figures in tables 4(e)2 and 4(e)3 of the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the financial and economic consequences of United Kingdom membership of the European Communities (pages 37 to 38 of HC57-II Session 1984–85).

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The most recent information corresponding to that in table 4(e)2 is set out in the Commission publication "The Agricultural Situation in the Community—1987 Report", page T/38. Table 4(e)3 is updated by the Eurostat publication "Agricultural Income 1987", page 98. Copies of these publications are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the figures in table 4(e) 1 including figures for Spain and Portugal, of the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the financial and economic consequences of United Kingdom membership of the European Communities (pages 35–36 of HC57-II Session 1984–85)

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information on yields of agricultural products in the European Community is contained in the Commission publication "The Agricultural Situation in the Community—1987 Report", pp T/168, T/169, T/188, T/193, T/221 and T/282. A copy is in the Library of the House. The latest readily available information for the non-Community countries is shown in the table.

  Cotton
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the years 1985 to 1987 and the estimate for the current year the guide and minimum prices for cotton under the common agricultural policy, the average world price, the cost of support to the EEC budget, the tonnage qualifying under the arrangement and the amount of aid per tonne, and production imports and exports of cotton in the EEC.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is contained in the table. Institutional prices and rates of aid,
  387
  as laid down in the EC regime for cotton, relate to cotton in the unginned state. Estimates for the current year are given where available.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Guide price1 (ECU/100 kg)

  96·02

  96·02

  96·02

  96·02

  Minimum price1 2 (ECU/100 kg) before adjustment under MGQ system

  91·23

  91·23

  91·23

  91·23

  Average world price (approximately)1 3 (ECU/100 kg)

  29·00

  28·00

  29·00

  Aid payable1 2 (by weighted average) before adjustment under MGQ system (ECU/100 kg)

  63·22

  70·1

  65·3

  Quantity in receipt1 2 of aid (tonnes) (In effect, EC production)

  561,555

  947,000

  4870,000

  Imports of cotton into the EEC (ginned; tonnes) Source: Nimexe

  808,166 (EC of 10)

  1,054,536

  1,119,309

  Exports of cotton from the EC (ginned, tonnes) Source: Nimexe

  46,425

  24,343

  56,742

  EC expenditure on 1 aid (in million ECU)

  355

  587

  519

  1 Prices, aid and quantities are for the marketing year beginning in the year of harvest, and relate to a standard quality.

  2 Production in excess of the maximum guaranteed quantity attracts a proportionate reduction in rates of aid and minimum price and possible reduction in the MGQ the following year. In 1986/87 marketing year the deduction was 8 ECU/100 kg (approximately) and in 1987/88 it was 5·761 ECU/100 kg.

  3 World prices are for unginned cotton and are calculated from recorded prices for ginned cotton.

  4 Provisionally estimated.

  Agricultural Production
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his estimate of the contribution to agricultural production of each of the four categories of holding, by size of business, given in table 4 of the annual review (Cm. 299).

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is given in paragraph 6 (page 2) and table 4 of the "Annual Review of Agriculture 1988" (Cm. 299).

  SOEC Index (Statistics)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the SOEC index of real agricultural net value added at factor cost per person engaged in British agriculture in each of the years 1984–87 based on 1979–81 = 100.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The latest available estimates are:

  Number

  1984

  119·1

  1985

  96·8

  1986

  103·8

  1987

  100·8

  These estimates are shown in table A. 18 (page 89) of the Eurostat publication "Agricultural Incomes 1987", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Farmgate Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average farmgate price in the United Kingdom for the principal common agricultural policy products in 1987; what was the average price in real terms in 1967–68 to 1970–71; and if he will state the quantities produced in each period.
  388
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Support Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total cost of EEC/Exchequer support for United Kingdom agriculture per acre of arable crops and per head of cattle, sheep and pigs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Expenditure in the United Kingdom on market regulation under the CAP (excluding structural measures) in 1987–88 was:

  Expenditure

  Arable crops1

  £87/ha

  Cattle

  £50/head

  Sheep

  £7/head

  Pigs2

  -£0·2/head

  1 Excludes grasses more than four years old and rough grazing.

  2 Receipts from MCA levies on exports of pigmeat exceed expenditure.

  Source: "Annual Review of Agriculture 1988" (Cm. 299)—tables 3 and 34.

  Supply Estimates
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will describe the net effects on Supply Estimates of the decisions on agricultural prices for 1988–89.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The voted provision of £558·855 million for the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce is not expected to be reached. Since the Supply Estimates were prepared a number of changes have taken place in market prices, levels of production, exchange rates and trade volume. These changes, which include a revised reassessment of the effects of earlier policy measures, are substantially greater than the £9·5 million estimated net Exchequer cost of the price decisions. The settlement of the
  389
  price negotiations (including changes to market management measures to offset the cost to the Community budget) is forecast to add £12·968 million to expenditure, mainly because of the devaluation of the green pound. Additional receipts are forecast at £3·464 million. These forecasts allow for a delay in Community funding of approximately two months (so that additional expenditure incurred after January will not be reimbursed until the 1989–90 financial year) and for the fact that the new cane sugar refining aid agreed as part of the price fixing is only partly funded by the Community.

  A token winter Supplementary Estimate will be submitted seeking parliamentary approval for the provision of the cane sugar refining aid.

  Food Aid
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the list of organisations designated to participate in the European Community free food scheme; and what advice he is circulating on the distribution of such food.

  Original budget (excluding supplementary budgets)

  Supplementary budget

  Outturn

  Notional United Kingdom contribution

  United Kingdom receipts

  Conversion rate

  mua

  mua

  mua

  mua

  mua

  1 ua = £

  1973

  3,263

  —

  3,786

  333

  152

  0·416667

  1974

  3,839

  —

  3,228

  355

  279

  0·416667

  1975

  4,306

  —

  4,914

  668

  848

  0·416667

  1976

  5,490

  717

  5,793

  939

  517

  0·416667

  1977

  6,581

  934

  6,964

  1,340

  422

  0·416667

  mecu

  mecu

  mecu

  mecu

  mecu

  1 ecu = £

  1978

  9,131

  —

  9,000

  1,386

  480

  0·663759

  1979

  10,022

  725

  10,880

  1,904

  593

  0·649236

  1980

  11,878

  —

  11,943

  2,484

  941

  0·605540

  1981

  13,401

  -1,070

  11,581

  2,490

  1,198

  0·556891

  1982

  14,533

  —

  13,077

  3,165

  1,357

  0·557801

  1983

  14,786

  1,763

  16,637

  3,677

  1,849

  0·586581

  1984

  17,288

  1,848

  19,092

  4,166

  2,244

  0·583969

  1985

  20,755

  —

  20,549

  4,011

  2,016

  0·588051

  1986

  23,104

  —

  23,028

  3,340

  2,074

  0·647851

  19871

  24,174

  -73

  23,996

  n.a.

  1,839

  0·719320

  19882

  29,003

  —

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  0·671141

  19893

  30,153

  —

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  0·671141

  Source: EC budgets, EAGGF financial reports, EC Court of Auditors reports, implementation of the budget reports.

  Notes: Before 1978, Community expenditure was expressed in units of account. As this unit had a different basis from the present ecu the figures for 1973–77 are not directly comparable with those for later years.

  1 Covers expenditure on market support for first 10 months only.

  2 Covers expenditure on market support from November 1987 to 15 October 1988. In addition, the budget contains provision of 1,240 mecu for depreciation of old stocks and a monetary reserve of 1,000 mecu.

  3 Covers expenditure on market support from 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989. In addition the PDB contains 640 mecu for depreciation of old stocks, 800 mecu for reimbursement of butter disposals in 1987–88 and a monetary reserve of 1,000 mecu.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report a revision of the table on pp 38–39 of Cm. 288-II to take account of what was agreed at the European Economic Community summit meeting on financing the European Economic Community budget and the current year's budget settlement, together with (a) a note of any other significant consequential changes in the forecast of his Department's expenditure and (b) a forecast for this year's expenditure on common agricultural policy support on the same basis as in table 4.7 on page 44.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 2 July 1988]: Revised figures for planned expenditure on agriculture, taking account of the European Council's agreement, will be
  390
  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State to my hon. Friend for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on 21 April, at column 566.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the information on the EEC agricultural budget and outturn given in his written reply dated 7 May 1986,Official Report, column 176; and if he will include the supplementary budgets, the conversion factor for the pound sterling, the United Kingdom contribution and receipts and his forecasts for 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information requested is set out in the table. The United Kingdom contributes to the budget as a whole rather than to individual components, so the figures shown for the United Kingdom contribution are notional.

  published in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. The estimated expenditure on CAP market support for 1988–89 is set out in the Supply Estimates, class IV, vote I.

  Cattle and Sheep (Prices)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish target prices for cattle and sheep for January 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I published the target price scale for the beef variable premium scheme and the seasonal scale of weekly guide prices for the sheep variable price scheme on 22 July. The tables published included figures for January 1989, but, as explained in the press notices,
  391
  those for beef are provisional and depend upon the extension of the existing BVPS after its expiry at the end of 1988, while those for sheep will be reduced in due course by the operation of the 1989 sheepmeat stabiliser, the level of which is still to be decided by the EC Commission.

  Silage and Slurry Facilities
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will introduce to provide for the regular safety inspections of new, existing and extended silage and slurry facilities.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Responsibility for farm safety rests with the Health and Safety Executive. During the course of its regular routine visits and inspections, HSE's agricultural inspectorate examines all aspects of health and safety including, where appropriate, machinery systems and plant such as slurry stores, silage tanks, and so on.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The process of evaluation of my Department's programmes is part of the work itself. It is therefore not possible to identify separately the resources involved.

  Export Refunds
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he will compensate exporters of agricultural and food products for the extra costs they have incurred as a result of the current year's delays in export refund payments by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regret that export refund payments have been subject to particular delays since the new Customs and Community documentation came into effect at the beginning of this year as a result of the intervention board's associated computer problems. I recognise that these delays have meant additional costs for many traders, especially when they have extended beyond the period of two months, which I am advised is reasonable by analogy with the express provisions of Community law relating to monetary compensatory amounts. I have therefore authorised the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce to pay compensation at a varying rate equal to base rate plus one point on export refund claims, including exporter pays MCAs where applicable, paid on or after 1 January 1988 after an interval of more than two months from the day of deposit with Her Majesty's Customs or the board of sufficient supporting documents. The compensation will be paid on the net amount due after appropriate charges on the claim such as MCA levies have been taken into account. Parliamentary approval for payments will be sought in a winter Supplementary Supply Estimate for IBAP's market support vote (class IV, vote 1). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at up to £5 million will be 392
  met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Details of the arrangements will be announced by the intervention board as son as possible, with the first payments under the scheme being expected to be made in the autumn.

  Plant Variety Testing and Seed Certification
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make it his policy that no decision will be taken in the parliamentary summer recess on the recommendations in the report on plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I cannot give such an undertaking.

  River Pollution
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he has yet received the report from the Anglian water authority regarding the effect of the extension of the Southend on Sea sewage outfall on the quality of river water generally; and whether there has been any increase in levels of pollution off Canvey Island's beaches;

  (2) if he will detail the arrangements for continuous monitoring of all sewage outfalls and beaches in the Thames estuary.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply he received on 22 July from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, at column 857.

PRIME MINISTER

  Middle East
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the middle east in the near future.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to stop over briefly in the Gulf on the way to and from Australia, but have no plans at present to pay an official visit.

  Scotland
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Scotland during the summer recess.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Maidstone
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to pay an official visit to Maidstone.

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

  Invoices (Payment)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister what action is being taken by Government Departments to ensure that invoices are paid promptly, especially where the debt is owed to a small business.
  393
  The Prime Minister
  Government Departments are advised in "Government Accounting" that payment should be made as soon as possible after authorisation, subject to Departments taking, at their discretion, advantage of any supplier credit. Departments should not postpone payment to avoid an excess on a vote nor for any other reason. Copies of the booklet "Prompt Payment Please" prepared by the Department of Employment and a number of other organisations, which emphasises the need for fair dealing with small suppliers, have been sent by that Department to other Government Departments.

  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if, when she next meets the President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, she will raise the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) when she last discussed the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg with the Swedish Government; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions she has held with other EEC Heads of Government concerning the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) when she last discussed the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg with the Head of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Wallenberg's nationality is Swedish. His disappearance is therefore primarily for the Swedish Government to pursue. Since 1957, the Soviet authorities have said that Mr. Wallenberg died in prison in 1947.

  Over the years, there have been many reports that he was alive and in prison in the Soviet Union considerably later than that, but there has been no conclusive proof. We have frequently pressed the Soviet Union for a full account of Mr. Wallenberg's fate, and shall continue to do so as long as there is doubt as to whether he did in fact die, and if so, how. Increasing openness in Soviet society, particularly as regards matters of history, and indications that glasnost may possibly be extended to cover international tragedies such as the Katyn massacre, suggest that it may be possible before too long to establish the truth about Mr. Wallenberg.

  I have not discussed Mr. Wallenberg's fate with other EC Governments or with the Swedish Government. I know that there is widespread international interest in this tragic case, and I am sure that all concerned are as anxious as we are to find out the truth.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Amiss
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those Government measures of particular help for small businesses since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  In 1979 responsibility for the small firms sector resided with the Department of Industry. Responsibility was transferred from the amalgamated Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Employment on 3 September 1985. Government policy throughout has been to create a climate in which small firms can flourish and to tackle the particular disadvantages faced by people setting up a new business or wishing to expand an existing small firm.
  394
  The principal Government measures of particular help for small businesses include the small firms service which provides information and business counselling to new and established firms; the business improvement initiative launched by the DTI in January 1988 which offers access to specialised consultancy in a number of key business areas; the rural development commission, which provides advice and technical services to small firms in rural areas; a range of tax changes to improve the incentives and rewards for successful small business owners; the loan guarantee scheme introduced in 1981; the business expansion scheme introduced in 1983; the enterprise allowance scheme introduced in 1983; a range of training programmes operated by the Training Commission which take account of new and established small firms' business training needs.

  Mr. S. Clinton Davis
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the reasons for not renewing the nomination of Mr. S. Clinton Davis as a member of the European Commission; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have written to Mr. Clinton Davis expressing gratitude for his work as a member of the Commission and explaining that I thought as a general rule that people should not serve as commissioners for too long.

  European Council
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the responsibility for allocating responsibilities within the European Commission; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The allocation of portfolios is a matter for the Commission.

  EC Commissioners
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the salary, expenses, pension, period of office, and criteria for the appointment of a European Economic Community commissioner.

  The Prime Minister
  The basic annual salary of a commissioner is BFr 5,592,708 (at the present exchange rate about £86,000) with certain allowances payable depending on personal circumstances; travel and hotel expenses are paid on a reimbursement basis plus a subsistence allowable for travel; pensions are calculated at 4–5 per cent, of last annual salary per year of service. The period of office is four years.

  As to the criteria, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 20 July at column 607.

  Teachers (Pay Award)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors have determined the decision to award teachers a pay increase of(a) 4·25 per cent, in England and Wales and (b) 6 per cent, in Scotland; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The pay increase for teachers in England and Wales in 1988, which is worth about 4·75 per
  395
  cent, on average, resulted from a report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science implemented in full the committee's recommendations on pay. The pay increase of 6 per cent, in Scotland was conceded by the Scottish local authorities within the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made clear the Government's view that this settlement was excessive and unjustifiable.

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has anything to add to her statement of 28 April,Official Report, column 506, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, with specific reference to the current value in real terms of Members' salaries in relation to their salaries in 1964.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. In 1964, Members were required to pay for secretarial assistance from their own resources. Since 1969, the secretarial allowance has been available to defray the cost of secretarial expenses, and if this is taken into account Members are undoubtedly better off. In addition, parliamentary salaries will be increased by 6·9 per cent, from £22,548 to £24,107 from 1 January 1989 in accordance with the Resolution of 21 July 1987.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Legislation (Statistics)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the sponsors of private Members' Bills which have failed to complete their report stage in the House of Commons in each Session since 1958;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a list of private Member's motions, including prayers against statutory instruments, which have been debated in parliamentary time provided by the Government in each Session since 1959;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report a list of Government Bills which failed to complete their report stage in the House of Commons since 1958;

  (4) if he will publish in the Official Report a list of private Members' Bills which failed to complete their report stage in the House of Commons in each Session since 1959;
  396
  (5) how many ten-minute Bills were introduced in each Session since 1959.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It has not been possible to provide this information in the time available without disproportionate cost.

  Divisions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total number of Divisions on(a) Government business, (b) private Members' business, (c) private business and (d) other public business in each Session since 1959.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Visitors
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to review the present line of route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no such plans. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 12 May at column 234.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will raise with the Services Committee the possibility of levying charges for tourists visiting the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so. This matter was most recently considered and rejected by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in January 1987. Successive Administrations have accepted that the costs of the Palace of Westminster, which include the cost of controlling visits, are a legitimate charge on public funds.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total number of visitors to the Palace during the summer recess in 1987; how many were tourists; and what were the figures for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total number of all visitors during each summer recess since 1983 is as follows:

  Number

  1983

  12,751

  1984

  17,502

  1985

  19,290

  1986

  20,462

  1987

  20,449

  It is not possible to differentiate between tourists and other visitors.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received requesting him to raise with the Services Committee the levying of charges for tourists visiting the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have reveived no such representations during this Parliament. However, I am aware that my hon. Friend raised this matter in the debate on tourism on 17 June.
  397
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will raise with the Services Committee the possibility of opening the line of route for visitors on Saturdays and throughout the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his estimate of the cost of providing visitors to the Strangers Gallery with copies of documents relating to the business under discussion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Given the wide range of subjects discussed and the variation in size and price of documents, it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate. However, the value of Order Papers and guides for visitors to the gallery, which are already provided to visitors free of charge, amounts to some £450,000 annually.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will raise with the Services Committee the possibility of making certain parliamentary publications available for sale to visitors to the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so. Visitors to the Gallery are already provided with the "Guide for Visitors to the Gallery" and with a copy of the relevant Order Paper free of charge. On leaving the Gallery, they may also obtain from the Admission Order Office, an order form for a copy of the relevant Hansard, which will be supplied by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on receipt of the order form and payment.

  The new parliamentary building (phase I) will include a parliamentary bookshop, which will offer a full range of parliamentary publications to the public. It is expected that this bookshop will be open in late 1990.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Discipline
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to receive the report of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools; and when he hopes to publish it.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the right hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 29 April at columns 281–84.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which bodies were specifically asked by the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools to answer questions other than those which featured in the public advertisement; and what questions these bodies were asked.

  Mr. Rumbold
  All those invited to submit evidence were asked to address the four questions in the public advertisement. Additional, more specific, questions were addressed to all local education authorities and all institutions providing teacher training in England and Wales. The additional questions for local education authorities were as follows:

  Prevalence

  Do you have any statistical (or other) evidence indicating prevailing levels of misbehaviour by pupils? (e.g. records of suspensions and exclusions and the reasons for them, truancy etc.)
  398
  Can any local trends be identified from this evidence? If so, what are they?

  Policies

  Does your authority have a stated policy on school discipline? (If it has, a copy would be very useful.)

  Are schools encouraged to publish such policies? (Examples of school policies would also be very valuable.)

  Does your authority provide schools with guidelines covering criteria to be used when considering the exclusion of a pupil? (If it does, a copy would be helpful.)

  In-service training

  Are teachers in your authority involved in any in-service training specifically related to classroom control? (Some details of courses and numbers involved would be helpful.)

  Alternative provision for disturbed/disturbing pupils

  What alternative provision (support teams, on or off-site units etc.) is made by your authority for such pupils?

  How many pupils are involved in such provision compared with your mainstream primary secondary school population?

  What criteria are used to identify pupils requiring such provision?

  What would your assessment be of the costs and benefits of this provision for your authority?

  The additional questions for institutions providing teacher training were as follows:

  Initial Teacher Training

  Do your current courses deal with issues of behaviour and discipline through:

  specific core units or modules?

  optional units or modules?

  the permeation of the whole course?

  the school experience component of the course?

  a combination of these?

  Do you provide guidelines for staff and/or students on these issues? If so, what form do they take?

  What methods are used to help students develop skills and attitudes which will be effective in promoting good behaviour and preventing disruptive behaviour by pupils? Please give examples.

  Is it possible to distinguish the course time spent on this from that spent on the development of more general classroom management skills? If so, please quantify it in relation to total course hours.

  Do courses contain practical advice on how to handle disruptive incidents? If so, what form does it take?

  Does a specific member of staff have responsibility for advising on and monitoring training in these areas?

  Do any arrangements exist for students to gain experience of schools and classes in which pupils' behaviour may be difficult? If so, what are they?

  How are students prepared for and supported through such situations if they are encountered in their school experience?

  Are students helped to understand the perspectives of parents in relation to their children's behaviour? If so, how is this achieved.

  How are students made aware of the range of professional support available within schools and from outside agencies to help in managing the behaviour of pupils?

  In-service Training

  Does your college/department currently run or contribute to INSET courses specifically related to the management of pupil behaviour? If it does, please give details of course content, teaching methods and participants.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many individuals have submitted evidence to the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The committee has received 360 letters from individuals, including groups of staff within schools and social service departments. Nine letters were signed by more than one individual. The total number of signatories is 465.
  399
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the organisations which have submitted evidence to the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The organisations which have submitted evidence to the committee are:

  Local Education Authorities

  Avon

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Berkshire

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bromley

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Clwyd

  Cornwall

  Croydon

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dudley

  Dyfed

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Gloucestershire

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Hampshire

  Havering

  Hereford and Worcester

  Humberside

  Inner London Education Authority

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kirklees

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Powys

  Redbridge

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Rotherham

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  Solihull

  Somerset

  South Tyneside

  St. Helens

  Surrey

  Wakefield

  West Glamorgan

  Wiltshire

  Initial Teacher Training Institutions

  University of Bath

  Bedford College of Higher Education

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  University of Birmingham

  Brighton Polytechnic

  Bristol Polytechnic

  400

  Bristol University

  Brunel University

  Bulmershe College of Higher Education, Reading

  Cambridge University

  Central School of Speech and Drama, London

  Charlotte Mason College, Cumbria

  Chester College

  Crewe and Alsager College

  Coleg Normal, Bangor

  College of St. Mark and St. John Foundation

  Durham University

  University of East Anglia

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education, Liverpool

  Exeter University

  Hatfield Polytechnic

  Homerton College, Cambridge

  Hull University

  Keele University

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  Kingston Polytechnic

  Lancaster University

  Liverpool Institute of Higher Education

  London University

  Loughborough University

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Middlesex Polytechnic

  Nene College, Northampton

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic

  Oxford Polytechnic

  Oxford University

  Reading University

  Roehampton Institute, Whitelands College

  St. Martin's College

  Sheffield City Polytechnic

  Sheffield University

  South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Thames Polytechnic

  Trent Polytechnic, Nottingham

  Trinity College, Carmarthen

  University College Cardiff

  University College of North Wales

  University College of Wales

  University College, Swansea

  Warwick University

  West London Institute of Higher Education

  West Midland College of Higher Education, Walsall

  Westminster College, Oxford

  West Sussex Institute of Higher Education

  Worcester College of Higher Education

  Teachers' Associations

  Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association

  Caribbean Teachers Association

  Croydon Head Teachers' Association

  National Association of Head Teachers

  National Association of Head Teachers in Wales

  National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers

  National Union of Teachers

  Professional Association of Teachers

  Secondary Heads Association

  The Headmasters' Conference

  UCAC (Welsh Teachers Association)

  Other Organisations

  Adjustment Unit: Special Education Centre, Clwyd

  Arts Education Forum

  Association for Behavioural Approaches with Children

  Association of Educational Psychologists

  Association of Chief Education Social Workers

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Workers for Maladjusted Children

  The Boys' Brigade

  British Association of Counselling

  British Association of Ideal Education

  British Association of Social Workers

  British Housewives' League

  British Psychological Society

  401

  The Campaign for the Advancement of State Education

  Catch 'Em Young Project Trust

  Centre for the Study of Comprehensive Schools

  The Children's Legal Centre

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Community Education Development Centre

  Conservative Western Area Local Government Committee

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Dr. Barnardo's

  Drugs Education Unit, Hatfield

  Educational Institute of Scotland

  Education Management Information Exchange

  Education Service Advisory Committee (Health and Safety Commission)

  Forum for the Advancement of Educational Therapy

  The General Synod of the Church of England

  Girls' School Association

  The Hereford Diocesan Council of Education

  HM Prison Service

  ILEA Behaviour Management Project

  Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools

  Independent Schools Joint Council

  Inter-Diocesan Schools Commission

  Llandaff Diocesan Council for Education

  Manpower Services Commission

  The Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth

  The Muppet Club Project

  The Muslim Educational Trust

  National Association of Governors and Managers

  National Association for Pastoral Care in Education

  National Association of Social Workers in Education

  National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations

  National Foundation for Educational Research

  National Youth Bureau in England and Wales

  Narborough Road Integration Project

  Pax Christi

  Professional Development Foundation

  Programme for Reform in Secondary Education

  School Psychological and Child Guidance Service, North Yorkshire

  Social Education Team, Liverpool Education Authority

  Socialist Education Association

  Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment

  Southwark School Support Service

  Special Educational Needs—National Advisory Council

  The Sports Council

  The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations

  Training, Consultancy, Resources, in Health

  Personal and Social, and Drug Education (TACADE)

  Welsh Counties Committee

  Welsh Joint Education Committee

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy regarding the year-on-year revenue funding of city technology colleges, having regard to future fluctuations in spending by local education authorities of maintained schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Decisions on public expenditure on the revenue funding of city technology colleges will take into account funding levels on LEA-maintained schools in similar areas.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what factors he will take into account in deciding proposals published by local education authorities to close schools in order that city technology colleges or city colleges for the technology of the arts might be established in their place.
  402
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  All proposals which fall to me to be decided under the provisions of section 12 of the Education Act 1980 are treated strictly on their merits and in the light of the individual circumstances. In reaching my decision I weigh carefully the case presented by the local education authority and the comments made by any objectors to the proposals. I also take careful account of my published education policies. My Department has given detailed guidance to local education authorities in circular 3/87 on some general considerations against which I judge rationalisation proposals.

  If section 12 proposals should be put to me which included as an objective making premises available to the promoters of a city technology college (CTC) or a city college for the technology of the arts (CCTA), I would consider them against the same criteria. In addition I would need to satisfy myself that the plans formulated by the promoters were sufficiently clear, considered and developed; that they fitted the criteria of the CTC programme; and that agreements in principle had been reached, subject to my approval of the section 12 proposals, on the terms of a proposed funding agreement with the promoters. I should need to be satisfied that the necessary agreement in principle had been reached between those persons and the local education authority; and that sufficient schools would continue to be available for pupils in the area of the authority, taking account, where appropriate, of the facilities to be provided by the CTC or CCTA. I should also need to satisfy myself that full details of the plans had been made available to all those with an interest in the matter at the appropriate time during the consultation process, in line with the guidance set out in circular 3/87.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received about the introduction of student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The student support review group has received written evidence from 106 organisations and individuals, nine of which have also given oral evidence. In addition, since the beginning of 1987, the Department has received seven petitions, signed by a total of 1,300 people, and well over 1,500 letters.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library copies of the representations he has received concerning the introduction of student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Copies of written evidence received by the student support review group were placed in both Libraries of Parliament in April 1987. It would not be appropriate to do the same with all the correspondence—not usually intended for publication—addressed to my right hon. Friend and myself.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report those(a) individuals and (b) organisations who made representations to his Department concerning the introduction of student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following organisations and individuals submitted written evidence to the student support review group:
  403

  Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

  Association for Student Counselling

  Association of Accommodation and Welfare Officers

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Association of Charity Officers

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Directors of Education in Scotland

  Association of Heads of Polytechnic Student Services

  Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards

  Association of Polytechnic Teachers

  Association of Principals of Colleges

  Association of University Teachers

  Ayr College

  Balliol College, Oxford, Junior Common Room

  Bath Area Students' Organisation

  Brighton Polytechnic

  Bristol University Graduate Association

  British Youth Council (Scotland)

  Business and Technician Education Council

  Cambridge University Graduate Union

  Cambridge University Students' Union

  Church of Scotland Department of Education

  City of London Polytechnic

  Committee of Directors of Polytechnics

  Committee of Principals and Directors of Scottish Central Institutions

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom

  Confederation of British Industry

  Conservative Collegiate Forum

  Conservative Student Affairs Research Group

  Consultative Council of Professional Management Organisations

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council for National Academic Awards

  Cranfield Students' Union

  Dundee College of Technology

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  Edinburgh University of Students' Association

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Family Welfare Association

  General Synod of the Church of England Board of Education

  Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology

  Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology, Academic Board

  Gloucestershire County Council

  Heriot-Watt University

  Heriot-Watt University Students' Association

  Hertfordshire Area National Union of Students

  Institute of Personnel Management

  Irish Congress of Trade Unions Northern Ireland Committee

  Joint Committee of Colleges of Education in Scotland

  Jordanhill College of Education

  Kilmarnock College Students Association

  King Ecgbert School, Sheffield, Governors

  London Borough of Barnet

  Manpower Services Commission

  Dr. G. P. McNicol, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, University of Aberdeen

  NAB/UGC Continuing Education Standing Committee

  Napier College of Commerce and Technology

  National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  National Association of Education Guidance Services

  National Association of Head Teachers

  National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education

  National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations

  National Institute of Adult Continuing Education(England and Wales)

  National Union of Students

  404

  National Union of Students (UK) and Union of Students in Ireland, Northern Ireland Regional Committee

  Dr.A. Neville, Principal, University of Dundee

  Open University

  Open University Students' Association

  Oxford University Student Union

  Dr. E. S. Page, Vice-Chancellor, University of Reading

  Polytechnic of Central London Faculty of Law

  Residential Colleges Committee

  Scottish Chiropractic Association

  Scottish Further and Higher Education Association

  Scottish Institute of Adult and Continuing Education

  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council

  Scottish Vocational Education Council

  Sheffield City Polytechnic

  Sheffield City Polytechnic Union of Students

  Sheffield University Students' Union

  Society of Education Officers South Bank Polytechnic

  Southampton University Students' Union

  Staffordshire County Council

  Sir William van Straubenzee, M.P.

  Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, Chairman, University Grants Commitee

  Trades Union Congress

  United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women

  Universities Council for Adult and Continuing Education

  University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

  University of Edinburgh

  University of Kent

  University of Oxford Hebdomadal Council

  University of Ulster

  Voluntary Sector Consultative Council

  Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education

  Welsh Counties Committee

  Welsh Joint Education Committee

  West Surrey College of Art and Design

  Western Education and Library Board

  Westfield Campus, Sheffield

  Mr. M. I. J. Woodward, Headmaster, Holsworthy Community College

  Women Returners Network

  World University Service (UK)

  Oral evidence was received from the following organisations:

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of University Teachers

  Committee of Directors of Polytechnics

  Committee of Principals and Directors of Scottish Central Institutions

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom

  Conservative Collegiate Forum

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  National Union of Students

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations his Department has received concerning automatic membership of student unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since the end of May we have received 13 letters from hon. Members and members of the public about membership of local unions and a further 10 letters about membership of the National Union of Students.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information his Department has on the services of student unions available to their members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for
  405
  Thurrock (Mr.Janman) on 18 April at column 292, in which he indicated that it was intended to collect the information requested as part of a fact-finding survey of student unions. A questionnaire is due to be sent to a sample of institutions in the near future.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as his written reply of 15 July, Official Report, columns 373–74, 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.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Receipts against DES running costs expenditure are as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83 outturn

  1

  1983–84 outturn

  2

  1984–85 outturn

  2

  1985–86 outturn

  2

  1986–87 outturn

  1

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  1

  1988–89 plans

  1

  1989–90 plans

  1

  1990–91 plans

  1

  None of these receipts is included in other Department's running costs. The remaining information requested is not readily available in respect of local education authority receipts; details of research council receipts are published in the annual appropriation accounts.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1982–83 to 1990–91, consistent with his reply of 15 July, Official Report, columns 373–74, of receipts for (a) schools' expenditure, analysed by (i) meals, (ii) milk sales, (iii) rents, (iv) fees and charges and (v) grants, (b) further and higher education expenditure, analysed by (i) fee income, (ii) examination fees, (iii) research and consultancy income, (iv) rents and charges and (v) grants, (c) miscellaneous expenditure, analysed by (i) income of youth and other educational services and (ii) other fees and charges and (d) research councils' expenditure, analysed by (i) charges for commissioned research and (ii) other.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The handbooks of education unit costs published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for each of the financial years 1982–83 to 1985–86 set out a full analysis of revenue income received by local education authorities in England, both by sector of the education service and by type of income, compiled from LEAs' returns to the Department of the Environment of revenue outturn. A handbook giving similar information for the 1986–87 financial year will be published soon. A detailed breakdown of LEA receipts 406
  beyond 1986–87 is not available. Details of research council receipts for the years 1982–83 to 1986–87 have been published in the annual appropriation accounts.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a table bringing together on the same basis the totals for receipts on his programme in 1985–86 and 1986–87 implied by his answer of 15 July, Official Report, columns 373–74, with the corresponding totals in the answer of 27 May, Official Report, columns 375–76.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The totals for receipts for 1985–86 and 1986–87 implied by my answer of 15 July at columns 373–74, are, respectively, £1,077 million and £1,224 million; the comparable figures of £999 million and £1,144 million given in my right hon. Friend's answer on 27 May, at columns 375–76, incorporated part, but not all, of the relevant receipts accruing to the research councils.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Evaluation can take many forms, including the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate, research projects and ad hoc investigations. A separate costing of the evaluation component of these is not available, but total spending on relevant activities has been:

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate (recurrent costs)

  18·1

  19·9

  21·8

  Research and development (total)

  13·8

  14·1

  15·6

  Total

  31·9

  34·0

  37·4

  The DES programme, including central and local government expenditure, has been

  15,691·0

  17,169·0

  17,971·0

  University Extra-mural Departments (Funding)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the transfer of funding responsibility for extra-mural departments in English universities to the Universities Funding Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Universities Funding Council will assume responsibility for funding extra-mural departments in English universities from the beginning of the next financial year. An official working party has considered the implications of a transfer and copies of its report are being sent today to the chairmen of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the University Grants Committee My right hon. Friend will commend the report to the UFC, when it is established.

  Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham Girls School
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the purpose of the visit by
  407
  an architect in his Department to the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham girls school in Deptford on Tuesday 5 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  An occasional professional assistant working for architects and buildings branch at the Department visited the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham girls school in Deptford on Tuesday 5 July. The visit followed a request from the governors for advice on possible modifications to the school buildings.

  1987–88

  Grants to Universities and Colleges, etc.

  For Recurrent Grants

  General Purposes

  Overseas Research Student Awards Scheme

  Restructuring

  Total Subhead C1

  Computers Subhead D2

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Aston University

  18,221

  29

  380

  18,630

  256

  Bath University

  16,423

  42

  350

  16,815

  1,065

  Birmingham University

  44,203

  77

  620

  44,900

  326

  Bradford University

  17,920

  16

  335

  18,271

  234

  Bristol University

  35,369

  38

  205

  35,612

  291

  Brunel University

  15,281

  19

  181

  15,481

  180

  Cambridge University

  50,367

  960

  —

  51,327

  549

  City University

  14,125

  3

  344

  14,472

  102

  Durham University

  20,049

  26

  55

  20,130

  88

  East Anglia University

  16,873

  21

  143

  17,037

  172

  Essex University

  10,654

  32

  119

  10,805

  197

  Exeter University

  18,742

  29

  261

  19,032

  121

  Hull University

  16,794

  6

  1,202

  18,002

  194

  Keele University

  10,420

  12

  55

  10,487

  144

  Kent University

  12,844

  6

  42

  12,892

  207

  Lancaster University

  16,126

  25

  88

  16,239

  174

  Leeds University

  49,391

  167

  326

  49,884

  346

  Leicester University

  21,102

  20

  213

  21,335

  155

  Liverpool University

  44,197

  61

  790

  45,048

  295

  London Business School

  2,527

  6

  5

  2,538

  16

  London University, including its Colleges and Schools

  274,008

  953

  2,216

  277,177

  6,087

  Loughborough University of Technology

  22,254

  24

  122

  22,400

  265

  Manchester Business School

  1,781

  3

  —

  1,784

  46

  Manchester University

  Manchester University Institute of Science and

  57,462

  123

  112

  57,697

  3,629

  Technology

  19,977

  290

  100

  20,367

  Newcastle upon Tyne University

  37,746

  84

  578

  38,408

  379

  Nottingham University

  33,418

  34

  141

  33,593

  367

  Oxford University

  50,590

  1,036

  —

  51,626

  484

  Reading University

  21,570

  65

  24

  21,659

  192

  Salford University

  16,965

  15

  966

  17,946

  226

  Sheffield University

  38,179

  92

  921

  39,192

  291

  Southampton University

  30,359

  82

  41

  30,482

  321

  Surrey University

  15,394

  47

  478

  15,919

  184

  Sussex University

  17,431

  78

  165

  17,674

  147

  Warwick University

  23,570

  31

  84

  23,685

  209

  York University

  14,444

  21

  18

  14,483

  117

  University of Wales, including University Colleges and Institute of Science and Technology

  86,731

  114

  5,282

  92,127

  864

  Aberdeen University

  26,553

  47

  369

  26,969

  256

  Dundee University

  18,900

  47

  481

  19,428

  126

  Edinburgh University

  54,825

  149

  610

  55,584

  617

  Glasgow University

  53,924

  104

  1,222

  55,250

  347

  Heriot-Watt University

  13,972

  28

  14

  14,014

  163

  St. Andrews University

  15,095

  41

  92

  15,228

  116

  Stirling University

  11,125

  20

  19

  11,164

  101

  Strathclyde University

  30,181

  111

  66

  30,358

  285

  Other payments

  1663

  2180

  330

  873

  4815

  Total

  1,438,745

  5,414

  19,865

  1,464,024

  21,749

  1 £613,000 paid direct to the University Central Council on Admissions, £46,000 in respect of the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride and £4,000 to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

  2 £89,000 paid to Cranfield Institute of Technology, £88,000 to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals for administration of the Overseas Research Student Fees Support Scheme and £3,000 to the Royal College of Art.

  University Grants
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list the grants made available to universities in Great Britain in the financial year 1987–88 on the advice of the University Grants Committee and the Computer Board.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:
  409
  3 £30,000 paid to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

  4 £89,000 fees paid to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) for negotiating contracts and £726,000 paid to the Rutherford & Appleton Laboratories (SERC) for networking projects.

  1987–88

  Grants to Universities and Colleges, etc.

  For Capital Expenditure

  Universities etc. Subhead A1 (1)

  Medical and Dental Schools Subhead A1 (2)

  Equipment and Furniture Subhead A2l

  Computers Subhead B1

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Aston University

  1,564

  Bath University

  708

  1,476

  472

  Birmingham University

  3,104

  231

  Bradford University

  1,274

  48

  Bristol University

  39

  2,465

  35

  Brunel University

  1,261

  343

  Cambridge University

  4

  5,733

  13

  City University

  836

  191

  Durham University

  1

  1,191

  East Anglia University

  876

  16

  Essex University

  674

  Exeter University

  207

  938

  74

  Hull University

  919

  8

  Keele University

  513

  23

  Kent University

  672

  234

  Lancaster University

  879

  38

  Leeds University

  1

  3,271

  25

  Leicester University

  62

  1,427

  Liverpool University

  26

  2,874

  47

  London Business School

  77

  London University, including its Colleges and Schools

  2,503

  2,280

  23,068

  1,790

  Loughborough University of Technology

  1,803

  2

  Manchester Business School

  40

  Manchester University

  963

  824

  4,273

  2,004

  Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology

  429

  2,586

  Newcastle upon Tyne University

  49

  200

  2,547

  27

  Nottingham University

  33

  2,522

  1,580

  Oxford University

  856

  247

  5,818

  2,671

  Reading University

  50

  1,645

  Salford University

  1,640

  1,386

  107

  Sheffield University

  2,570

  Southampton University

  212

  9

  3,199

  96

  Surrey University

  1,505

  32

  Sussex University

  1,185

  Warwick University

  1,572

  York University

  1,055

  74

  University of Wales, including University Colleges and Institute of Science and Technology

  987

  5,120

  1,178

  Aberdeen University

  6

  1,567

  859

  Dundee University

  1,814

  1,214

  535

  Edinburgh University

  3,650

  448

  Glasgow University

  503

  25

  3,543

  203

  Heriot-Watt University

  3,248

  1,915

  965

  St. Andrews University

  756

  10

  Stirling University

  473

  10

  Strathclyde University

  599

  2,108

  9

  Other payments

  9033

  TOTAL

  14,767

  3,716

  109,1442

  15,300

  1 The sums provided from Subhead A2, earmarked for individual universities as shown, were transferred to a Deposit Account with the Paymaster General from which issues were made as required towards meeting the costs of furniture and equipment. The balance remaining in the Deposit Account at 31 March 1988, which is not liable to surrender to the Consolidated Fund, was £ 15,997,000. This sum includes £1,163,000 in respect of the Engineering and Technology Programme.

  2 In addition a further £1,178,000 was transferred to the Deposit Account to meet expenditure by Universities for the Engineering and Technology Programme.

  3 Other payments comprise £345,000 fees paid to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) for negotiating contracts and £558,000 paid to the Rutherford and Appleton Laboratories (SERC) for networking projects.

  410 411

  1987–88

  Grants and loans for long-term capital projects: universities etc., (subhead A1(1))

  Details of expenditure on works services costing more than £1,000,000 shown in Table 1 to the Estimate

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Less than provided

  More than provided

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Building projects and purchase of existing buildings:

  1. New and on-going projects originally expected to cost £1 million or more

  Glasgow University: Library III

  178

  5

  173

  —

  Salford University: Physical Restructuring

  1,676

  1,634

  42

  —

  Heriot-Watt University

  (a) Department of Building

  229

  113

  116

  —

  (b) Administration Building

  65

  102

  —

  37

  (c) Chemical and Process Engineering

  775

  1,113

  —

  338

  (d) Library Phase II

  985

  925

  60

  —

  (e) Department of Brewing and Biological Science

  1,375

  550

  825

  —

  (f) Economics and Social Studies

  330

  170

  160

  —

  Southampton University: Library

  400

  207

  193

  —

  UMIST: Library

  1,175

  429

  746

  —

  Bath University: Building 6 East

  830

  708

  122

  —

  Dundee University: Library

  1,529

  1,814

  —

  285

  London University

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Queen Mary College: Library

  1,600

  2,224

  —

  624

  Manchester University: Computer Science (ETP)

  650

  963

  —

  313

  Oxford University: Electrical Engineering/Computer Science (ETP)

  684

  856

  —

  172

  Bristol University: Veterinary School

  800

  39

  761

  —

  Cardiff University/UWIST: Joint Faculty Building

  725

  —

  725

  —

  Sub total

  14,006

  11,852

  3,923

  1,769

  Other projects

  —

  2,915

  —

  2,915

  Total (Subhead A1(1))

  14,006

  14,767

  3,923

  4,684

  Grants and loans for long term capital projects: medical and dental schools, (Subhead A1(2))—1987–88

  Details of expenditure on works services costing more than £1,000,000 shown in table 2 to the estimate

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Less than provided

  More than provided

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Building projects and purchase of existing buildings:

  1.New and on-going projects originally expected to cost the UGC £1 million or more

  London University: St. Mary's HMS, Phase 18

  230

  562

  —

  332

  London University: Institute of Child Care, Cardiac Wing, Remedial Works

  620

  247

  373

  —

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Cyclotron Building, Remedial Works

  210

  139

  71

  —

  London University: Cardiothoracic Institute, Cardiothoracic Centre, Phase 1

  750

  —

  750

  —

  London University: Institute of Dermatology, Relocation at St. Thomas' Hospital

  775

  —

  775

  —

  Manchester University: Royal Infirmary, Phase II

  700

  772

  —

  72

  London University: Queen Mary College

  455

  507

  —

  52

  Newcastle University: Royal Victoria Infirmary, Phase V

  450

  189

  261

  —

  2. New and on-going phased medical projects, the total contribution to all phases expected to be £1 million or more

  London University: St. George's HMS, Block H

  45

  12

  33

  —

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Redevelopment of Hammersmith Hospital, Phase I

  220

  138

  82

  —

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Redevelopment of Hammersmith Hospital Catering Centralisation

  310

  —

  310

  —

  London University: University College Middlesex HMS Whittington Hospital Redevelopment, Phase I

  245

  1

  244

  —

  SUB TOTAL

  5,010

  2,567

  2,899

  456

  3. Projects expected to start in 1987–88 on which the UGC contribution not yet agreed

  1,195

  —

  1,195

  —

  4. On-going projects not separately identified

  4,000

  815

  3,185

  —

  412 413

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Less than provided

  More than provided

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  5 Furniture on Health-controlled schemes

  727

  330

  397

  —

  6. Sites and Leases

  1,655

  4

  1,651

  —

  TOTAL (Medical and Dental Schools) (Subhead A 1(2))

  12,587

  3,716

  9,327

  456

  TOTAL (Universities, etc.) (Subhead A1(1) (Table 1))

  14,006

  14,767

  3,923

  4,684

  TOTAL SUBHEAD A1

  26,593

  18,483

  13,250

  5,140

  (a) Treasury agreement was given for £7,838,000 of this total amount to be vired from sub-head Al to CI for distribution as Capital-in-Recurrent Grant.

  Grants for expenditure long-term capital computer projects, (Subhead B1)—1987–88

  Details of expenditure on computer projects costing more than £1,000,000 payable under subhead B1

  Expenditure compared with Provision

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Less than Provided

  More than Provided

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Projects costing £1 million or more1

  Aberdeen University (new computer)

  1,000

  699

  301

  —

  Glasgow University (new computer)

  2,040

  —

  2,040

  —

  Kings College, London (new computer)

  —

  583

  —

  583

  Manchester University (new computer national centre)

  1,230

  1,937

  —

  707

  Nottingham University (new computer)

  1,425

  1,500

  —

  75

  Oxford University (new computer)

  2,950

  2,631

  319

  —

  Sub Total

  8,645

  7,350

  2,660

  1,365

  Projects costing less than £1 million

  6,655

  7,950

  —

  1,295

  End-year flexibility

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (Subhead B1)

  15,300

  15,300

  2,660

  2,660

  1 These purchases are made on the basis of fixed price contracts.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Jonas Savimbi
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Mr. Jonas Savimbi met any of his Department's officials during his recent visit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A Foreign and Commonwealth Office official met Mr. Savimbi informally at a private social occasion.

  Africa (Visits)
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries he intends to visit in the autumn of this year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In accordance with normal practice, details of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's plans will be announced shortly before the visit.

  South Africa (Visas)
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the specific requirements relating to occasions when British citizens need visas to visit South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Visa requirements for South Africa are a matter for the South African Government. We understand 414
  that British citizens do not require a visa to visit South Africa except in certain specific cases about which the South African authorities will be able to advise.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage cultural, scientific and academic exchange between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Cultural, scientific and academic exchanges between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union are increasing. Such exchanges are provided for in the memorandum of understanding signed during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union last year and in the biennial British/Soviet cultural agreement which was signed in January 1987 for the period 1987–89. The staffing of the cultural department in the British embassy in Moscow was strengthened in 1987.

  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he last raised the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make further representations to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning Mr. Raoul Wallenberg; and if he will make a statement;
  415
  (3) if he will list those countries that are known to his Department to have made representations to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about the case of Raoul Wallenberg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Mr. Wallenberg's nationality is Swedish. His disappearance is therefore primarily for the Swedish Government to pursue. Since 1957 the Soviet authorities have said that Mr. Wallenberg died in prison in 1947. Over the years there have been many reports that he was alive and in prison in the Soviet Union considerably later than that, but there has been no conclusive proof. We have frequently pressed the Soviet Union for a full account of Mr. Wallenberg's fate, and shall continue to do so as long as there is doubt as to whether he did in fact die, and if so, how. Increasing openness in Soviet society, particularly as regards matters of history and indications that glasnost may possibly be extended to cover international tragedies such as the Katyn massacre, suggest that it may prove possible before too long to establish the truth about Mr. Wallenberg.

  We have not discussed Mr. Wallenberg's fate with other EC Governments or with the Swedish Government. We know that there is widespread international interest in this tragic case, and we are sure that all concerned are as anxious as we are to find out the truth.

  Gibraltar Shootings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the statement made by Mr. Victor Adams to the special branch regarding the Gibraltar shootings has been made available to the Gibraltar coroner.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The task of collecting statements falls to the Gibraltar coroner. We understand that the West Yorkshire police have taken a statement from Mr. Adams, in connection with the shooting, on the coroner's behalf.

  Nicaragua
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make representations to the United States Government concerning the implications for the possibility of a peaceful settlement in Nicaragua of the Administration's policy of support for the contras while that organisation remains committed to the use of violence; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make representations to the United States administration urging them not to resume lethal aid to the contras in Nicaragua.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have regular discussions with the United States administration on a wide range of issues including Central America. They are well aware of our support for a peaceful negotiated solution to the region's problems.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United States Administration urging them to remove economic sanctions against Nicaragua.

  Mrs. Chalker
  United States economic policy towards Nicaragua is a matter for the two Governments concerned. We have normal economic relations with Nicaragua.

  India
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage cultural, scientific and academic exchanges between the United Kingdom and India.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Cultural, scientific and academic exchanges with India are many. The British Council has four offices in India and is involved with FCO and ODA programmes as well as its own, which have recently included, on the arts side, a major Henry Moore exhibition. Scientific and academic links feature prominently in the council's work and are promoted through the ODA's bilateral technical co-operation programme, under which about £8 million per year is devoted to exchange of persons, consultancies, longer-term training in Britain and the supply of equipment in support of these links. Funds are being made available to increase the number of awards for Indians to study in Britain.

  Local Authorities (Twinning)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has as to the number of local authorities which twin with towns abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Some 830 local authorities in the United Kingdom are currently twinned with communities abroad.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a list of local authorities which are known by his Department to have twinned with towns abroad together with the names of those towns.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A list of all twinnings, including those between local authorities and communities abroad, is held in the Library of the House.

  Turkey
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the President of Turkey during his recent state visit, regarding Cypriots who went missing following the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. We believe that this matter is best dealt with by the intercommunal committee set up for the purpose under United Nations General Assembly resolution No. 32/128.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the President of Turkey regarding human rights in Turkey during the recent state visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  During President Evren's recent state visit, my right hon. and learned Friend raised the subject of human rights with the Turkish Foreign Minister, and expressed the hope that the progress made in this field in Turkey in recent years would continue.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that licencees of public houses will be able to implement the hours of opening allowed for under the Licensing Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The necessary amendments to secondary legislation will be in place on Monday 22 August and section 1 of the Licensing Act 1988, revised licensing hours, along with sections 3, 5, 9, 11, 13 and 14, will come into force on that date. The commencement date for the remaining sections 12 and 15 will be 1 March 1989.

  Prisons
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take action to solve the prison officer staff shortages at Durham prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ten staff have been allocated to Her Majesty's prison Durham from the training courses which finish in August. At the same time, in common with all establishments, Durham is working to ensure that the best use is made of its staff resources under fresh start.

  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Bedford prison are(a) two to a cell and (b) three to a cell.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 10 July, the most recent date for which this information is readily available, 58 prisoners were accommodated two to a cell and 195 prisoners were accommodated three to a cell in cells designed for one prisoner at Her Majesty's prison Bedford.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for improving the effectiveness of the Home Office forensic science service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Work to this end is in hand in the following main areas:

  (i) The relationship between the service and its users

  User boards have been established at each laboratory, chaired by a chief constable, to improve the relationship between the laboratory and the police forces and courts which it serves.

  (ii) Longer-term planning of the future of the service

  Each laboratory is drawing up a strategy plan, covering the next three years, in consultation with its user board. These will be considered by the national police advisory board which includes representatives of the police, local authorities and the courts.

  (iii) The staffing of the service

  Proposals are under discussion for a new structure for the operational laboratories of the service aimed at enhancing their ability to meet the demands on them by increasing the number of officers reporting cases to court and enabling the service to recruit and train the staff it needs. A new director-general is to be appointed shortly.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of(a) the staff inspection of the Chepstow forensic science laboratory, (b) the work management exercise at the Birmingham laboratory, (c) the staff inspection at the Birmingham
  418
  laboratory and (d) the review of senior staff; and if he will make a statement as to the value for money of these reviews.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Staff inspection, Chepstow forensic science laboratory

  21,752

  Work measurement exercise/staff inspection,1 Birmingham forensic science laboratory

  73,283

  1 The work measurement exercise and staff inspection at Birmingham forensic science laboratory were closely related, and their costs cannot readily be separated.

  The review of the senior staff of the service included a staff inspection of the senior posts in the operational laboratories, at a cost of £3,197. Other costs of the review cannot readily be identified separately.

  These exercises have provided useful information about the staffing and complementing arrangements of the service and have contributed to the development of new proposals aimed at enhancing its effectiveness and improving its efficiency.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his present policy in relation to protection of the public in the event of hostilities(a) by evacuation, (b) by shelter in situ or (c) by a combination of both; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to his earlier questions on 25 July.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to him to use against local authorities to compel them to meet their statutory civil defence duties; what action he has taken so far; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Paragraph 4 of the Civil Defence (General) Regulations 1949 (SI 1949 No. 1432) empowers the designated Minister to discharge the functions himself or to require another authority or person to do so, in either case in the name and at the expense of the authority failing or refusing properly to do so. It has not been necessary to use these powers in recent years.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out a schedule of his planned programme for implementation of civil defence and protection regulations giving priorities and target dates for specific achievements; how this planned programme is being monitored; what success there has been so far; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The planned programme for implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 was introduced in October 1986. Initial priority was given to the development by local authorities of detailed operational plans. The programme for the first three years up to October 1989 was set out in Home Office circular No. ES 1/1986, a copy of which is in the Library. Analysis of the returns by local authorities is a continuing process, but our interim judgment is that replies are generally satisfactory and indicate progress in many areas. Progress remains patchy, however, and all authorities still have some way to go.
  419
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans and method for keeping the public informed about civil defence and protection measures(a) during a period of increased international tension, (b) after hostilities have commenced and (c) after nuclear or chemical attack.

  Mr. John Patten
  Guidance on information services in a war emergency is contained in section 6 of the "Emergency Planning Guidance to Local Authorities", a copy of which is in the Library. Arrangements for issuing information to the public are kept under review, method and content would depend on circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current progress in local authorities' surveys in their areas into what public buildings could in a crisis be rapidly converted into a measure of protection for the public in time of hostilities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Comprehensive information on progress in planning for shelter is unlikely to be available centrally until the end of 1989, in line with the monitoring arrangements set out in the Government's planned programme for implementation (PPI) of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983. Supplementary guidance on planning shelter surveys was issued in June following pilot studies undertaken jointly by the Home Office and a number of local authorities.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the latest year for which figures are available, how many people were convicted of driving with excess levels of alcohol; and in how many cases this was a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or, seventh or more than seventh conviction.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1986, out of a total of about 107,100 findings of guilt for offences of driving and so on after consuming alcohol or taking drugs, 87,600 offences were of driving with alcohol in the blood, breath or urine above the prescribed limit. This information is published in table 5 of "Offences Relating To Motor Vehicles, England and Wales 1986, Supplementary Tables", copies of which are in the Library. The figure for 1987 will be published later this year. Information on previous convictions of these offenders is not available centrally.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for each of the last five years, broken down by sex, of persons convicted of child abuse, and of the sentences given by the courts, in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Illegal Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of convictions in England and Wales for procuring an illegal abortion in 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1987 is not yet available, but records held centrally show that there were two such convictions in 1986.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to announce his conclusions on consultation about harmonising summer time with other members of the European Community.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government's recent survey was directed towards gathering factual information about three options for summer time. The Government would not wish to reach conclusions without wider debate on the data collected which reflect differing views on the economic and social effects of any change.

  Prisons (Ethnic Surveys)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of Her Majesty's prison officers have refused to fill in ethnic survey forms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At 1 May 1988, the latest figures available, about 70 per cent, of prison service unified grades VI to VIII has not responded to ethnic surveys. A further questionnaire will be sent shortly to those who have not responded. This has been publicised in office notices and in the "Prison Service News".

  Police (Assaults)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the figures collected by police forces in(a) Gwent, (b) South Wales and (c) North Wales on the frequency of assaults on police in each of the most recent five years available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The numbers of assaults on police officers during 1983 to 1987 as published in the annual reports of the chief constables of Gwent and North Wales are as follows:

  Assaults on police officers

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Gwent

  135

  130

  139

  166

  195

  North Wales

  81

  60

  76

  91

  207

  Statistics of assaults on police officers in South Wales during this period are not available.

  Kent Fire Brigade
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the contributions made by(a) Eurotunnel Limited and (b) Transmanche Limited to Kent county council for equipment and services provided by Kent fire brigade.

  Mr. John Patten
  Any arrangements between the county council and the other bodies named in respect of contributions for equipment and services provided by Kent fire brigade are a matter for them to decide. We do not have information about the size of any such contributions. Under the Fire Services Act 1947 the county council is precluded from requiring payment for firefighting services.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the criteria used when
  421
  considering applications to remain in the United Kingdom from persons who have been continuously in the United Kingdom for at least 10 years and (a) who are illegal entrants and (b) against whom a deportation order has been issued.

  Mr. Renton
  Each such case is considered on its own merits.

  Risley Remand Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary action has been taken against those staff responsible for the management failure identified in his answer of 21 July, in relation to Risley remand centre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Disciplinary action was not called for, but as indicated in my reply of 21 July, at column 775 to an earlier question from the hon. Member, suitable steps have been taken to remedy the management failures identified at Risley.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the Civil Service grade of Mr. David Thompson while he was governor of Risley remand centre; and what is his current grade.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. David Thompson was a member of prison service unified grade 1 whilst he was governor of HMRC Risley and remains in that grade in his new post.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners currently held at Risley remand centre have been held without bail for(a) six to eight months, (b) nine to 11 months, (c) 12 to 14 months, (d) 15 to 17 months and (e) 18 months or more; what are the comparable figures for the United Kingdom as a whole; and what steps he proposes taking to rectify it.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 July 1988]: The readily available information is given in the following table. Following the experimental introduction of statutory time limits for custody, my right hon. Friend extended them last April to apply to all of Wales and 13 English counties, including Cheshire and Greater Manchester. We hope that custody time limits will be in force throughout England and Wales by 1990. Other measures we are taking are described in the Green Paper "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System" (Cm. 434, July 1988).

  Estimated population of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners in Prison Department establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1987:

  by length of time since first remand into a Prison Department establishment

  Length of time since first remand into Prison Department establishments2

  Estimated population1

  Risley3

  England and Wales3 4

  Up to 6 months

  806

  9,530

  Over 6 up to 9 months

  43

  800

  Over 9 up to 12 months

  10

  220

  Over 12 up to 15 months

  2

  90

  Over 15 up to 18 months

  —

  20

  Over 18 months

  —

  15

  TOTAL

  861

  510,670

  422
  1 Based on records held centrally which are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Excludes any time spent in prison cells before reception on remand into a Prison Department establishment; includes any subsequent time that may have been spent on bail.

  3 Provisional figures.

  4 Rounded estimate; the components do not add up to the total because they have been rounded independently.

  5 Excludes 580 prisoners held in police cells.

  Leeds Prison
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of suicides and attempted suicides at Her Majesty's prison, Leeds, in the period August 1987 to June 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been two apparent suicides, yet to be confirmed as such at inquests, and five recorded incidents of attempted suicide at Her Majesty's prison Leeds in the period August 1987 to June 1988.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that procedures for identifying potential suicides can be carried out effectively in Her Majesty's prison, Leeds, as set out in F1996; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All inmates received at Leeds prison are screened on the day of arrival in order to identify those who may be at risk of suicide.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Leeds on 19 July; and how many were(a) young, (b) long term and (c) remand prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On July 19, 1,407 persons were held in Her Majesty's prison, Leeds. The latest available information on the type of prisoner held is given in the following table:

  Population of Her Majesty's prison, Leeds, on 30 June 1988

  Number

  Remand

  aged 21 and over

  461

  aged under 21

  276

  all remand

  737

  Sentenced

  Young offenders sentenced to

  Up to 3 years

  42

  Over 3 years

  6

  Adults sentenced to

  Up to 4 years

  412

  Over 4 years

  166

  All sentenced

  626

  Civil prisoners

  4

  All

  1,367

  Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the prison population received psychiatric treatment in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of inmates who have received psychiatric treatment is not recorded centrally.

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusion he has reached on research into the use by young people of amusement-with-prizes machines; what action he now proposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have now considered the report of the Home Office research and planning unit (RPU) on the research which my right hon. Friend announced in answer to a question from Mr. Geoff Lawler, the then Member for Bradford, North, on 6 May last year, at column 436. We have also considered the report which the chairman of the Gaming Board arranged at the request of my right hon. Friend. That report has been prepared by inspectors of the board on their findings following a number of visits to amusement arcades. In addition, the Department has been greatly assisted by reports and other comments which the interested organisations have submitted.

  Copies of the reports of the RPU and the Gaming Board inspectorate have today been placed in the Library. The RPU report concludes that, although many young people spend money on amusement machines, there is almost no evidence of dependency, and that there is no reliable evidence at all of a causal link between playing machines and delinquency. The overall findings of the Gaming Board inspectorate, though inevitably more tentative because of the nature of their survey, are consistent with the RPU report.

  The Government recognise the concern felt about cases where dependency, though most exceptional, does occur. We also recognise the concern felt about the effect on amenities of the presence of amusement machines, mainly in arcades but also in other premises. We have concluded in the light of the research that further legislative controls are not justified. There is, however, a need to consider how best to warn young people of the potential hazards of excessive use of amusement machines and to provide help to those at risk. We should also seek ways in which parents of any children running into serious trouble might be helped.

  The Government therefore propose to take the following steps:
  To enter into consultation at once with all the interested organisations and other bodies on how we can best deal with the few cases of genuine dependency.
  To pursue with the British Amusement Catering Trades Association and others the possibility of guidance which might be prominently displayed near the entrance to all arcades and possibly other premises with machines.
  To consult the local authority associations about the contribution which the education and youth services may make.
  With a view to making fuller use of the existing powers to protect amenity interests we shall seek comments from the local authority and trade associations on draft model bye-laws controlling, among other things, the opening hours of amusement arcades; and we will remind local authorities of the considerable powers available to ban amusement-with-prizes machines in premises other than amusement arcades, such as fish-and-chips shops.

  Haverigg and Lindholme Prisons
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any report on the disturbances at Her Majesty's prison, Haverigg and Her Majesty's prison, Lindholme; and if he will make a statement.
  424
  Mr. Hurd
  I have today received a report of the inquiries conducted by Mr. Gordon Lakes CB MC, the deputy director general of the prison service, into the serious disturbances at HMP Haverigg on 5–6 June 1988 and at HMP Lindholme on 15–16 July 1988.

  Mr. Lakes has examined the circumstances and analysed the issues arising from both incidents and finds that there are no simple explanations for what occurred. In both cases small numbers of determined troublemakers were able to exploit opportunities to create serious unrest and cause damage to property.

  At Haverigg 12 members of staff sustained minor injuries and three prisoners were injured, none seriously. At Lindholme no violence was directed at the staff and none was injured but 18 prisoners reported minor injuries.

  Mr. Lakes has made a large number of detailed recommendations for remedial action at both establishments including local operational improvements, enhanced contingency plans and revised security procedures. He has also identified a number of wider issues which require further review including physical aids to internal control in converted camps, refined allocation procedures and improved monitoring of prisoner populations.

  The prison service has already acted upon a number of the recommendations and I shall ensure that all lessons to be learnt are promulgated through line management channels without delay.

  I will place a summary of the results of these inquiries in the Library in due course.

  Asylum
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the granting of settlement to asylum seekers who are given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom and on the admission of their families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Policy in this area has recently been reviewed. In many cases settlement will not be at issue since those granted exceptional leave will return to their own countries when circumstances allow. In the remainder a person given exceptional leave will normally be granted settlement on application after seven years' residence in the United Kingdom, subject to the general provisions of paragraphs 97 to 100 of the immigration rules. In certain circumstances settlement may be granted earlier than, or withheld after, seven years. Exceptional leave will normally be granted in stages of one year, three years and three years, although this pattern may also be varied. Applications from the spouse and minor children of a person on exceptional leave to join him or her will usually be granted after four years, subject to the general requirements of the immigration rules on the admission of spouses and dependants. An application for family reunion may be granted at an earlier point if there are compelling compassionate circumstances.

  Turkish President (Visit)
  Mr. Corbyn
  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 on the arrival of
  425
  General Evren on 12 July giving (i) the total cost of policing the event, (ii) the number of officers involved and (iii) the number of persons arrested or held by the police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the additional costs of policing the arrival of General Evren amounted to about £25,000; 1,981 police officers were assigned to duties in connection with the event, and 10 arrests were made.

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the benefits, either for humans or animals, which have come about as a direct result of Professor Ian Steele-Russell's brain damage experiments on rats, rabbits and monkeys over the last 25 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 26 July. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

WALES

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom."

  Mr. Grist
  The conclusions and recommendations of this report cover a wide range of issues in the areas of child care, equal opportunities education and training, employment, taxation and public expenditure, some of which go beyond the Department's responsibilities. Officials will be studying the report and considering its implications.

  Ports (Employment)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in ports, and in associated employment, in Wales in(a) 1958, (b) 1968, (c) 1978 and (d)

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Data for Wales are not held in the format requested but the following information is available.

  1968 Standard Industrial Classification—1978

  Number

  Sea transport

  2,994

  Port and inland water transport

  4,242

  Miscellaneous transport services (includes other forms of transport)

  3,959

  1980 Standard Industrial Classification—1984

  Number

  Sea transport

  896

  Supporting services: sea transport

  2,976

  Source: Census of Employment.

  RNAD Milford Haven
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for the Welsh economy of the proposed closure of Milford Haven royal naval arms depot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministry of Defence has released its consultative document which proposes the closure of RNAD Milford Haven. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence will, however, consider all representations received from the work force, trades unions, local authorities and other interested parties before a final decision is taken. I am, of course, aware of the impact which closure of the depot would have on the area and if a decision is taken to close RNAD Milford Haven my Department will be discussing the future of the site with the Ministry of Defence and the public authorities concerned.

  Chernobyl Fallout (Cancer Deaths)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 25 July to the hon. Member for Newport, West, if he will provide details of the form in which statistics for the calculation of future cancer deaths from Chernobyl fallout in Wales are available.

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

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing(a) the number and (b) the corresponding cost of historic buildings purchased by his Department, or by CADW, in order to preserve them and safeguard them in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No historic buildings have been purchased on behalf of the Secretary of State for Wales since 1979. But, the following ancient monuments have been acquired for the purpose of their preservation in that period:

  Monument

  Date acquired

  Purchase price

  £

  Natatio Site, Caerleon

  2 October 1981

  2,000

  Haverfordwest Priory

  31 January 1982

  Gift

  Penyrwrlodd Long Cairn

  7 December 1982

  2,000

  Caerwent (Basilica, Forum and Amphitheatre site)

  15 March 1984

  44,000

  Segontium, Cae Mawr

  30 July 1984

  8,500

  Caerwent Wall (part)

  9 April 1987

  4,000

  In addition, the following ancient monuments have been taken into the guardianship of the Secretary of State, while remaining in other ownership since 1979:

  Monument

  Date taken into guardianship

  Careg Coetan Burial Chamber

  30 September 1981

  Caer Gybi Roman Wall

  27 April 1982

  Carswell Old House

  31 December 1982

  Homeless People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the number of people who are homeless in Wales as a result of mortgage default.

  Mr. Grist
  Current information on the number of homeless persons is not held centrally. However, during 1987 2,833 persons were accepted as homeless by local authorities due to mortgage default.

  Migration
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the rate of inward and outward migration in each district authority area in Wales during 1987–88.

  Mr. Grist
  Information at a county district level is not available. However, movements as recorded by the registration of patients with NHS doctors in different family practitioner committee areas, which correspond in Wales to the administrative counties, are given in the following table:

  Rate1 of movement between each FPC and the rest of the United Kingdom year ended December 1987

  Inward

  Outward

  Clwyd

  34

  27

  Dyfed

  38

  29

  Gwent

  21

  21

  Gwynedd

  41

  33

  Mid Glamorgan

  18

  21

  Powys

  51

  36

  South Glamorgan

  39

  34

  West Glamorgan

  21

  22

  1 Rate is the number of movements recorded per 1,000 population resident mid 1987. Movements within each FPC area are not included.

  Source: NHSCR and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Sewage Works
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1974 the percentage of Welsh water authority sewage treatment works that have failed to meet their effluent discharge standards.

  Mr. Grist
  The figures for the most recent years are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage failure

  1985–86

  19

  1986–87

  18

  1987–88

  17

  Prior to this the annual performance measurement specified in consents differed and comparable figures are therefore not available.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of those Welsh water authority sewage treatment works that failed to meet their effluent discharge standards in 1987, the measures that are proposed for each of these works to bring them up to standard, and the year by which it is anticipated they will have been brought up to standard.

  Mr. Grist
  The works concerned are listed in the table. The Welsh water authority has a rolling programme covering improvements to works. This programme is kept under continual review by the Department.
  428

  Brithdir

  Broadstone

  Maesteg

  Catbrook

  St. Briavels

  Llantilio Crosenny

  Wilton

  Llandewi Rhyddeth

  Walford (CD)

  Newland

  Llangarron (HH)

  Rockfield

  Abbey Dore

  Staunton on Wye

  Llanwarne (MP)

  Eardisley

  Garway Fairview

  Llanbister

  St. Owens Cross

  Newbridge on Wye

  Weston Penyard

  Cradoc (New Plant)

  Hereford Roth

  Christchurch

  Stock Edith

  Presteign

  Acton Green

  Stanford Bishop

  Pewcombe

  Kewderchurch

  Shobden

  Little Dewchurch

  Norton

  Pontrilas

  Weycock Cross

  Pandy

  Bonvilston W

  Chester

  Draethen

  Flint

  Pennybont

  Burton

  Carway

  Llanbedr DC

  Llangynderyrn

  Nantglyn

  Lampeter

  Denbigh

  Llanfair Clydogau

  Henllan

  Maes y Groes

  Reswley

  Northrop

  Ross (New)

  Mold

  Talley

  Drury

  Rhandirmwyn

  Gresford

  Cwmffrwd

  Queensferry

  Cilycum

  Mold (FP)

  Bronwydd

  Hope

  Llanelli

  Five Fords

  Bury Port

  Glynceiriog

  Marias

  Frongysllte

  Pennard

  Chirk

  New Chapel

  Chirk Bank

  Cross Inn and Webo

  Sesswick

  Llanybyther

  Sarnau

  Gorsgoch

  Llanfaes A

  Dihewyd

  Llangefni

  Devils Bridge

  Betws Yn Rhos

  Bowcath

  Talybont (PB)

  Rosemaket

  Caernarfon

  Narberth

  Tyddyn Hywel

  Kilgetty

  Llawiestyn

  Carwen

  Llanfrothen

  Rhaydypandy

  Pewmorfa

  Talgarrec

  Llandelwyn

  Kidwelly

  Dolgellau

  Miskin (Disosed)

  Bryncrug

  Ponthir

  Darowen

  Drope

  Raglan

  Llanbedr

  St. Weonards

  Press Releases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases have been issued by his Department in the 12 months beginning in July 1987 and in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of Welsh Office press releases issued by my Department in the 12 months beginning in July 1987 and in each of the previous five years was:

  Number

  July 1987-June 1988

  904

  July 1986-June 1987

  759

  July 1985-June 1986

  720

  July 1984-June 1985

  618

  July 1983-June 1984

  549

  July 1982-June 1983

  489

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  All programmes for which I am responsible are evaluated, but the costs of evaluation are not separately identified.

  Eye Malformations
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the study that has been carried out by the steering committee of the small area health statistics unit in relation to eye malformations in Torfaen.

  Mr. Grist
  Following receipt of detailed proposals for the conduct of such a study the views of the steering committee were invited. Their advice has recently been received. After careful consideration the steering committee concluded that this matter should not be subject to further examination by the unit. In reaching this view the steering committee took account of intrinsic difficulties in obtaining reliable data and on the absence of any evidence associating eye malformations with incinerator emissions. In the light of that and of the overall results of the valuable and substantial researches that Professor Laurence has carried out in the past for the Department, on congenital malformations in Torfaen, we have taken the view that investment in such a further study is not justified at this time.

  However, the Department routinely monitor a variety of data on human health problems including the incidence of congenital malformations. If this monitoring suggests that there are grounds for proceeding with a study at any stage that we shall ensure that appropriate measures are put in hand to determine what further investigations might be useful.

  Cancer (North Wales)
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Professor Hubert Campbell has not completed his investigation of the data relating to the incidence of cancer on the north Wales coast for the period 1974 to 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Professor Campbell has provided an analysis of the results of his investigation. He makes it clear that in his view there is nothing new in the reported incidence of cancers in north Wales; he notes that the high incidence has been known for at least 70 years.

  As a result of his examination of the data for all cancer registrations, covering the period 1974–83 Professor

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Receipts in respect of Departmental Running Costs1

  -0·6

  -0·7

  -1·1

  -1·0

  -1·2

  -0·9

  -0·9

  -1·0

  -1·0

  Receipts met from other expenditure programmes2

  430
  Campbell finds there was an excess of 5 per cent, in cancer registrations over the whole period on the north Wales coast when compared with the whole of Wales. The greater part of these registrations were in women and the sites involved were the lung, colon, rectum, stomach, breast and uterus. Professor Campbell considers that this pattern is the same as that which was known to affect north Wales many years ago; it is his view that it would be impossible to identify an actiological agent.

  Professor Campbell gave special attention to the data relating to thyroid cancers and leukaemias. It appears that there were 28 more cases than would be expected by reference to the whole of Wales of thyroid cancer amongst women of the age of 25 years and over, resident in Clwyd in the five years from 1974–78. Professor Campbell considers that this is something which should be investigated. As far as leukaemias are concerned Professor Campbell identifies 65 more cases than would be expected by reference to the whole of Wales over the period 1974–83 on the north Wales coast. He indicated that these cases were confined to people over the age of 65. He considers a number of hypotheses to explain this. Save in two cases, which might be amenable to long-term research, he identifies no grounds for action. It is however, Professor Campbell's view that the most likely explanation for the raised incidence of leukaemias, might be found in the diagnostic practice amongst clinicians in north Wales. He recommends that this hypothesis be examined. Secondly Professor Campbell considers that a study of genetic factors might also be worthy of further long-term research.

  I am very grateful to Professor Campbell for the work he has done and I shall be asking the steering committee for the small areas health statistics unit, under whose auspices Professor Campbell's investigation was undertaken, for its advice on what further work should now be commissioned in the light of Professor Campbell's analysis and recommendations, and specifically in relation to the three studies he suggests.

  I shall place a copy of the report of Professor Campbell's work in the Library of the House.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 Walker
  The information is estimated to be as follows:
  431

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (i) Programme expenditure (mainly EC receipts)

  -29·0

  -36·0

  -32·9

  -39·3

  -59·9

  -70·3

  -51·0

  -53·6

  -56·1

  (ii) Departmental Running Costs

  -0·4

  -0·6

  -0·7

  -0·7

  -0·9

  -0·7

  -0·7

  -0·8

  -0·9

  1 Including refunds of VAT.

  2 Excluding refunds of VAT and including receipts from the National Insurance Fund in respect of the Medical Reference Service.

  House Sales
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the likely benefits to Welsh people that might follow the introduction to England and Wales, in whole or in part, of the Scottish system of governing house sales; what discussions he has had on this possibility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: I have not considered or discussed such a possibility; reform of the legal system, which is common to England and Wales, is primarily a matter for my right hon. noble and Learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those indicators which led him to conclude that Caerphilly should be included within the boundaries of the area benefiting from the valleys programme, but that Bedwas and Machen should be excluded.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave him on 21 June and 19 July.

  Slurry Tank, Ciliau Moor Common
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what authority he gave retrospective consent to the siting of a slurry tank on Ciliau moor common.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: In deciding whether to give my consent under section 23 of the National Trust Act 1971 to the siting of a slurry tank on Ciliau moor common I was not prevented from giving consent despite the fact that the works had commenced.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether work on the construction of a slurry tank on Ciliau moor common progressed during the time in which planning consent was being sought.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: No planning consent was sought. I am informed by the local authority that no specific permission is required because permission is deemed to have been given under class 6 of the General Development Order 1977. I am unable to say whether work was in progress during the time I was considering the application under section 23 of the National Trust Act 1971 for consent to the siting of the slurry tank on Ciliau moor common.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service (1) whether he will now institute an ethnic monitoring procedure through to the appointment stage, in 432
  accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality, in respect of all the schemes for recruitment run by the Civil Service Commission;

  (2) whether he has instituted an ethnic monitoring procedure within the Civil Service Commission, in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality;

  (3) whether he will now institute ethnic monitoring procedure in accordance with the code for racial equality so that he may in future be able to give the numbers and percentages of ethnic minorities among permanent appointments to the Civil Service at grade 7 level or above.

  Mr. Luce
  The Commission for Racial Equality's code of practice recommends that employers should regularly monitor the effects of selection decisions in order to assess whether equal opportunity is being achieved. The code recognises that the need for detailed information and the methods of collecting it will vary according to circumstances.

  The Civil Service Commission currently monitors through to the appointment stage all its major schemes of recruitment. In specialist areas, where recruitment schemes frequently attract small, sometimes very small, applicant fields, the commission has adopted a more selective procedure. It has used the results of comprehensive monitoring of applications to identify those schemes where there are sufficient applicants of known ethnic origin, and within that sufficient ethnic minority applicants, for monitoring through to appointment to produce useful results. The results of the first year's monitoring were set out in the Civil Service Commissioners' annual report for 1987.

  The results of monitoring are being used to help the commissioners set priorities for improving equality of opportunity in recruitment. The commissioners are currently considering to what extent, within available resources and consistent with their priorities for further action, they can extend monitoring through to appointment. I shall write to the hon. and learned Member once they have completed their consideration.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service which quasi-governmental or other organisations which come under the aegis of the Cabinet Office and of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, respectively, have instituted procedures for ethnic monitoring, in accordance with the code for racial equality; and which have not.

  Mr. Luce
  Two advisory bodies come under the aegis of the Cabinet Office and seven under the OMCS. These advisory bodies do not employ staff on their own account. Their secretariats are provided by the Cabinet Office and are subject to departmental ethnic monitoring procedures.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service in which grades the two people from ethnic minorities specified as grades 1 to 7 in his Department are; and whether either or both of these people are women.
  433
  Mr. Luce
  The two are a senior medical officer (grade 5 equivalent) and a grade 7 (statistician). They are both male.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service in which grades the people from ethnic minorities specified as employed SEO or HEO in his Department from ethnic minorities are; and whether either or both of these people are women.

  Mr. Luce
  They are both HEOs, one male and one female.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service in which grades the people from ethnic minorities specified as EO in his Department from ethnic minorities are; and whether either or both of these people are women.

  Mr. Luce
  The three EOs are two males and one female.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will now update policy statements on equal opportunities issued in 1984.

  Mr. Luce
  I see no need to update policy statements at this stage.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what practical evidence there is in his Department of the increase in awareness at all levels of potential problems of equal opportunity and of the willingness to overcome them resulting from the policy statements issued in 1984.

  Mr. Luce
  By the increased understanding shown by staff at all levels when these matters are raised and discussed and the more ready acceptance of adaptations to working practices such as part-time working.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service by what methods his Department is constantly looking for ways to develop and improve its equal opportunities programme.

  Mr. Luce
  By reference to examples of best practice and other published information, by attendance at seminars involving both public and private sector organisations, and by discussion and consultations within the Department.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service who is carrying out current initiatives to develop and improve his Department's equal opportunities programme in connection with alternative working patterns and recruitment reviews, respectively.

  Mr. Luce
  The Cabinet Office personnel services branches.

  Departmental Monitoring Exercises
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what study his Department is making of the results of the monitoring exercises of recruitment, promotion and training; and whether he will place copies of the results of those exercises in the Library.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department is studying the results of the monitoring exercises in order to assess whether equal opportunity is being achieved. I will consider whether to place the results of the exercises in the Library.

THE ARTS

  Admissions
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on total admissions to arts events and institutions in the latest available year.

  Mr. Luce
  For the performing arts, the Policy Studies Institute's research publication "The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain" provides an estimate of some 49 million attendances at theatres and concerts in 1984–85. Information held on the Museums Association database suggests that some 73 million visits were made to museums and galleries in 1986.

  Employment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on direct employment in the arts sector of the economy in the latest available year.

  Mr. Luce
  Figures published this year by the Policy Studies Institute suggest that some 189,000 people were directly employed in the arts in 1986. There were also considerable numbers who were in employment ancillary to the arts, or self-employed on arts work.

  Horniman and Geffrye Museums
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his negotiations with the Horniman and Geffrye museums on their future funding and constitutions.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government have announced that the Horniman and the Geffrye museums will be established as independent charitable trusts able to take full advantage of all sources of funding and with an assurance of Government support following the abolition of the inner London education authority. Discussions on future arrangements for the museums are under way.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the amount of sponsorship of the arts provided by(a) private sector firms, (b) public sector organisations other than local authorities, (c) local authorities, (d) trade unions and (e) private individuals.

  Mr. Luce
  Private sector firms currently contribute some £30 million annually by way of sponsorship. The most recent figure available for local authority spending on arts, museums and galleries is £202·2 million, in 1983–84. Information is not held centrally on sponsorship by public sector organisations (other than local authorities); by trades unions; or by private individuals.

  Museum Education Service
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the future of the museum education service in London following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Luce
  On the abolition of the Inner London education authority, each inner London borough will become responsible for the education service in its area.
  435
  Boroughs, individually and jointly, are discussing with the ILEA and the Department of Education and Science a number of areas where cross-borough provision may continue to be appropriate.

  Scottish Arts Council (Funding)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list separately in the Official Report, the total funding by the Scottish Arts Council to local authorities, and groups operating from within the boundaries of local authorities in Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Books (VAT)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the latest estimates of the cost to national and local libraries of value-added tax on books at the current standard rate.

  Mr. Luce
  The British Library and local authority libraries in England are the only libraries for which I have responsibility. If books were subject to value added tax at the current standard rate, the approximate annual cost to the British Library based on current expenditure would be £550,000. There would be no cost to public libraries because, under present arrangements, local authorities are able to reclaim value added tax incurred in respect of their library activities.

  Radical Scotland
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will set out the criteria under which the Scottish Arts Council disburses grants; and how these criteria have been applied in the case of grants to Radical Scotland.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The two main criteria which the Scottish Arts Council uses in the assessment of an arts body are the artistic quality of its work and the efficiency of its management. The council satisfies itself that these criteria are met by all arts organisations to whom a grant is made. I am drawing my hon. Friend's concern about Radical Scotland to the attention of the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the current level of grant from the Scottish Arts Council to Radical Scotland.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The current Scottish Arts Council grant to Radical Scotland is £900 for the literary content of six issues of the publication.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what guidance he has issued to the Scottish Arts Council on the criteria under which they disburse grants to magazines and similar publications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: I do not issue any guidance. The Scottish Arts Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain have similar criteria for grant allocation.

ENVIRONMENT

  Licensed Premises
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider issuing guidance to planning committees faced with applications to change licensed premises into a private residence.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Local planning authorities should be able to decide such proposals, on the planning merits of the particular case, in the usual way against the background of the relevant planning policies.

  Sports Facilities (Safety)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to ensure that adequate safety standards are maintained in any changes in management in sports and leisure centres, arising from the recent statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Under the Government's proposals to bring compulsory competitive tendering to the management of local authority sport and leisure facilities, local authorities would be responsible for drawing up the tender specifications setting out, amongst other things, what safety requirements must be met. Moreover, the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974 already imposes a general duty to take reasonable measures with respect to health and safety on those who are, to any extent, in control of non-domestic premises, which include public sports and leisure facilities. This general duty is enforceable by the Health and Safety Executive and would continue to apply regardless of whether a facility was managed by a local authority's own employees or by a contractor. With regard to the safety of spectators at sports facilities, the requirement of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Fire Safety and Safety at Places of Sport Act 1987 would not be affected by the competitive tendering proposals.

  British Coal Properties (Sales)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what public subsidy was made available for the purchase of former British Coal properties by housing associations or local authorities; and what steps have been taken to monitor the identities of the purchasers of these properties.

  Mr. Trippier
  Earlier this year, £1·25 million was paid by the Housing Corporation to a consortium of registered housing associations purchasing British Coal properties in Nottinghamshire. No specific Exchequer subsidy has been made available for similar purchases by local authorities. The identity of those to whom properties are sold is a matter for British Coal, but under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, all tenants have the right to know who their landlord is.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals for the regulation of water charges.
  437
  Mr. Moynihan
  The arrangements for the regulation of charges are described in a policy letter dated 3 March 1988 (reference WRP1), copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  District Councils (Rate Support Grant)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all district councils in England and Wales which will receive no rate support grant in respect of the 1988–89 financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All district councils will receive domestic rate relief grant. The following English district councils are not expected to receive any block grant on the basis of the most recent estimate made under section 66(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980:

  South Bedfordshire

  Wokingham

  South Buckinghamshire

  Chiltern

  Milton Keynes

  Wycombe

  Basildon

  Harlow

  Thurrock

  Hart

  Redditch

  St. Albans

  Stevenage

  Three Rivers

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Selby

  Bassetlaw

  Oxford

  Epsom and Ewell

  Guildford

  Reigate and Banstead

  North Warwickshire

  Crawley

  The position in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Ivory Imports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce a total ban on the import of all worked ivory into the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total ban on the import of all worked ivory would be a matter for discussion with our EC partners. Import is strictly controlled under EC regulation 3626, which implements the convention on international trade in endangered species in the Community.

  Local Authority Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the competition rules for local authority direct labour organisations' building and maintenance work.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has today published a consultation paper proposing that all building and maintenance work other than highways and sewerage work should be subject to competition from next April, and that the present exemption for direct labour organisations with not more than 30 employees should be reduced to five employees. The present regulations, made 438
  under part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, have been in force since 1983 and the Government feel that there is no longer a case for any competition-free allowance for this work. Some authorities already expose all their maintenance and minor construction work to competition. We estimate that an extra £400 million of work would be exposed to compulsory competition each year. A 30-employee de minimis threshold no longer seems justified. This could allow an authority to carry out work worth £600,000 a year without competition.

  Copies of the paper are being distributed widely, including to all local authorities, and have been placed in the Library.

  Rates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the average rate bills for 1988–89 for each of the following categories(a) all households whose head is on income support, (b) all households whose head is aged 25 or more and on income support and (c) all households whose head is aged less than 25 and on income support for each region of England and Wales and for Scotland.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the implementation by local authorities of the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department keeps a close watch on complaints from tenants experiencing difficulty or delay in exercising the right to buy. Eleven local authorities where there have been serious shortcomings are required to report monthly on their performance.

  Richmond Yard
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 21 July, what is the precise nature of the internal management purposes to which he refers in relation to the Property Services Agency's valuation of Richmond yard.

  Mr. Chope
  Planning and managing the disposition of in-house resources.

  Arts Organisations (Rate Revenue)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the revenue from arts organisations to local government rates for each of the past 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Based on rateable values for libraries, museums, art galleries etc. and theatres and music halls in England gross rate yields from these organisations are estimated as; follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  10

  1980–81

  12

  1981–82

  16

  439

  £ million

  1982–83

  18

  1983–84

  19

  1984–85

  21

  1985–86

  23

  1986–87

  26

  1987–88

  27

  1988–89

  29

  Local authorities have the power to reduce or remit the payment of rates chargeable in respect of organisations whose main objects are concerned with education, social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts. The amount actually paid in rates by these organisations may therefore be less than the figures quoted.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a reconciliation of (a) the turnover of the Ordnance Survey in 1986–87 as shown by note 2 to its trading accounts (HC 380 of 1987–88) with (b) the analysis of receipts in the 1986–87 Appropriation Accounts for class XX, vote II (HC 107-XII of 1987–88).

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is as follows:

  £'000 s

  £'000 s

  Trading accounts turnover

  31,199

  Add VAT

  2,135

  Non trading receipts

  421

  2,556

  Less increase in debtors

  44

  Decrease in copyright in advance

  3

  47

  Appropriation account receipts

  33,708

  Turnover is explained in note 1(h) to the 1986–87 trading accounts and is exclusive of VAT.

  Appropriation of account receipts are sums actually received by the Department. It is therefore necessary in reconciling the turnover and receipts to allow for movements in debtors and copyright in advance.

  Trees
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further assistance he will provide to promote the replacement planting of amenity trees lost in the storm of 15–16 October 1987.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many trees were planted in each month since September 1987.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We estimate that £1·4 million was spent on aiding the planting of approximately 500,000 amenity trees under the initial task force trees programme (including site preparation and certain other costs) and a similar sum on grant-aiding tree surgery to some 30,000 trees. Other amenity planting took place in this period under the existing programme of aid administered by the Countryside Commission, and planting in woodlands where it was grant aided, or undertaken directly, by the Forestry Commission.
  440
  Complete figures are not available, and it is not possible to give a breakdown by month. However, much planting has also been undertaken by private individuals, voluntary bodies and local authorities at their own expense.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the progress of measures his Department has taken to replace trees destroyed in the October 1987 hurricane.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have already made substantial sums available for the replacement planting of amenity trees, both in rural and in urban areas, through a special unit of the Countryside Commission, task force trees. In 1987–88 £3 million was allocated for this purpose and in January my noble Friend the Minister of State announced that a further £800,000 would be provided for the current financial year to supplement the commission's regular programme of assistance for planting.

  At that time, my noble Friend also said that the Government would make a further statement of their intentions in good time for the start of the next planting season. Accordingly, following detailed discussions with the Countryside Commission, we have decided to make available to task force trees an additional allocation of £2·5 million to implement the next phase of restoration. Of this, £200,000 is to be spent in the current financial year and the remainder in 1989–90.

  We see this additional aid as part of a longer-term programme of restoration, of which further details will be announced in due course.

  The Government are conscious of the damage caused by the storm to historic parks and gardens, and both English Heritage and task force trees are providing appropriate assistance. For 1989–90, in addition to the further resources for task force trees, we shall be making available £500,000 to English Heritage to enable it to continue its programme of grant assistance for the clearance and replanting of parks and gardens of outstanding architectural or historic interest.

  Housing Association Hostels
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals for the future funding of housing association hostels.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has published today a consultation paper on the future funding of housing association hostels and special needs projects. Comments from all interested organisations and individuals will be welcome by 30 September.

  Planning Enforcement
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the arrangements for the review of planning enforcement powers which he announced recently.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. Robert Carnwath QC has agreed to prepare a report for me on this subject. His terms of reference are:—"To examine the scope and effectiveness of provisions, in Part V and XII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, relating to enforcement of planning control, including appeals to the Secretary of State, and to make recommendations for improvements to the present provisions or for alternative provisions."

  441
  I have asked that the report be completed by early in 1989.

  Mr. Carnwath will be seeking views from representative bodies on the matters included in the terms of reference. Anyone wishing to offer such views should do so in writing to Planning and Development Control Division 2, Tollgate house, Houlton street, Bristol BS2 9DJ.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  I announced on 3 February the Government's intention to sell those of the Crown Suppliers' businesses which can be undertaken on a normal commercial basis. Such businesses can be carried out more efficiently in the private sector and should provide an improved source of competitive supplies for the public sector. I have excluded from the package for sale only those of TCS activities which are not run on commercial lines; which raise questions of security; or which, because of the very specialised nature of the business, exceptionally provide better value for money within the public sector.

  The package for sale will therefore include the Crown Suppliers' businesses of selling furniture, furnishings, floor coverings, domestic appliances, electrical, mechanical and laboratory equipment, building materials and vehicles, together with its associated repair, design and technical services. It will also include the transport hire business and the interdepartmental dispatch service between Government Departments. All these are businesses which are commonly carried out by private firms with which I hope the Crown Suppliers will be able successfully to compete.

  For security reasons, I have decided to exclude from the sale the design and procurement of security furniture and equipment and the car service which transports Ministers and senior officials in London.

  On value-for-money grounds, the Crown Suppliers' fuel business will not be sold. I accept that the extremely specialised nature of fuel procurement is such that the Crown Suppliers, once privatised, would be unlikely to be able or willing to secure as low prices as it can at present. The business will therefore be retained in Government, and the possibility of establishing it as an executive agency will be examined.

  Also on value-for-money grounds, I envisage that the expertise necessary to procure those few highly specialised items of equipment where the Property Services Agency is the only customer and there is a single supplier should be retained in the agency, since in these circumstances there are no additional cost advantages to be gained fron using the Crown Suppliers to find sources of supply or to purchase in bulk for a number of customers.

  Finally, the special unit in the Crown Suppliers which provides services to the Palace of Westminster and other royal palaces and civil residences in Whitehall and elsewhere is not presently run on strictly commercial lines; it is not therefore suitable for inclusion in this sale, although I would not wish to rule out contracting out part of the work of the section in due course.

  When the Crown Suppliers is sold, staff working on the activities being privatised will be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 which, inter alia, provide for the automatic transfer
  442
  of staff with their jobs to the new employer. Staff in those groups for whom there may be prospects of alternative employment within the Civil Service will be asked whether or not they wish to remain in the Civil Service or stay with the Crown Suppliers. We shall use our best endeavours to meet their wishes where they are consistent with the smooth transfer of functions, but I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to satisfy all preferences.

  I shall now be consulting the trade unions on these proposals and working up detailed plans for the sale. A number of efficiency improvements are being made so that the Crown Suppliers will be structured and ready for the challenge of privatisation.

  Red List Substances
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish detailed proposals for controlling red list substances in relation to the aquatic environment, first announced last November and outlined to Environment Ministers at the second international conference on the North sea.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Government have today published a consultation paper setting out its detailed proposals for tightening controls over the input of the most dangerous substances to water—the so-called red list. The consultation paper explains the selection scheme developed by my Department to identify those substances which are thought to pose the greatest threat to our water environment and the system of controls through which it is proposed to minimise the amounts of these substances reaching our inland and coastal waters. The initial red list contained 26 substances selected on the basis of their toxicity, persistence and capacity for bio-accumulation.

  Industrial processes discharging significant amounts of red list substances will be prescribed for control by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and will have to satisfy the inspectorate that the process will be operated using best available technology not entailing excessive cost in order to minimise the amounts of these substances discharged. In addition, discharges will continue to have to satisfy environmental quality objectives which water authorities set for the receiving waters.

  Where these substances reach water from indirect or diffuse sources, the Government will be asking water authorities to initiate more rigorous environmental monitoring, and will be seeking ways of applying existing controls over their marketing and use more effectively.

  These proposals represent a further move in United Kingdom policy towards a more precautionary approach to the protection of the aquatic environment and will constitute a key element in our implementation of the measures agreed by Ministers at last November's second international conference on the North sea. Although these proposals relate primarily to the water environment, they are consistent with the wider policies for integrated pollution control, which are the subject of a separate consultation paper also being published today. The Government also see the proposals as having general implications for the development of European policy on the control of dangerous substances to water. The Government hope to start implementing these proposals on an interim basis during the second half of 1989.

  The consultation paper is being sent to the CBI, the Chemical Industries Association, the Water Authorities

  443
  Association, representation of various trade organisations and other interested parties. Copies are available from the Vote Office and in the Library.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for legislation to fulfil the remit given to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in the action plan following the "Scrutiny Report Inspecting Industry: Pollution and Safety" to develop an integrated approach to pollution control.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today issued a consultation paper which sets out proposals for a new statutory framework which gives expression to the cross-media approach to pollution control which underlay the creation of HMIP in April 1987. They also reflect the concept of "best practicable environmental option" developed by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, notably in its fifth and 12th reports. The Government will take account of views expressed during consultations before reaching conclusions on these proposals.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will implement the directive on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is unfortunately not possible, as we had wished, to apply the transfrontier directive to all special wastes as defined in the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980. The 1980 regulations control the movement of a wider range of difficult wastes than the minimum required by European law and it appears that there is no basis in United Kingdom law to apply the transfrontier directive other than to that minimum.

  I accordingly intend to lay in the next few weeks regulations to implement the transfrontier directive in respect of special wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls and those substances listed in the annex to directive 78/319 (toxic and dangerous waste), except organic and chlorinated solvents which are specifically excluded from the transfrontier directive. This will implement the transfrontier directive in full. Details of the revised basis of implementation are being sent to local authority associations, industry and other interested parties.

  Imports of other special wastes will continue to be subject to the special waste regulations but I am investigating the possibility of further measures under United Kingdom law to tighten the controls applicable to such imports.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce his decision on the planning application for the line of the road and the east London river crossing; and if he will make a statement on its relationship with the London City airport.

  Mr. Channon
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am pleased to announce that, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I have decided that the A406 east London
  444
  river crossing will be built with a new bridge across the Thames. This follows our consideration of the report from the inspector who conducted local public inquiries between September 1985 and December 1986.

  The inspector recommended that the Department of Transport's scheme, including a new cable-stayed bridge across the Thames, should be built. He rejected alternative tunnel options.

  We have decided to defer a decision on the design of the bridge. The inspector considered that a dual three-lane standard would eventually be needed. With the design originally proposed, it would not be possible to provide three full-width lanes. We also accept the inspector's recommendation that the design should incorporate a segregated cycleway. We considered late objections, forwarded to us by the inspector without comment, from Eurocity Express and the Air Transport Users Committee. These objections concerned the height of the towers of the proposed Thames bridge, which would limit options for future use of London City airport.

  I am therefore asking the consultants for the scheme to investigate whether there is an alternative design for the bridge which would be practicable, acceptable and within the broad order of costs of the Department's proposed bridge, and which would satisfy the objectives of the scheme, and keep open options for future use of the airport.

  The inspector recommended a number of modifications to the Department's proposals. One of these was his proposal to provide about 400 m of cut-and-cover tunnel through part of Oxleas wood and to delete the south-facing slip roads at the Shooters hill interchange. Having carefully weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the inspector's proposal, we are not satisfied that the additional cost of the tunnel and the loss of benefits from deletion of the slip roads are justified. We have decided not to accept this recommendation.

  Those parts of the orders relating to the line and most of the side road orders will now be made. The inspector also recommended that the draft compulsory purchase orders should be made, and that the three certificates for exchange land should be granted. We have deferred decisions on these.

  Copies of the inspector's report and our decision letter are being placed in the Library.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is planning to issue any guidance to local authorities concerning the sale of accommodation for homeless people to developers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: Local authorities are well aware of the rules governing sale or disposal of housing land and property. The general consents of 2 June 1981 gave local authorities powers to make certain disposals without reference to this Department; and other disposals require special consent under sections 32 to 34 of the Housing Act 1985. Whether a particular sale of accommodation used for homeless people needs the Secretary of State's consent would depend upon the terms of disposal.

  Ordnance Survey (Bristol Railway)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the railway line omitted from the current Ordnance Survey maps for the Bristol area, but which is visible to travellers on the M5 south of that town, will be included in the next printing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The decision to omit such features is made by the owning authority for reasons of security. The need to impose restrictions on published material is regularly reviewed to ensure that detail is not unnecessarily withheld. As a result of a recent review, following the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories, it has been decided that this railway line will be shown on the next edition of the Ordnance Survey maps of the area.

  Planning Consents
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued to local planning authorities regarding the degree of change to the terms of an original consent, or the degree of flexibility in those terms that many allow before requiring a new consent.

  Mr. Chope
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to changes to proposals before the grant of full planning permission. My Department's circular 22/80 "Development Control—Policy and Practice" advises local planning authorities that provided that the amendments do not materially change the character of the development proposed, it is sensible and time-saving to allow applicants to amend applications for approval of reserved matters, or small details of full applications for planning permission, thus avoiding the need for a fresh planning application.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications to change a scheme which had already received planning consent were notified in 1987; and what percentage of these were successful(a) at local authority level and (b) on appeal to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of all planning applications in 1987 were successful(a) at local authority level and (b)on appeal to him.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1987, local planning authorities granted permission for 85 per cent, of planning applications decided by them. The number of cases in which permission was granted on appeal to the Secretary of State in 1987 was equivalent to 1·4 per cent, of planning applications decided by local planning authorities in that year.

  Tenanted Residential Property (Planning Permission)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to(a) prevent applicants for planning permission for works to tenanted residential property from making false statements about their intentions for the future of the tenants and (b) provide tenants with rights to safeguard their position during the planning process.
  446
  Mr. Chope
  A grant of planning permission cannot remove the legal rights of any tenant of the land to which the permission relates, nor is protection of those rights a function of the planning system. A tenant may make representations to the local planning authority about the land use planning implications of a planning application and the authority may impose planning conditions giving effect to the applicant's undertakings in so far as they relate to land-use planning matters.

  Football Supporters (Membership Scheme)
  Mr Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the proposed compulsory membership scheme for football supporters; and if he will list the organisations in favour of, and opposed to, the scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received 130 representations about the national membership scheme from members of the public, nine from organisations. I have also received a large number of proposals to implement the scheme from computer companies and others. I could not list those who have written in by name without their consent to do so.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations he has consulted or proposes to consult in connection with the compulsory membership scheme for football supporters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am chairing a working party to examine the details of the proposed national membership scheme for football supporters. The Football League, the Football Association, the police, the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and other Government Departments are represented on it. I have asked the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs to let me have in writing any points it would like the working party to take into account. I will shortly be issuing a similar invitation to the Football Supporters Association.

  It is our intention to bring proposals to Parliament for legislation to give statutory backing to the scheme.

  Common Land
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of the report of the Common Land Forum of September 1986, he will bring forward legislation to amend the law on common land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I announced on 29 January 1987 that the Government accept the case for legislation based broadly on the forum's report and intend to introduce a comprehensive commons Bill at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits.

  General Development Order
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish the revised and consolidated town and country planning General Development Order.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: We propose to lay a revised and consolidated General Development Order in time for it to come into effect later this year.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of properties for rent which are empty in each of the categories of(a) local authority housing, (b) housing association housing and (c) Government Department housing; and what is his estimate of the percentage that this represents of the total number of properties in each such group.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: Estimates derived from local authorities' annual housing investment programme returns for 1987 are as follows:

  Vacant dwellings1 at 1 April 1987: England

  Number and percentage of stock

  000's

  Percentage

  Local authorities2

  108·6

  2·5

  Housing associations

  12·9

  2·7

  Other public sector2

  15·6

  5·8

  1 Excluding dwellings subject to demolition or closing orders.

  2 Local authorities vacant housing in overspill estates is included in the host authorities under "other public sector" which also includes housing owned by new towns, county councils, Government departments, nationalised industries and other public bodies. Many of these are vacant because of operational requirements, notably those owned by the Ministry of Defence, and others have been acquired for demolition (for example, by the Department of Transport). Government is encouraging the sale of housing which is not required and many of those that are vacant are in the process of disposal.

SCOTLAND

  Supply Estimates
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the miscellaneous items covered in the proposed increase for 1988–89 of class XVI, vote 14, N9(7) miscellaneous.

  Table 1—Scottish local authority summarised housing revenue accounts

  11982–83

  11983–84

  11984–85

  11985–86

  21986–87

  21987–88

  31988–89

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Loan charges

  416

  399

  414

  431

  424

  435

  469

  Non-loan charges4

  260

  269

  295

  280

  301

  317

  335

  Total expenditure5

  675

  668

  699

  711

  725

  751

  805

  Rents

  414

  448

  470

  511

  570

  632

  685

  Subsidy (HSG, RFC)

  229

  195

  202

  165

  121

  84

  77

  Other income5

  32

  25

  27

  35

  34

  36

  43

  Total income

  675

  668

  699

  711

  725

  751

  805

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1982–83 to 1985–86 are based on audited accounts.

  2 Figures for 1986–87 to 1987–88 are near actual outturns.

  3 Figures for 1988–89 are authorities estimates.

  4 The main item of expenditure in management and maintenance.

  5 Total may not add up due to rounding.

  Table 2—Scottish special housing association summarised housing revenue accounts

  1982–831

  1983–841

  1984–851

  1985–861

  1986–872

  1987–882

  1988–893

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Loan charges

  51

  55

  58

  62

  65

  67

  69

  Non-Loan charges4

  29

  27

  27

  28

  33

  34

  34

  Total expenditure5

  80

  83

  85

  90

  97

  101

  103

  Rents

  52

  57

  60

  64

  70

  74

  78

  Subsidy

  26

  23

  23

  23

  24

  24

  22

  Other income

  3

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Total income5

  80

  83

  85

  90

  97

  101

  103

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1982–83 to 1985–86 are based on audited accounts.
  448
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision for N9(7) miscellaneous expenditure in the current year is £2,902,000 compared with £601,000 in 1987–88. This increase is due mainly to the inclusion of £2·199 million to provide for expenditure on centrally financed AIDS-related projects.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the additional printing and stationery envisaged by the projected increase in expenditure under Supply Estimates 1988–89, class XVI, vote 14, (N9.6 stationery, printing, etc.)

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision for N9(6) stationery, printing, and so on in the current year is £100,000 compared with £55,000 in 1987–88. This increase is to cover the estimated costs of producing and issuing to all general medical practitioners a consolidated version of the regulations governing general medical practitioners' terms and conditions of service and the revised drug tariff which will be issued to all general practitioners. Provision has also been made for the recurring costs of a large number of other health-related publications.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a summarised housing revenue account, consistent with table 16.1 of Cm. 288–11, for each of the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 for (a) Scottish local authorities, (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association housing and (c) new town development corporations in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for the years 1982–83 to 1988–89 is shown in the tables. Projections of housing revenue account income and expenditure are not available for 1989–90 and 1990–91.
  449
  2 Figures for 1986–87 to 1987–88 are near actual outturns.

  3 Figures for 1988–89 are estimates.

  4 The main item of expenditure is management and maintenance.

  5 Total may not add up due to rounding.

  Table 3—Scottish new town development corporations summarised housing revenue accounts

  1982–831

  1983–841

  1984–851

  1985–861

  1986–871

  1987–882

  1988–892

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Loan charges

  48

  49

  51

  52

  53

  47

  49

  Non-Loan charges3

  18

  19

  19

  20

  21

  23

  23

  Total expenditure4

  66

  68

  70

  72

  74

  70

  72

  Rents

  33

  35

  36

  38

  40

  42

  44

  Subsidy

  32

  33

  32

  33

  33

  27

  28

  Other income

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total income4

  66

  68

  70

  72

  74

  70

  72

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1982–83 to 1986–87 are based on audited accounts.

  2 Figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are estimates.

  3 The main item of expenditure is management and maintenance.

  4 Totals may not add up due to rounding.

  Illegal Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of convictions in Scotland for procuring an illegal abortion in 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West of 18 July,Official Report, columns 510–11, if he will indicate in respect of the total number of bird deaths reported to his Department between 1 January 1979 and 30 June 1988, the percentage represented by those known to have been killed by the use of poisoned bait.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  75 per cent.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West of 18 July,Official Report, columns 510–11, if he will indicate for each species of bird listed those cases reported to his Department by owners or occupiers of land and those reported by other parties.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information asked for is not available, in that reports are very often made at second hand and the records held by my Department's wildlife incident investigation service do not always contain information as to the persons making the first report of the finding of carcases of birds.

  Training (Expenditure)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide an estimate of the expenditure by industry on training in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not collected.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of people classified as employees in employment for each quarter December 1986 to March 1988 inclusive, as defined prior to the introduction of the concept of the civilian work force in employment in June 1988.
  450
  Mr. Lang
  The table gives the latest estimates of the number of employees in employment, the definition of which has not been affected by the introduction of the concept of the civilian work force in employment.

  Employees in employment

  Thousands

  Scotland

  Unadjusted for seasonal variation

  Seasonally adjusted

  1986

  December

  1,874

  1,874

  1987

  March

  1,862

  1,876

  June

  1,886

  1,880

  September

  1,879

  1,871

  December

  1,877

  1,878

  1988

  March

  1,868

  1,882

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the impact of the new work force definition of including training scheme participants as employees on(a) the monthly percentage unemployment rate and (b) the number of employees in employment.

  Mr. Lang
  For Scotland as a whole the unemployment rate on the work force basis is, on average, 0·2 percentage points lower than the unemployment rate calculated on the previous basis, which did not include participants on work-related Government training programmes in the denominator. The definition of employees in employment has not been changed.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the impact the new adult training programme and withdrawal of general entitlement to benefit for young people under 18 years, w;ill have on the monthly unemployment figures, claimant count, after November.

  Mr. Lang
  Plans are for some 41,000 filled places under employment training in Scotland, in comparison to some 35,000 under existing adult programmes. It will of course take some time for employment training to become fully established.

  As regards income support changes, there are currently around 21,000 claimants aged under 18 on average

  451
  included in the count for Scotland, of whom some 14,000 are school leavers who are already excluded from the seasonally adjusted series. The majority of these will no longer be entitled to benefit.

  Heatwise, Glasgow
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Heatwise, Glasgow, concerning the employment training programme; and what response he has given.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  I visited Heatwise in Glasgow on 11 July and am fully aware of the serious problems the company faces as a consequence of the decision by Glasgow district council not to participate in employment training. For the sake of the long-term unemployed I hope that Glasgow district council, and other local authorities which have adopted a similar stance, will reconsider their position and join the new programme.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of apprenticeships in Scotland in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Lang
  I regret that the information is not available in the precise form requested. The table shows the number of apprentices and other trainees in manufacturing industry in Scotland since 1981. In 1988, as a percentage of all manufacturing employees, the number of apprentices and other trainees was higher in Scotland than in any other Great Britain region.

  Apprentices and Trainees in Scottish Manufacturing Industries

  1981–1988

  Year

  Apprentices (000s)

  Other (000s)

  All trainees (000s)

  1981

  13·6

  4·2

  17·8

  1982

  12·3

  4·8

  17·1

  1983

  11·9

  2·8

  14·7

  1984

  8·3

  2·6

  11·0

  1985

  8·3

  2·8

  11·1

  1986

  6·3

  2·7

  9·0

  1987

  5·8

  2·8

  8·6

  1988

  6·1

  4·9

  11·0

  Notes:

  1. The figures refer to March of each year.

  2. Many of those receiving initial skills training under YTS, specifically those without a contract of employment, are not counted as employees and so do not appear in the above table.

  3. With the move away from traditional apprentice training in many industries some long duration schemes of a type which previously could have involved apprenticeships may now be classified as "other training".

  Training Programmes
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of people included in "Employers in Employment" who were participating in Government training programmes for each quarter from December 1986 to March 1988 inclusive, prior to the introduction of the concept of the civilian work force in employment.

  Mr. Lang
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to employees in employment.

  Estimates of the number of people participating in Government training programmes included in the
  452
  employees in employment statistics for Scotland for each quarter from December 1986 to March 1988 inclusive are shown in the table.

  Number

  December 1986

  41,000

  March 1987

  40,000

  June 1987

  39,000

  September 1987

  41,000

  December 1987

  40,000

  March 1988

  41,000

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of culpable homicide were prosecuted under sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act in 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1987, 30 people were prosecuted under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 for causing death by reckless driving. Since, under sections 2 and 3 of the Act, the consequences of the driving do not form part of the charge, no information is available in the criminal statistics on whether or not charges under these sections arose out of an incident in which a death occurred. However, cases of reckless driving involving a death are almost invariably prosecuted under section 1 rather than section 2 or 3.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of (a) fatalities and (b) serious injuries caused by road traffic accidents in (i) each regional authority, (ii) each district authority and (iii) each parliamentary constituency in Scotland for the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for 1985 and 1986 is included at tables 23 and 26 of "Road Accidents Scotland", for 1985 and 1986 respectively, copies of which are available in the Library. The figures for 1987 are as follows:

  Region/district

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Borders

  23

  282

  430

  735

  Tweeddale

  1

  46

  54

  101

  Ettrick/Lauderdale

  7

  92

  153

  252

  Roxburgh

  5

  74

  135

  214

  Berwickshire

  10

  70

  88

  168

  Central

  26

  284

  734

  1,044

  Clackmannan

  2

  42

  93

  137

  Stirling

  14

  109

  262

  385

  Falkirk

  10

  133

  379

  522

  Dumfries and Galloway

  26

  225

  544

  795

  Wigtown

  5

  45

  125

  175

  Stewartry

  3

  50

  77

  130

  Nithsdale

  7

  65

  203

  275

  Annandale/Eskdale

  11

  65

  139

  215

  Fife

  33

  308

  973

  1,314

  Kirkcaldy

  8

  11

  394

  513

  North East Fife

  10

  99

  258

  367

  Dunfermline

  15

  98

  321

  434

  Grampian

  72

  484

  2,086

  2,642

  Aberdeen

  10

  137

  822

  969

  Moray

  7

  84

  299

  390

  Banff and Buchan

  10

  84

  361

  455

  Gordon

  24

  110

  353

  487

  453

  Region/district

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Kincardine and Deeside

  21

  69

  251

  341

  Highland

  22

  391

  665

  1,078

  Caithness

  3

  61

  67

  131

  Sutherland

  —

  29

  44

  73

  Ross and Cromarty

  4

  89

  105

  198

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1

  32

  87

  120

  Lochaber

  4

  28

  102

  134

  Inverness

  4

  93

  190

  287

  Bandenoch and Strathspey

  6

  42

  48

  96

  Nairn

  —

  17

  22

  39

  Lothian

  73

  1,165

  2,552

  3,790

  Edinburgh

  38

  658

  1,787

  2,483

  West Lothian

  15

  217

  348

  580

  Midlothian

  11

  152

  219

  382

  East Lothian

  9

  138

  198

  345

  Strathclyde

  203

  2,771

  8,303

  11,277

  Glasgow

  52

  897

  2,963

  3,912

  Argyll and Bute

  12

  141

  340

  493

  Dumbarton

  13

  114

  316

  443

  Clydebank

  3

  74

  192

  269

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  4

  32

  126

  162

  Strathkelvin

  6

  83

  268

  357

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  7

  38

  115

  160

  Monklands

  8

  126

  362

  496

  Motherwell

  9

  149

  401

  559

  Hamilton

  7

  132

  320

  459

  East Kilbride

  1

  66

  192

  259

  Eastwood

  5

  44

  123

  172

  Clydesdale

  17

  105

  311

  433

  Renfrew

  15

  233

  714

  962

  Inverclyde

  7

  115

  332

  454

  Cunninghame

  11

  154

  430

  595

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  7

  98

  266

  371

  Kyle and Carrick

  17

  107

  389

  513

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2

  63

  143

  208

  Tayside

  67

  692

  1,063

  1,822

  Dundee

  17

  190

  359

  566

  Angus

  15

  190

  257

  462

  Perth and Kinross

  35

  312

  447

  794

  Orkney

  3

  24

  28

  55

  Shetland

  4

  32

  57

  93

  Western Isles

  4

  50

  51

  105

  Scotland

  556

  6,708

  17,486

  24,750

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal accident inquiries were held in connection with road traffic accidents in 1987; and if he will give a breakdown by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures are available only for the number of fatal accident inquiries so far instructed in road traffic deaths occurring in 1987. Thirty two such fatal accident inquiries have been instructed. The regional breakdown is set out in the table.

  Number of fatal accident inquiries instructed as a result of road traffic deaths occurring in 1987

  Region

  Number

  Highland

  2

  Grampian

  5

  Tayside

  6

  Fife

  1

  Lothian

  7

  454

  Region

  Number

  Central

  1

  Borders

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  Strathclyde

  7

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  Walter Howden
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent correspondence he has received from Walter Howden, an inmate of Saughton prison, about his term of imprisonment; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. Howden petitioned my right hon. and learned Friend on 4 May 1988 and was given a reply on 16 June. A review of Mr. Howden's suitability for release on life licence is in train.

  East Craigs Seed Testing Station
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from trades unions about the future of East Craigs seed testing station, Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish branch of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants formally submitted comments on the report on "The Plant Variety Testing and Seed Certification Systems in the United Kingdom" on 18 July. These comments will be fully taken into account by the agriculture Ministers in deciding on their response to the many recommendations contained in the report.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total staff complement of the Forestry Commission in each year since 1973.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures were as follows:

  Year

  Number of Staff in Post

  1973

  8,527

  1974

  8,298

  1975

  8,304

  1976

  8,252

  1977

  8,077

  1978

  8,168

  1979

  8,323

  1980

  8,129

  1981

  7,952

  1982

  7,545

  1983

  7,249

  1984

  6,836

  1985

  6,273

  1986

  5,967

  1987

  5,798

  1988

  5,528

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental
  455
  programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of (a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Evaluation is an integral part of the process of managing programmes. It is therefore not possible to identify separately the resources involved.

  Expenditure on secondary education

  £ million

  Year

  Central Government

  Local Authorities

  At outturn prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  At outturn prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  1979–80

  1·8

  3·2

  342·9

  602·2

  1980–81

  3·2

  4·8

  415·2

  614·9

  1981–82

  3·3

  4·4

  471·9

  636·0

  1982–83

  3·9

  4·9

  506·4

  637·1

  1983–84

  4·3

  5·1

  534·4

  642·1

  1984–85

  4·1

  4·8

  549·3

  632·0

  1985–86

  4·4

  4·7

  565·3

  613·8

  1986–87

  4·9

  5·1

  608·9

  639·5

  1987–88

  5·5

  5·5

  653·6

  653·6

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown are for current expenditure only. Information on capital expenditure by local authorities cannot be split between primary and secondary.

  2. The outturn figures have been revalued to 1987–88 prices by application of the GDP deflator.

  3. The 1987–88 outturn figures are estimated. For other years actual outturn figures have been given.

  4. The central Government expenditure relates mainly to the assisted places scheme and in earlier years to assistance to grant-aided schools.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the amount of finance given to local authority secondary education section in Scotland by industry and commerce in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total amount of expenditure on non-advanced further education in Scotland in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to distinguish between expenditure by further education colleges on non-advanced courses and on advanced courses (higher national certificate and higher national diploma). Information on total further education expenditure is as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  82·6

  1980–81

  102·0

  1981–82

  115·3

  1982–83

  134·2

  1983–84

  151·7

  1984–85

  158·0

  1985–86

  155·6

  1986–87

  161·4

  1987–88

  181·0

  Health Authorities (Revenue)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how long it will take to achieve revenue equalisation, as envisaged by the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation formula.

  Education (Expenditure)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total expenditure on secondary education in Scotland in each of the years 1979 to 1987 inclusive, in cash and real terms and by central Government and the local education authority section.

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

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The timetable will depend upon a number of factors, notably the movement in boards' SHARE targets, themselves dependent upon other changes, for example in population.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the education and training objectives of the city technology concept in Scotland;

  (2) if he has any proposals to introduce city technology colleges in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91;

  (3) if he will give the estimated expenditure for the development of city technology colleges in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91;

  (4) when he last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Trades Union Congress or Strathclyde regional council to discuss the setting up of city technology colleges;

  (5) if he has met representatives of private sector industry about the setting up of city technology colleges;

  (6) whether any public finance will be used to meet the capital or revenue costs of city technology colleges;

  (7) if any private individuals or private sector organisations have agreed to contribute finance to the setting up of city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I wish to encourage the establishment with private sector sponsorship of technology colleges in Scotland, and are giving close consideration to proposals to achieve this objective.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils obtained O-grades or higher certificate in secondary schools in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.
  457
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of pupils obtaining SCE higher grade and published annually in the Scottish Examination Board report, copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. The report also contains information on numbers of S4 pupils obtaining ordinary/standard grades.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils sat O-grades or higher certificate in secondary schools in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is published annually in the Scottish Examination Board report, copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils attended secondary school in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of pupils attending education authority and grant-aided secondary schools is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  421,970

  1980

  419,370

  1981

  415,760

  1982

  410,050

  1983

  401,420

  1984

  387,200

  1985

  361,210

  1986

  344,930

  11987

  327,800

  1 provisional figures.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils in years 4, 5 and 6 in secondary schools in Scotland in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of pupils in years 4, 5 and 6 in education authority and grant-aided secondary schools is given in the table.

  S4

  S5

  S6

  Total

  1979

  92,050

  40,210

  13,970

  146,230

  1980

  91,060

  43,300

  14,790

  149,150

  1981

  92,220

  47,380

  17,270

  156,880

  1982

  87,210

  52,330

  18,980

  158,520

  1983

  85,810

  50,950

  19,970

  156,730

  1984

  81,260

  50,550

  19,130

  150,940

  11985

  78,650

  47,380

  17,900

  143,930

  11986

  77,250

  48,410

  17,670

  143,330

  21987

  70,940

  48,970

  18,650

  138,560

  1 Education authority only, stage totals estimated.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Students
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the total number of students in Scotland who obtained ordinary national certificates, higher national certificates and city and guilds examination awards in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive;

  (2) if he will give the total number of students in Scotland presented for ordinary national certificates, higher national certificate and city and guilds in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.
  458
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not readily available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of students in local authority further education colleges in Scotland in each of the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

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

  Students in local authority further education colleges

  Session

  Number

  1979–80

  161,300

  1980–81

  182,000

  1981–82

  173,600

  1982–83

  184,600

  1983–84

  193,800

  1984–85

  202,200

  1985–86

  186,900

  1986–87

  196,800

  This information includes full-time and part-time students on advanced and non-advanced courses in day colleges and evening centres.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of those awaiting a hip replacement operation in each of the health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally; information is collected only on individual specialties—in this case orthopaedic surgery.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average waiting time for a hip replacement operation in each of the health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The mean waiting times for a hip replacement operation in each health board are as follows. These relate to patients who were treated and discharged in 1986, and are the latest available.

  Mean waiting time (days)

  Argyll and Clyde

  127·1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  182·5

  Borders

  138·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  179·6

  Fife

  196·9

  Forth Valley

  165·9

  Greater Glasgow

  126·9

  Grampian

  214·5

  Highland

  270·8

  Lanarkshire

  151·1

  Lothian

  184·2

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  252·9

  Western Isles

  —

  I expect the longest waiting times to be reduced by the additional allocation which I have made for this purpose.

  School Leavers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils in Scotland leaving S4 with no certificate in each of the years 1979 to 1987 inclusive.
  459
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of pupils in Scotland leaving S4 with no Scottish Examination Board certificate is as follows: data for 1986–87 are not yet available.

  Number

  1978–79

  24,450

  1979–80

  23,720

  1980–81

  20,900

  1981–82

  18,990

  1982–83

  16,380

  1983–84

  16.040

  1984–85

  14,140

  1985–86

  11,320

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils in Scotland leaving S4, S5 and S6 in each of the years 1979 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of pupils in Scotland leaving S4, S5 and S6 is as follows:

  S4

  S5

  S6

  Total

  1978–79

  51,200

  25,970

  14,560

  91,740

  1979–80

  49,720

  26,530

  15,480

  91,720

  1980–81

  44,100

  27,000

  16,380

  87,480

  1981–82

  40,090

  29,370

  19,140

  88,610

  1982–83

  36,590

  33,470

  20,930

  90,990

  1983–84

  35,340

  32,670

  21,730

  89,740

  1984–85

  32,260

  32,680

  20,890

  85,820

  1985–86

  31,000

  31,410

  20,660

  83,080

  1986–87

  28,530

  31,230

  20,580

  80,340

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the number of pupils leaving S4, S5 and S6 in secondary schools in Scotland in the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The estimates requested are as follows:

  Applications referred to the Forestry Commissioners in the four years to 31 March 1987

  Area of Original Application

  Name

  County/Region

  Gross Area (Hectares)

  Area Proposed for Planting (Hectares)

  Approved by Commissioners

  Refused by Commissioners

  Area Approved for Planting (Hectares)

  Objectors

  Marmers Wood

  Cambridgeshire

  1·5

  1·5

  Refused

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Black How

  Cumbria

  231·9

  190·9

  Approved

  190·9

  Cumbria County Council

  Thornholme Farm

  Cumbria

  243

  239

  Refused

  Countryside Commission

  Lake District Special Planning Board

  Alwinton Farm

  Northumberland

  31·5

  26

  Approved

  26

  Countryside Commission

  Callaly

  Northumberland

  450

  299

  Approved

  299

  Northumberland County Council

  Wandysteads Farm

  Northumberland

  150·6

  133

  Approved

  133

  Northumberland County Council

  Stone Gill Foot

  Yorkshire

  263

  215

  Refused

  Yorkshire Dales National Park Committee

  Countryside Commission

  Cymerau Farm

  Dyfed

  177

  158

  Refused

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Dyfed County Council

  Ceredigion District Council

  Coed-y-Cerrig

  Gwent

  4·3

  4·3

  Refused

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Dolwgan Isaf

  Gwynedd

  132

  132

  Refused

  Countryside Commission

  Snowdonia National Park Authority

  Hendrewallog

  Gwynedd

  92

  88

  Approved

  88

  Welsh Water Authority

  Cefn Gywngul

  Mid Glamorgan

  42

  42

  Refused

  Rhondda Borough Council

  Fforch Orchy

  Mid Glamorgan

  168

  155

  Refused

  Rhondda Borough Council

  Blaen Nedd Isaf

  Powys

  29·3

  28

  Approved

  20

  Brecon Beacons National Park Authority

  Lluest Dolgwiail

  Powys

  392

  345

  Refused

  Powys County Council

  Welsh Water Authority

  Nant-Y-Brain

  Powys

  397

  390

  Refused

  Brecknock Borough Council

  Powys County Council

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Countryside Commission

  Nether Phawhope

  Borders

  210

  163

  Refused

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Priesthill

  Borders

  185

  170

  Approved

  170

  Borders Regional Council

  Shielsknowe Farm

  Borders

  204

  204

  Refused

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Acharn Farm

  Central

  1,320

  705

  Approved

  581·5

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Auchineden

  Central

  157·8

  157·5

  Approved

  140

  Strathclyde Regional Council Water Department

  460

  Projected number of secondary school leavers

  Thousands

  S41

  S5

  S6

  Total

  1988–89

  26·9

  26·7

  19·4

  73·0

  1989–90

  25·4

  24·7

  18·3

  68·4

  1990–91

  24·7

  23·4

  17·1

  65·2

  1 includes a small number from S3

  Charities
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking in the light of the recommendations of the report, "Efficiency Scrutiny of the Supervision of Charities," relating to the establishment of a register of charities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to issue in the next few days a consultative memorandum seeking views on a range of options, including the possibility of establishing a register of charities, to improve the supervision of charities in Scotland.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 148, if he will list the names, locations and areas of all of the grant scheme applications which were referred by regional advisory committees to the forestry commissioners in the four years to 31 March 1987; and if he will list in each case (a) whether the commissioners gave approval for forestry grant aid, (b) the area of land approved and (c) the consultee sustaining an objection to the application.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: The information is set out in the following table.
  461

  Area of Original Application

  Name

  County/Region

  Gross Area

  Area

  Approved by

  Refused by

  Area

  Objectors

  (Hectares)

  Proposed for Planting (Hectares)

  Commissioners

  Commissioners

  Approved for Planting (Hectares)

  Kinnell Block 1

  Central

  378

  378

  Refused

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Nether Glenny

  Central

  261·8

  255

  Refused

  Stirling District Council

  Lake of Menteith Fisheries Board

  Shielbrae Farm

  Central

  456

  444

  Approved

  444

  Central Regional Council Department of Water and Drainage

  Creag Meagaidh

  Highland

  1,114

  900

  Approved

  530

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Backmoor Wood

  Strathclyde

  56·2

  53·6

  Refused

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Barachander

  Strathclyde

  830

  672

  Refused

  Strathclyde Regional Council Water Department

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Barachander

  Strathclyde

  830

  670

  Refused

  Strathclyde Regional Council Water Department

  (Re-submission)

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Coulter Allers

  Strathclyde

  19·1

  19·1

  Refused

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Loch Mor

  Strathclyde

  348

  267

  Approved

  267

  Strathclyde Regional Council Water Department

  Argyll and Bute District Council

  Narachan Hill

  Strathclyde

  988

  920

  Approved

  920

  Strathclyde Regional Council Water Department

  North Tarsan

  Strathclyde

  96

  95

  Approved

  95

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Wardlaws Farm

  Strathclyde

  32·4

  32·4

  Refused

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Balquhandy and Skymore Hill

  Tayside

  191·5

  179·6

  Approved

  179·6

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Glen Lochay

  Tayside

  207

  186

  Refused

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Stirling District Council

  Central Regional Council

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for forestry grants were referred to the regional advisory committee for each Forestry Commission conservancy in the year to 31 March; how many were resolved by voluntary withdrawal

  Conservancy

  Number of applications referred to Regional Advisory Committees

  Number of applications resolved by voluntary withdrawal or amendment of application

  Number of applications referred by Regional Advisory Committees to Forestry Commissioners

  Applications approved

  Applications refused

  Applications still under consideration

  North England

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  East England

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West England

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  5

  —

  1

  2

  2

  North Scotland

  24

  5

  4

  1

  14

  Mid Scotland

  8

  2

  5

  —

  1

  South Scotland

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Totals

  43

  9

  10

  4

  20

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what species of birds will be displaced by the afforestation of 1,029 hectares of land recently approved for planting in Caithness and Sutherlnd; whether any of those species are listed in annex I of the European Community directive, 79/409/EEC, on the conservation of wild birds; and what advice he received from the Nature Conservancy Council with regard to the afforestation of this land.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: The birds most likely to be displaced on the 1,059 hectares recently cleared for planting by my right hon. and learned Friend are common moorland species such as skylarks, meadow pipits and curlews. As far as is known, the only species of bird listed in annex I of the European Community directive 79/409/EEC which will be affected is
  462
  or amendment; how many were referred to the forestry commissioners; and how many of those were awarded grant approval by the forestry commissoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: The information is contained in the following table for the year ended 31 March 1988:

  golden plover. The numbers of golden plover are relatively low in the areas to be planted and more abundant on the 1,426 hectares to be left unplanted as a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's decision. The Nature Conservancy Council's advice was that all the land should be left unplanted because of its ecological importance.

  In reaching his decision my right hon. and learned Friend gave careful consideration to the council's advice and to the implications for employment, in accordance with his interim views on the balance between nature conservation and forestry in Caithness and Sutherland as set out in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 25 January 1988, at columns 71–73.

  Small Business
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  [holding answer 19 July 1988]: In recognition of the important role that small firms play in the Scottish economy the Government have introduced a number of schemes of support available from the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Department Board and from the Industry Department for Scotland, where policy responsibility lies. In addition to providing services specific to Scotland, the SDA, HIDB and the Industry Department for Scotland are responsible for the delivery and monitoring in Scotland of United Kingdom services on behalf of other Departments, including the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry. 1987 saw the achievement of a net increase in the number of registered companies in Scotland by over 2,500 and VAT returns indicate that during the period 1980–85 there was a net increase of nearly 10,000 in the number of new businesses operating in Scotland.

  The following describes the services available to small firms in Scotland during the periods 1986–87 and 1987–88 and some of their achievements.

  Regional Assistance

  IDS made offers to small firms in Scotland of regional selective assistance of £7 million in 1986–87 and £4 million in 1987–88. Under the revised regional development grant scheme, approvals to small firms in 1986–87 amounted to. £47 million and £48 million in 1987–88. Information on the grant offered to small firms under the original RDG scheme is not available.

  Belter Business Services and Better Technical Services Schemes

  During the periods in question, the BBS scheme was administered by IDS, SDA and the HIDB. The scheme allows small companies to have access to subsidised professional business advice and in 1986–87 some 7,947 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £3 million. In 1987–88 some 9,597 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £2·9 million. The BTS scheme was available in Strathclyde and parts of Tayside region and allowed small companies to have access to subsidised professional advice of a technical nature. In 1986–87 some 1,295 offers of assistance were made with an associated value of £0·75 million. In 1987–88 1,720 offers were made with an associated value of £1 million. Support under the BTS scheme ceased on 31 March 1988.

  Scottish Development Agency

  SDA support for small business includes the provision of financial assistance, premises and a wide range of advisory services, including the small firms service in Scotland and the administration of DTI's consultancy initiatives, under the enterprise initiative. During 1986–87 the SDA had contact with 21,682 small companies. Some £2 million was invested in 716 small firms creating or safeguarding some 670 jobs. In addition, some 845 small companies received assistance with the costs of attending promotional events. Sixty four small companies were provided with technical advice, while 36 received assistance with market research studies. In the year 1987–88, the agency had contact with 19,125 small firms. Some £2·7 million was invested in 692 small firms creating or safeguarding 800 jobs. In addition, 875 small companies received assistance with the 16costs of attending promotional events. Sixty small firms were provided with technical advice while 30 companies received assistance with market research studies.
  464
  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  As well as delivering the small firms service in its area, the HIDB undertakes a wide range of activities in support of businesses, most of which are small, to help them overcome the difficulties of operating in this peripheral and rural part of the UK. The measures taken include financial support to business, provision of factories and assistance with business advice and training. In 1986–87, the board approved 1,247 offers of financial assistance with an associated value of £19·2 million. This generated private sector investment of some £57·8 million and created or safeguarded 2,400 jobs. For the period 1987–88 the board approved 1,063 offers of financial assistance with an associated value of £14·4 million. This generated private sector support of £44·4 million and created or safeguarded 2,700 jobs. In the period 1986–87, the HIDB completed 2,777 sq m of factory floor space. In this period some 2,654 jobs were housed in HIDB factories. In the period 1987–88, the HIDB completed 6,409 sq m of factory floor space. In this period, some 2,920 jobs were housed in HIDB factories.

  Local Enterprise Trusts

  Local enterprise trusts have proved to be an important feature of the various schemes of support on offer to small businesses in Scotland. The Government have recognised the important contribution which they make in local communities and, in partnership with the private sector, the Scottish Development Agency gave financial support amounting to £0·56 million to 36 enterprise trusts in 1986–87, the latest year for which figures are available. This represented some 20 per cent, of the total funds employed by the trusts. During 1986–87 the 36 trusts had, between them, contact with 20,000 clients from which 2,500 new small businesses were formed. Companies assisted by enterprise trusts created some 6,000 new jobs and some 5,000 jobs were supported or maintained. The SDA bases its financial assistance on its appraisal of each trust's annual management plan which contains details of the previous year's projects and objectives for the future year.

  Deregulation

  The Scottish Office is participating fully in the deregulation initiative. This has resulted in an improved awareness within the Scottish Office of the needs of business and has led to the introduction of a more systematic approach to assessing the financial and other pressures imposed on business by regulation. Scotland will be the first area of the United Kingdom to set up a pilot project which will provide small businesses with a single access point for advice on Government regulations. The pilot will commence on 1 August.

  Public Purchasing

  In each of the last two financial years, IDS has organised a number of seminars for small businesses to increase awareness of the opportunities that exist for selling their goods and services to the public service, and how to go about it. These were attended by several hundred small Scottish companies.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations during 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The estimated running cost of the Scottish information office in 1988–89 is £1·8 million.

  Gartcosh Steel Mill
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department is now in a person to assess the economic impact on central Scotland of the closure of the Gartcosh steel strip mill.
  465
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: Comprehensive information on the economic consequences for central Scotland of the closure of the Gartcosh cold rolling mill is not available and could not be derived from regularly available statistical sources. However, I note with satisfaction that over the period June 1987 to June 1988 the numbers of unemployed in Lanarkshire fell by over 5,000. This amounted to a drop in the unemployment rate of more than three percentage points, which is even more substantial than the decline for Scotland as a whole.

  Court and Escort Duties
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has proposals to reduce the amount of time that police and prison officers spend on court and escort duties.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: The Scottish Home and Health Department, in consultation with the Crown Agent, the Scottish Courts Administration and the police, is currently considering whether the resources devoted by the police and prison services to these duties could be reduced without damage to the administration of justice and the security of prisoners. Among the aspects being studied are the scope for civilianisation of court posts and the arrangements for citing police officers as witnesses.

  Housing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the kind of centrally held information gathered by his Department regarding(a) homelessness in general, (b) young homeless people, (c) housing for the disabled and (d) housing and the elderly.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: Information on homelessness is gathered by the Scottish Development Department from local authorities on a case return basis for each applicant household. This details category of priority need; reasons for loss/threatened loss of accommodation; whether temporary accommodation pending inquiries was provided; circumstances of the household; and type of accommodation secured. Age of applicant households is not collected. Information on homeless households in short stay accommodation is collected quarterly from local authorities.

  Statistical returns collected annually from local authorities give the level and type of provision at 31 March each year, both of special needs housing and bed spaces for the elderly and disabled.

  Shareholdings
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all shareholdings in public and private companies still held by his Department or by the Scottish Development Board.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1988]: No shares are held by the Scottish Office. Shareholdings held by the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board are as follows:
  466

  Scottish Development Agency

  Company

  Cost

  £

  Aberdeen Petrol

  15,000

  Afton Dyers

  15,000

  Albyn

  25,000

  Aqualife Ltd.

  10,000

  Armstrong Pack

  15,000

  Assep Ltd

  40

  Atlantic Freshwater PLC

  125,000

  Automatic Truck

  50,000

  Baby Deer Ltd.

  40,000

  Babygro Holding

  2,565

  Bannerman Henry

  50,000

  Bathgate Invest

  50

  Bauteil Holdings Ltd

  274,156

  Berkeley Computer Services Ltd.

  35,125

  Biggar Meats

  50,000

  Biomac

  20,000

  Blair Engineering Ltd.

  50,000

  Bluemink

  150,000

  Cairntech

  39,000

  Caledonian Arenas PLC

  125,000

  Caledonian Brewing Co. Ltd.

  85,000

  Caledonian Transgenics Ltd.

  106,000

  Campbell of Selkirk Ltd.

  60,000

  Carnscot

  25,000

  Carron Phoenix

  19,024

  Carron Plastics

  60,000

  Carronhall Ltd.

  100,000

  Carruthers

  35,600

  Chemflake International Ltd.

  167,561

  Chessbourne International Ltd.

  250,000

  Clyde Helicopters Ltd

  65,000

  Coastal Seafood

  25,000

  Consort Conservation Ltd.

  7,500

  Controlled Therapeutics Corporation

  556,078

  Contrology

  50,000

  Crosslees Investments Ltd.

  144,575

  Cruachem

  298,570

  Damon Biotech

  362,054

  Deeside Game

  15,000

  Design GRP Group Ltd.

  57,500

  Digital Art

  12,000

  Domain Power

  200,000

  Drysdale & Gibb

  20,000

  Dunclare

  88,436

  Dust Jewellery Ltd.

  125,000

  Eastern Photocolour Ltd.

  50,000

  Echo Hotel Ltd.

  1,000,000

  Edin Instruments Ltd.

  225,604

  Elena Mae Ltd.

  75,000

  Eskfood Ltd.

  60,000

  Exacta Holdings Ltd.

  577,506

  Farmdata Ltd.

  59,528

  Fenton Barns

  60,000

  Fife Silica Sands Ltd.

  266,000

  Findlay J.

  50,000

  Fleming Thermodynamics

  70,000

  Forth Valley Foods Ltd.

  150,000

  FSA Limited

  70,000

  Garrion Homes

  70,000

  Gilcomston

  15,000

  Glasgow Garden Festival Ltd.

  100

  Glasgow Heart

  70,000

  Gleddoch Hotels Ltd.

  80,000

  Graphic Information Systems Ltd.

  243,016

  Graphic Print

  30,000

  HAQ Bros.

  25,000

  Highland Forest Products Ltd.

  900,000

  Highland Metals

  94,999

  Hughes, DM Ltd.

  2,500

  Industrial Systems & Control

  50,000

  Instrument and Microelectronic Systems

  100,000

  Integrated Ceramic Components Ltd.

  418,069

  Intellemetrics

  103,251

  International Microelectronics Products

  643,342

  International Twist Drill Ltd.

  305,000

  Inveresk Research International Ltd.

  325,000

  467

  Company

  Cost

  £

  In-Europe Electronics

  444,000

  J. K. Peters & Co. (Trees) Ltd.

  250,000

  JLG Industries

  250,000

  Kames Fish

  3,043

  Kerse Engineering Ltd.

  25,000

  Kineticon Ltd.

  300,000

  Kingston Spinners

  219,500

  Kinshar Ltd.

  50,000

  Kishorn Windows (Scotland) Ltd.

  199,995

  Kitchen versions Ltd.

  1,700

  Kynoch, G&G PLC

  250,000

  Lasalle Ltd.

  245,840

  Le Choc Motif

  25,000

  Liebnitz Lann Limited

  40,000

  Lothian Coated

  5,000

  M & M Indust

  188,500

  Mackinnon International Knitwear Ltd.

  40,000

  Magnum Signs

  25,000

  Marenac Ltd.

  100,000

  McCrindle Pipe

  70,000

  McCrindle & Sons

  70,000

  McLaggan Smith Mugs Ltd.

  25,000

  McMurray

  10,000

  Memex Information Systems Ltd.

  150,000

  Milbro Caledon

  5,000

  Murray Electron

  250,000

  MMEW Ltd.

  40,000

  MRM Engineering

  20,000

  National Hyperbaric Centre

  120,711

  New Scotland Insurance Group PLC

  1,000

  North Cape

  39,999

  North Face

  30,000

  North Sea Assets plc

  427,461

  Northern Circuits Ltd

  30,000

  Novotech Microsystems Ltd

  10,000

  N. S. C. (Cartons) Ltd

  60,000

  Office Workstations Ltd

  132,668

  Omega Diagnost

  20,000

  Optima Holdings Ltd

  100,000

  Paton Holdings

  120,000

  Penman Engineering Ltd

  24,489

  Peoples

  177,992

  Polytun Growers

  50,000

  Precision Chemicals (Manufacturing) Ltd

  35,000

  Premier Brand Canning Ltd

  48,540

  Prep Foods Ltd

  35,000

  Prestwick Holdings plc

  123,250

  Professional Advisers Cost Engineering Ltd

  170,000

  Promat Engineering

  75,000

  Protofeed Ltd

  75,000

  Pure Malt Products Ltd

  150,000

  Qualitube Ltd

  62,500

  Rejaport Ltd

  100,000

  Rhino Toughened

  75,000

  R. D. S. Group Ltd

  280,625

  Sheider

  50,000

  Scintronix Ltd

  250,000

  Scot Consultants International Ltd

  10,000

  Scot Cree Ltd

  20,000

  Scottish Development Finance Ltd

  100

  Scotforms

  30,000

  Scottish Studio

  15,000

  Scottsdale Leisure Ltd

  70,001

  Scott/Bellshill

  40,000

  Scotwest

  30,000

  Seametrix

  40,000

  Shanks and McEwan Group plc

  225,015

  Shield Immunologicals Ltd.

  250,000

  Shoebrokers

  35,000

  Sinclair Spitz

  50,000

  Smith and Telford

  250,629

  Software Engineering Systems Ltd.

  35,000

  Sonsub Ltd.

  150,000

  Spencer, T. Ltd.

  50,000

  Stanley Mills

  19,000

  Stenhouse Ltd.

  10,000

  Stirling Diagnostics

  6,666

  468

  Company

  Cost

  £

  Sterling University

  33,000

  Strathclyde Lifting Services Ltd.

  25,000

  Strathclyde Proc.

  375,000

  Studio Ink

  30,000

  Swiftlogic Ltd.

  60,000

  Swilken Golf

  10,000

  Scottish Exhibition Centre Ltd.

  7,400,000

  S. P. Technology

  20,000

  Tachanalysis

  30,000

  Tait Thomas

  365,000

  Tarbert Fyne Foods Ltd.

  180,000

  Tarquin Photo

  12,189

  Tayside Canners Ltd.

  100

  Tayside Plastics

  10,000

  Textile Rental

  15,000

  The Lodge On The Loch Ltd.

  50,001

  The Mycalex Company Ltd.

  35,000

  Thistle Foods

  25,000

  Thor Ceramics

  25,000

  Timber Terminal

  30,000

  Trilion plc

  105,000

  Turnbull

  20,000

  Valve Instrumentation and Pipe Ltd.

  21,000

  Weathermac

  35,000

  West George Street (375) Ltd.

  250,000

  Whitecross

  25,000

  Wistley Ltd.

  175,000

  Woods G. F. and Co. (Edinburgh) Ltd.

  30,000

  Wright and Jobson

  19,812

  Wrights Trowmill

  40,000

  W. H. Perkins Ltd.

  175,000

  Yarmadillo Ltd.

  158,698

  Zot Engineering Ltd.

  19,000

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Company

  Cost (£)

  Acair Ltd.

  2,000

  All Seasons Craobh Haven Ltd.

  1,000

  Ardanaiseig Hotel Ltd.

  25,000

  Atlantic Freshwater plc

  15,000

  Barra Fish Meal and Oil Co. Ltd.

  6,000

  Barratlantic Ltd.

  13,700

  Barbuilean Nurseries Ltd.

  14,000

  Borrowdale Hotel (South Uist) Ltd.

  3,000

  S. G. Brolly and Bros. Ltd

  10,000

  Caithness Glass Holdings Ltd.

  60,300

  Caithness Glass plc

  280,000

  Caley Cruisers Ltd.

  18,000

  Callandish Ltd.

  5,000

  Castlewynd Studios Ltd.

  20,000

  Pat Cheney Jewelley Ltd.

  10,000

  Clansmen Holdings Ltd.

  105,411

  W. K. Cook Engineering (Evanton) Ltd

  120,000

  Craignish Salmon Ltd.

  24,625

  Craignish Salmon (Marketing) Ltd.

  6,000

  Crannog Ltd.

  10,000

  The Crinan Hotel (Argyll) Ltd.

  30,000

  Dalriada Hotels (Tarbert) Ltd.

  9,500

  Esplanade West (Oban) Ltd.

  30,000

  Fort William (Cruachem Hotel) Ltd.

  15,000

  Gaeltec Ltd.

  50,536

  Gairloch Construction Co. Ltd.

  30,000

  Gairloch Seafoods Ltd.

  8,000

  Glenscot Salmon Ltd.

  25,000

  Hambleside Manufacturing Ltd.

  75,000

  Harden Associates Ltd.

  75,000

  Hebridean Seafare Ltd.

  60,000

  Highland China (Scotland) Ltd.

  23,533

  Highland Fish Farmers Ltd.

  41,800

  Highland Heathers Ltd.

  56,000

  Highland Venison Marketing Ltd.

  60,000

  T. M. Hunter Ltd.

  100,000

  Icescot Ltd.

  50,000

  I.G.L. (Scotland) Ltd. (formerly Mark Templeman and Sons (Scotland) Ltd.)

  260,000

  469

  Company

  Cost (£)

  Inverlever Nurseries Ltd.

  15,000

  Islay Creamery Co. Ltd.

  8,000

  Isle of Jura Salmon Ltd.

  80,000

  Jamieson's Spinning (Shetland) Ltd.

  35,000

  Kinloch Damph Ltd.

  15,000

  Kintyre Data Processing Ltd.

  8,000

  Knipoch House Hotel Co. Ltd.

  94,500

  Lamont Country Highland Lodges Ltd.

  30,000

  Liebnitz-Lann Ltd.

  5,000

  W. H. MacKay & Son Ltd.

  150,000

  MacLennan Salmon Co. Ltd.

  25,000

  George V. McLeod (Hotels) Ltd.

  35,000

  Muileann Beag A' Chrotail Ltd.

  26,000

  Mull & West Highland Narrow Guage Railway Company Ltd.

  22,000

  John F. Munro (Contractors) Ltd.

  10,000

  Murray Seafoods Scotland Ltd.

  20,000

  Nevisprint Ltd.

  50,000

  Nontox Ltd.

  14,000

  Norfrost Ltd.

  60,000

  Norscot Hotels plc

  503,060

  Orkney Meat Ltd.

  10,000

  Osprey Electronics Ltd.

  9,000

  Pairc Salmon Ltd.

  20,000

  Priority Hotels Ltd.

  10,000

  R. K. Carbon Fibres Ltd.

  120,000

  Rotary Precision Ltd.

  20,000

  Sea Farm (Kerry) Ltd.

  10,000

  Seafield Vegetable Growers Ltd.

  50,000

  Searchglen Ltd.

  4,000

  Shallseis Ltd.

  10,000

  Shetland Cold Store Ltd.

  25,000

  Shian Fisheries Ltd.

  10,000

  Shetland Fish Ltd.

  77,752

  Stags Head Hotel (Fort William) Ltd.

  20,000

  Strathspey Railway Co. Ltd.

  7,750

  Tamoor Hotel Ltd.

  20,000

  T. M. M. S. Holdings Ltd.

  80,000

  Uist Isles Woollen Co. Ltd.

  58,000

  Underwater Centre Ltd.

  120,000

  Visitor Centres Ltd.

  30,000

  Westend Shellfish Ltd.

  10,000

  Western Isles Salmon Ltd.

  3,000

  Whiteness Development Co. Ltd.

  10,000

  Williamson Hotels Ltd.

  36,000

  L. Williamson (Shetland) Ltd.

  66,000

  Woodfibres Ltd.

  20,000

  K. V. Wooster International Ltd.

  20,000

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total spending by his Department on press, public relations and advertising, respectively, in 1987–88.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The running cost of the Scottish information office in 1987–88 was £2·1 million, of which the paid publicity cost was £1 million. A breakdown of cost in the form requested is not available.

  Scottish Film Council
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the reply of 27 January,Official Report, column 296, concerning the proposed amalgamation of the Scottish Film Council with the Scottish Arts Council, if he has now reached a conclusion on this matter.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to respond to the representations received on his consultative paper on the future constitution of the Scottish Film Council; and if he will make a statement.
  470
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answers 13 May and 20 July 1988]: I shall write to the hon. Member and my hon. Friend.

  Crossroads (Scotland) Care Attendant Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or his Ministers have met or intend to meet representatives of Crossroads (Scotland) care attendant schemes to discuss continued central Government funding for their schemes.

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 June 1988]: Officials of the Scottish Office and the Training Commission met representatives of Crossroads on 20 July. There are at present no plans for further meetings.

  Medical Clinical Research
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the state of medical clinical research in Scotland and its priorities with representatives in Scotland of(a) the British Medical Association, (b) the Medical Research Council, (c) the Medical Academic Staff Committee, (d) Scottish universities and (e) medical students and researchers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 June 1988]: My right hon. and learned Friend has not met any of these groups to discuss that topic in particular, but the subject of university medical teaching and research was touched on in the course of a discussion he had with representatives of the British Medical Association on 6 June. I met representatives of the British Medical Association on 25 July. The Scottish Home and Health Deaprtment has also had discussions with the principals of Scottish universities with medical schools on the common interest between the universities and the Health Service, in which the research interest was mentioned, and regularly meets the Medical Research Council to discuss priorities for research.

  Lennox Castle Hospital
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the current bed occupancy of wards 7 and 8 at Lennox Castle hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: I have had inquiries made of the Greater Glasgow health board.

  At present five of the 24 places in wards 7 and 8 are occupied. Revenue funds for the full use of these wards have been made available by the board, but the board is making a careful assessment of patients to ensure that residents who stand to benefit most from the new wards are allocated to them. A clinical exercise of this nature takes time, and the board expect that full occupancy of wards 7 and 8 will be achieved by mid-September and December respectively.

  Teachers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of teachers in (i) mathematics, (ii) history, (iii) English, (iv) sciences and (v) physical education in(a) Scotland, (b) Glasgow and (c) Strathclyde, for each year since 1974.
  471
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 July 1988]: The full-time equivalent numbers of teachers in education authority secondary schools are given in the table. Information for 1974 to 1978 is not readily available.

  Teacher full-lime equivalent

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Mathematics

  Glasgow

  518

  503

  500

  485

  ..

  499

  ..

  ..

  396

  Strathclyde

  1,563

  1,567

  1,583

  1,617

  ..

  1,658

  ..

  ..

  1,479

  Scotland

  3,245

  3,254

  3,285

  3,343

  ..

  3,406

  ..

  ..

  3,025

  History

  Glasgow

  272

  268

  259

  246

  ..

  218

  ..

  ..

  153

  Strathclyde

  833

  801

  774

  746

  ..

  706

  ..

  ..

  578

  Scotland

  1,713

  1,668

  1,618

  1,566

  ..

  1,494

  ..

  ..

  1,285

  English

  Glasgow

  630

  607

  569

  551

  ..

  537

  ..

  ..

  415

  Strathclyde

  1,771

  1,754

  1,703

  1,717

  ..

  1,732

  ..

  ..

  1,502

  Scotland

  3,636

  3,623

  3,524

  3,519

  ..

  3,511

  ..

  ..

  3,073

  Sciences

  Glasgow

  656

  650

  641

  632

  ..

  627

  ..

  ..

  504

  Strathclyde

  2,126

  2,157

  2,169

  2,201

  ..

  2,200

  ..

  ..

  1,912

  Scotland

  4,411

  4,487

  4,508

  4,545

  ..

  4,561

  ..

  ..

  4,128

  Physical Education

  Glasgow

  354

  345

  338

  322

  ..

  291

  ..

  ..

  241

  Strathclyde

  997

  981

  965

  952

  ..

  912

  ..

  ..

  794

  Scotland

  2,073

  2,058

  2,002

  1,965

  ..

  1,902

  ..

  ..

  1,697

  .. not available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as his written reply of 7 July, Official Report, columns 697–98, 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

  Table 1—Receipts against running costs which originate as departmental running costs (£ million)

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–881

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  plans

  plans

  plans

  Receipts relating to fees for training in skillcentres at request of Training Commission and Employment Service

  2

  10

  72

  78

  70

  66

  60

  42

  28

  Receipts relating to fees for professional and executive recruitment services in respect of supervisors for the Community Programme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Departmental totals

  2

  10

  72

  78

  70

  68

  61

  43

  29

  1 Estimated.

  472
  receipts in respect of programme expenditure and of running costs expenditure estimated to have been met from other public expenditure programmes.

  Mr. Cope
  The following tables supplement the information on programme expenditure given in the reply to the hon. Member on 7 July 1988, at columns 697–98. For the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 they give a breakdown of receipts received and expected by the Department of Employment group: table 1 shows receipts in respect of running costs which originate as departmental running costs and table 2 gives other receipts in respect of running costs.
  473

  Table 2—Breakdown of other Individual Running Costs Receipts (£ million)

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  11987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Plans

  Plans

  Plans

  Receipts relating to administrative costs of the Community programme

  2

  8

  8

  16

  21

  21

  24

  24

  24

  Receipts relating to fees for training in skillcentres

  2

  1

  9

  10

  11

  15

  26

  28

  30

  Receipts relating to recoveries from National Insurance Fund of the cost of staff in the Employment Service dealing with long-term unemployed.

  6

  4

  3

  3

  3

  8

  4

  3

  3

  Receipts from the sale of COIC publications.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Receipts relating to fees for professional and executive recruitment services.

  6

  8

  9

  9

  9

  8

  4

  4

  4

  Receipts relating to contributions from the Redundancy and Maternity Pay Funds towards the cost of Industrial Tribunals

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Receipts relating to recovery of administrative costs from the Redundancy and Maternity Pay Funds.

  5

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  5

  6

  6

  Receipts from the Agencies and other Government Departments

  5

  5

  4

  4

  6

  16

  16

  17

  17

  Receipts relating to fees for licensing employment agencies and other minor services.

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Receipts relating to recoveries from Department of Health and Social Security of the cost of administration of unemployment benefit and associated payments.

  182

  237

  213

  274

  293

  311

  319

  335

  343

  Receipts relating to the licensing of nuclear installations.

  3

  3

  1

  3

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Other HSC fees and receipts.

  2

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Receipts relating to refund from Maternity Pay Fund for statutory payments made to civil servants.

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Departmental Totals

  221

  281

  266

  335

  365

  401

  412

  427

  441

  1 Estimated

  Note: Because of rounding the sum of the components does not always equate with the totals.

  Discrimination
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce(a) legislation forbidding or (b) guidelines discouraging discrimination in employment on the grounds of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government do not believe that legislation of this nature would be beneficial or practical, and there are no plans to issue official guidelines at the present time.

  Chief Inspector of Factories
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met with the new chief inspector of factories; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met the chief inspector of factories designate.

  Single European Market (Tourism)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect upon tourism of the completion of the European market in 1992.
  474
  Mr. Lee
  The completion of the European single Markey in 1992 is likely to have a significant impact on tourism. Increased liberalisation of intra-Community transport will present great opportunities for travel between member states. The removal of internal barriers should encourage United Kingdom operators to expand into the European market as well as European companies to operate in the United Kingdom. This should further stimulate tourism within the Community.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the number of factory inspectors now in post as between the general and specialist categories.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 July 1988 (the last date for which figures are available) the Health and Safety Executive employed 596 factory inspectors and 211 specialist inspectors in the technology division which now gives technical support to HSE as a whole.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current levels of unemployment in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1988 seasonally adjusted unemployment excluding school leavers was 331,200 in the north-west, compared with 398,900 in June 1987, a fall of 67,700 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the reduction in unemployment each month since May 1986; and what has been the increase in the number of persons in employment for each of these months.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information. Table A shows the level of seasonally adjusted unemployed claimants, excluding school leavers, in the United Kingdom for each month together with the change over the previous month from May 1986. Estimates of total employment are not available monthly. Table B gives the quarterly numbers and changes in the work force in employment in the United Kingdom for each quarter month since June 1986.

  Table A

  Unemployed claimants in United Kingdom:

  May 1986 to June 1988

  Seasonally adjusted excluding school leavers

  thousands

  Number

  Change over month

  1986

  May

  3,200·1

  5·2

  June

  3,208·8

  8·7

  July

  3,210·3

  1·5

  August

  3,206·3

  -4·0

  September

  3,185·7

  -20·6

  October

  3,163·5

  -22·2

  November

  3,150·7

  -12·8

  December

  3,120·7

  -30·0

  1987

  January

  3,112·2

  -8·5

  February

  3,066·5

  -45·7

  March

  3,037·3

  -29·2

  April

  3,021·4

  -15·9

  May

  2,950·9

  -70·5

  June

  2,922·2

  -28·7

  July

  2,8731

  -49·1

  August

  2,825·5

  -47·6

  September

  2,772·2

  -53·3

  October

  2,713·6

  -58·6

  November

  2,650·8

  -62·8

  December

  2,613·9

  -36·9

  1988

  January

  2,564·7

  -49·2

  February

  2,532·6

  -32·1

  March

  2,5040

  -28·6

  April

  2,453·1

  -50·9

  May

  2,414·2

  -38·9

  June

  2,375·3

  -38·9

  476

  Table B

  Workforce in employment in United Kingdom:

  June 1986 to March 1988

  Seasonally adjusted

  thousands

  Workforce in employment1

  Change since previous quarter

  June 1986

  24,746

  +50

  September 1986

  24,883

  +137

  December 1986

  24,982

  +99

  March 1987

  25,080

  +98

  June 1987

  25,291

  +211

  September 1987

  25,449

  +158

  December 1987

  25,578

  +129

  March 1988

  25,697

  +119

  1 The work force in employment comprises employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's Forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes. This last group is not seasonally adjusted.

  Channel Tunnel
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment implications for the regions of the United Kingdom outside the south-east of the completion of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Lee
  All parts of the United Kingdom should benefit from employment opportunities generated, directly and indirectly, by the operation of the Channel tunnel. I hope that firms in all areas will be able to utilise the tunnel's facility for easier freight transport into Europe, thus putting them in a better position to compete in the European market. I also expect the Channel tunnel to be of considerable benefit to tourism.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's contribution to the British Tourist Authority and the three tourist boards in the current financial year; if he will break down the expenditure by end use; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1968 the percentage increase in the number of (i) US and (ii) other visitors together with an index of the Government contribution by way of grant-in-aid in terms of 1987 prices; based on 1968 as 100.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimated Government funding for the British Tourist Authority and the English, Scottish and Welsh tourist boards in the current financial year is as follows:

  (£ million)

  Grant in Aid

  S4 Scheme

  BTA

  23·8

  —

  ETB

  12·4

  13·2

  STB

  6·8

  3·1

  WTB

  5·9

  3·5

  Totals

  48·9

  19·8

  Total Government Contribution

  68·7

  A breakdown of expenditure by end use will not be available until respective annual accounts are produced next year; the accounts for 1987–88 have recently been laid before the House.
  477
  The following table shows visit levels to the United Kingdom since 1968 with the percentage increase for United States and other visits for each year in parentheses. Visitor levels are in thousands.

  Year

  Total visits

  United States visits

  Other visits

  1968

  4,828

  851

  3,977

  1969

  5,821

  1,136

  (+33)

  4,685

  (+18)

  1970

  6,692

  1,567

  (+38)

  5,125

  (+9)

  1971

  7,131

  1,647

  (+5)

  5,484

  (+7)

  1972

  7,459

  1,716

  (+4)

  5,743

  (+5)

  1973

  8,167

  1,605

  (-6)

  6,562

  (+14)

  1974

  8,543

  1,411

  (-12)

  7,132

  (+13)

  1975

  9,490

  1,417

  (0)

  8,073

  (+2)

  1976

  10,808

  1,585

  (+12)

  9,223

  (+14)

  1977

  12,281

  1,814

  (+14)

  10,467

  (+13)

  1978

  12,646

  1,964

  (+8)

  10,682

  (+2)

  1979

  12.486

  1,719

  (-12)

  10,767

  (+1)

  1980

  12,421

  1,695

  (-1)

  10,727

  (0)

  1981

  11,452

  1,716

  (+1)

  9,736

  (-9)

  1982

  11,636

  1,726

  (+1)

  9,910

  (+2)

  1983

  12,464

  2,317

  (+34

  10,147

  (+2)

  1984

  13,644

  2,764

  (+19)

  10,881

  (+7)

  1985

  14,449

  3,166

  (+15)

  11,283

  (+4)

  1986

  13,897

  2,288

  (-28)

  11,609

  (+3)

  1987

  15,445

  2,800

  (+22)

  12,645

  (+9)

  Source: The International Passenger Survey.

  The following table shows levels of grant in aid funding to BTA and the English, Scottish and Welsh tourist boards (excluding the section 4 scheme) since 1969–70, along with an index of this contribution using 1969–70 as 100, based on 1987–88 prices. It is not possible to use 1968 as a base as BTA and the national tourist boards were only established under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 and thus the 1969–70 financial year was the first year in which they were operating.

  Grant-in-aid (£ million) in 1987–88 prices

  Year

  £ million

  Index

  1969–70

  9·778

  100

  1970–71

  22·599

  231

  1971–72

  33·503

  343

  1972–73

  31·525

  322

  1973–74

  36·099

  369

  1974–75

  33·131

  339

  1975–76

  35·302

  361

  1976–77

  36·557

  374

  1977–78

  37·852

  387

  1978–79

  40·062

  410

  1979–80

  40·768

  417

  1980–81

  40·632

  416

  1981–82

  42·494

  435

  1982–83

  47·142

  482

  1983–84

  41·351

  423

  1984–85

  41·773

  427

  1985–86

  39·702

  406

  1986–87

  44·460

  455

  1987–88

  45·265

  463

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the British Tourist Authority succeeded in raising the additional $800,000 it was originally seeking from the tourist trade in 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  The British Tourist Authority attracted £3·93 million in trade funding for marketing in 1986–87 in addition to the operations originally planned. Of this, £215,000 was in respect of a special advertising campaign to restore levels of visitors from North America. This was 478
  carried out in consultation with British Airways and other firms in the industry which also contributed substantial resources to related marketing efforts.

  Accidents
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the definition of serious injury used in the reporting of accidents in industries covered by the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate;

  (2) what changes in the definition of serious injury used in the reporting of accidents in industries covered by the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate have been made in the last 10 years;

  (3) what is the definition of serious injury used in reporting of accidents in the coalmining industry;

  (4) what changes in the definition of serious injury used in reporting accidents in the coalmining industry have been made in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 require the following injuries and conditions suffered by any person as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work to be notified forthwith to the enforcing authority and subsequently reported on an approved form:

  (a) fracture of the skull, spine or pelvis;

  (b) fracture of any bone:

  (i) in the arm or wrist, but not a bone in the hand; or

  (ii) in the leg or ankle, but not a bone in the foot;

  (c) amputation of:

  (i) a hand or foot; or

  (ii) a finger, thumb or toe, or any part thereof if the joint or bone is completly severed;

  (d) the loss of sight of an eye, a penetrating injury to an eye, or a chemical or hot metal burn to an eye;

  (e) either injury (including burns) requiring immediate medical treatment, or loss of consciousness, resulting in either case from an electric shock from any electrical circuit or equipment, whether or not due to direct contact;

  (f) loss of consciousness resulting from lack of oxygen;

  (g) decompression sickness (unless suffered during an operation to which the Diving Operations at Work Regulations 1981 apply) requiring immediate medical treatment;

  (h) either acute illness requiring medical treatment, or loss of consciousness, resulting in either case firom the absorption of any substance by inhalation, ingestion or through the skin;

  (i) acute illness requiring medical treatment where there is reason to believe that this resulted from exposure to a pathogen or infected material;

  (j) any other injury which results in the person injured being admitted immediately into hospital for more than 24 hours.

  The regulations do not contain the terms "serious injury"; the Health and Safety Executive normally refers to "major injury" in this context.

  The regulations came into force on 1 April 1986 and repealed the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. The 1980 regulations defined "major injury" as:

  (a) fracture of the skull, spine or pelvis;

  (b) fracture of any bone:—

  (i) in the arm, other than a bone in the wrist or hand;

  (ii) in the leg, other than a bone in the ankle or foot;

  (c) amputation of a hand or foot;

  (d) the loss of sight of an eye; or

  479

  (e) any other injury which results in the person injured being admitted into hospital as an in-patient for more than 24 hours, unless that person is detained only for observation.

  Both sets of regulations apply to all work activities including coalmining.

  The 1980 regulations repealed a number of provisions applying to different industries. Section 116 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 required notification of accidents causing "serious bodily injury" but the term was not defined. Otherwise, prior to 1 January 1981 when the 1980 regulations came into force, there was no separate requirement for notifying major injuries.

  Labour Statistics (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of(a) male and (b) female unemployment in the constituency of Basildon; and what were the figures for each quarter since 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the total number of male and female unemployed claimants in the Basildon parliamentary constituency quarterly from July 1983 to April 1988, together with figures for June 1988 (the latest available date). Unemployment statistics for constituencies are available only from June 1983.

  Number of unemployed claimants—Basildon parliamentary constituency

  Male

  Female

  1983

  July

  4,451

  1,697

  October

  4,484

  1,888

  1984

  January

  4,822

  2,012

  April

  4,623

  1,964

  July

  4,815

  1,988

  October

  4,926

  2,046

  1985

  January

  5,125

  2,148

  April

  4,978

  2,092

  July

  4,722

  1,969

  October

  4,583

  1,909

  1986

  January

  4,793

  2,000

  April1

  4,657

  1,957

  July

  4,432

  1,882

  October

  4,277

  1,882

  1987

  January

  4,508

  1,929

  April

  4,120

  1,804

  July

  3,651

  1,625

  October

  3,316

  1,561

  1988

  January

  3,163

  1,563

  April

  2,818

  1,376

  June

  2,431

  1,275

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Expenditure on social science and humanities research £ million

  4·8

  6·7

  7·4

  14·9

  19·9

  —as a percentage of total departmental expenditure

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·5

  0·6

  —as a percentage of total R and D expenditure

  40·0

  43·5

  46·0

  73·3

  76·8

  Expenditure on social science and humanities research undertaken:

  —within Department £ million

  1·0

  1·4

  1·3

  1·3

  1·5

  —by universities and polytechnics £ million

  2·1

  1·8

  2·6

  5·6

  9·9

  —by industrial research associations and non-industrial research institutes £ million

  1·0

  2·1

  1·2

  3·0

  1·6

  480
  1 The figures are affected by the change in the coverage of the count in March 1986.

  Employment Act 1988
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance his Department issues on the application of section 26 of the Employment Act 1988 to claimants who decline a place on a training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The question refers to section 26 of the Employment Act 1988 which has no direct effect on unemployment benefit claimants. Section 27 does relate to unemployment benefit claimants and it is assumed that the hon. Gentleman intended to inquire about section 27 of the Employment Act which amends section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975.

  All decisions applying to section 20 of the Social Security Act are given by the statutory independent adjudicating authorities.

  Instructions to benefit office staff require that where it appears that a claimant has voluntarily left a course of approved training without good cause or was discharged because of unsatisfactory conduct he should be given an opportunity to make a statement and the matter should be referred to the independent adjudicating authorities.

  Social Science Research
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent by his Department in each of the 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. Lee
  The figures in the table are for the Department of Employment group (which includes for this period the Department of Employment, the Training Commission, formerly the Manpower Services Commission, and the Health and Safety Executive), and are based on information provided for the annual review of Government-funded research and development (the latest available figures being for 1986–87). The available information relates to gross expenditure on research and development including that performed elsewhere in central Government, for research and development in total and for social science and humanities.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department is taking to encourage people to set up new businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The main factor which has encouraged people to set up new businesses is the favourable economic climate which the Government have helped to create through their policies of controlling inflation and reducing rates of taxation. The increase in the number of businesses registering for VAT in 1987 was the highest since 1979 and the number of self-employed people has increased by over 1 million since that date.

  This Department has a range of policies designed to encourage people to set up their own business and to give direct support where appropriate. The enterprise allowance scheme pays unemployed people an allowance of £40 per week for 12 months while they are setting up a business. Over 360,000 people have now benefited from this scheme, and 110,000 places have been provided for the current financial year.

  The loan guarantee scheme also helps new businesses to raise finance and half of the loans arranged through the scheme are for start-ups.

  People planning to set up in businesses can obtain information and business counselling from the Department's small firms service and the network of local enterprise agencies, many of which receive support from this Department.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the net increase in the number of new businesses in(a) Basildon and (b) England and Wales since 1983.

  Mr. Cope
  Between December 1983 and December 1987 the number of businesses registered for VAT in the United Kingdom increased by 121,000. Separate figures for this period are not available for England and Wales or Basildon.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report those Government measures of particular help to small businesses which are the subject of current legislation or are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), on 21 July 1988, at column 732, which sets out some of the specific measures of help to small businesses in the Finance Bill.

  In addition, new companies legislation is planned which will include a number of deregulatory measures of particular help to small companies. These include a simplification of the filing requirements for annual accounts and returns and a measure to enable private companies, with the agreement of their shareholders, to opt out of certain statutory requirements such as the holding of annual general meetings.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those measures his Department has promoted since 1983 which are of particular help for small businesses; and if he will make a statement.
  482
  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to his related question today to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 27 July 1988.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received requesting further assistance to small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  From time to time representations are made to me about assistance to small firms. A large number of businesses take advantage of the help that is available from this Department and others which is intended to enable them to operate more efficiently and to grow.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people suspended from receipt of unemployment benefit in the Bradford travel-to-work area in the last year to date have appealed against suspension; how many such appeals have been heard; how many appeals have been upheld; how many refused; in how many decisions are outstanding; and what is the average waiting time for an appeal hearing.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the precise form requested, as there is no right of appeal against suspension of benefit. However, in the Bradford travel-to-work area, of those persons disallowed unemployment benefit between 1 July 1987 and 30 June 1988, 1,201 lodged an appeal. Examination of the available records indicates that 651 appeals have been heard in the same period and 195 appeals are outstanding.

  Information on the average waiting time for an appeal hearing in the Bradford travel-to-work area is included with that for north-east region. At December 1987 (the latest date for which figures are available) the average time between the date on which an appeal against an unemployment benefit decision was lodged and the date on which it was heard was 23·5 weeks.

  Information is not readily available on the number of appeals which were allowed or disallowed in the period and this could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people have been suspended from unemployment benefit in the Bradford travel-to-work area since 1 January; how many were suspended during the same period of 1987; how many in each period were suspended for the maximum period; and what proportion of the total of those receiving unemployment benefit were represented by those suspended for the maximum period;

  (2) how many people have been suspended from unemployment benefit in the United Kingdom since 1 January; how many people were suspended during the same period of 1987; how many in each period were suspended for the maximum period; and what proportion of the total of those receiving unemployment benefit were represented by those suspended for the maximum period.

  Mr. Lee
  No figures are held on the number of people who have been suspended from receiving unemployment benefit. However, the following table shows the number of
  483
  persons whose benefit was disallowed in the Bradford travel-to-work area and the United Kingdom between 1 January and 30 June 1987 and 1988:

  Number of disallowances of benefit in the Bradford travel-to-work area and the United Kingdom

  Period

  Bradford travel-to-work area

  United Kingdom

  1 January 1987 to 30 June 1987

  24,177

  518,843

  1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988

  22,269

  n/a

  n/a Figures not yet available.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Cope
  The process of evaluation of individual programmes is often part of the work itself. I regret therefore that the information as requested is not available.

ENERGY

  Life Jackets
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department received the report of the Robert Gordon institute of technology on the effectiveness of life jackets and survival suits used in the North sea offshore industries; what request he received for the publication of the report; and why it has been delayed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The report was submitted to my Department in November 1987.

  Following my reply to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 28 April 1988, at column 219, a copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House. Members of the oil industry advisory committee of the Health and Safety Commission have requested publication. One manufacturer of immersion suits has also formally requested publication.

  Since the report was submitted consultations have taken place between my Department, the Department of Transport and standards-setting organisations.

  Additional copies of the report are to be produced and made more widely available.

  Recruitment and Promotion Policy
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The criteria against which recruits are evaluated are designed not to discriminate, either directly or indirectly, against mature students or women returning to work-for example, advertisements do not contain upper age limits, and do mention returning to work and our flexible approach to hours of working and provision 484
  for part-time working. Promotion within the Department is on merit, although in some cases a minimum seniority is required. It is the practice for the chairman of a promotion board to evaluate its decisions, at the various stages, to ensure that equal opportunity policies are being implemented.

  Sellafield (Reprocessing)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in light of his statement on the wind-down of the fast reactor programme, 21 July,Official Report, column 1288, he will make a statement on (i) the continued necessity for the reprocessing of Magnox spent fuel at Sellafield for the separation of plutonium for the fast reactor core at Dounreay and (ii) the continued necessity for the reprocessing of advanced gas-cooled reactor spent fuel and pressurised water reactor spent fuel from electricity board reactors at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield for the separation of plutonium for the fast reactor fuel core at Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement, we are retaining a position in fast reactor technology. There is a continued need for reprocessing at Sellafield, and BNFL has contracts placed for Thorp.

  European Parliament (Committees)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the departmental responsibilities regarding(a) responding to invitations by the energy committee of the European Parliament to submit written or oral evidence before any of its investigations involving a United Kingdom interest, (b) responding to invitations by any special committee of inquiry of the European Parliament to submit written or oral evidence on topics involving United Kingdom interests and (c) responding to reports by the energy committee of the European Parliament on matters directly concerning United Kingdom nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Parkinson
  On matters falling within the responsibility of my Department I would decide, after consulting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Departments concerned, whether to respond to invitations by the energy committee or any special committee of inquiry of the European Parliament to submit evidence on topics involving United Kingdom interests. There is no formal procedure under which a member state can respond to reports by committees of the European Parliament.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what research his Department is undertaking into the development of solar energy; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what support his Department is giving for increased use of solar energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Passive solar design of buildings is the best way to utilise solar energy in the United Kingdom. My Department is supporting a comprehensive research and development programme aimed at encouraging its integration into building design by the mid-1990s. This
  485
  programme is designed to generate convincing information about the benefits of passive solar design in both housing and non-domestic buildings. Thirty-seven projects worth over £6·5 million are under way in the programme, with nearly £2 million expected to be spent in 1988–89.

  Our programme has three main activities. Field studies, which will provide evidence of the energy and financial and non-financial benefits of passive solar design from measurements in real buildings throughout the United Kingdom; design studies, which provide an opportunity for design practices to explore passive solar techniques in a wide range of buliding types and produce a range of exemplar designs; and supporting R and D to improve the understanding of the operation of particular design features.

  Information resulting from these studies will be put into a form that will aim to persuade building developers, designers and users to apply the principles in practice. The programme is also seeking to identify the most appropriate ways of ensuring that the results of the programme are effectively transferred to the industry nationwide.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what representations his Department has received supporting greater use of solar energy; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations his Department has received opposing the greater use of solar energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has received widespread support for its passive solar design R and D programme and its aim to encourage the integration of the technology into building design by the mid-1990s. Many of the leading design practices are playing an active part in our programme and are incorporating the technology into new buildings, both domestic and non-domestic, throughout the United Kingdom. We have received no representations opposing the greater use of solar energy.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives his Department is taking to encourage people to set up new businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  For an explanation of the way my Department's activities encourage people setting up new businesses, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 19 July 1988, at columns 557–58, and to the work of the British Coal Enterprise Ltd. in particular.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department regards evaluation as an important part of its programmes in order to ensure that value for money is being achieved and that the work and results are in accordance with the Department's objectives. This evaluation takes many forms, including 486
  internal reviews, market research, where appropriate, to measure programme effectiveness, reviews involving bodies like the advisory council on research and development and other external advisers, and reviews undertaken by or involving other parts of Government, for example, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and interdepartmental reviews.

  Evaluation is encouraged as an integral part of the Department's programmes and costs are included with those of individual programmes or are part of Departments' administrative costs. There are no separately identifiable figures for the costs of such evaluation over the past five years.

  Sullom Voe Oil Terminal
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any preliminary reports on the blast at the Sullom Voe oil terminal on 1 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has no statutory responsibility for the operation of installations at the Sullom Voe oil terminal, except for agreeing the suitability of the metering equipment, and flaring and venting consents. My officials were informed of the blast on 4 July in the course of discussions of other matters with the operator of the terminal. Safety matters at the terminal are for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to publish any reports received by him concerning the blast at Sullom Voe oil terminal on 1 July.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have had no reports, except for a routine report by officials that the blast had occurred, and would affect progress on recommissioning of the Ninian fractionation train, which has been out of commission because of corrosion problems.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has received concerning the cause and extent of corrosion damage at Sullom Voe oil terminal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has been monitoring the course of repairs to corroded pipework at the terminal, in performance of its duties for assessing the requests that have arisen for increased gas flaring consents while the fractionation trains have been out of commission.

  The operators have indicated that rain water penetrating defective lagging led to the corrosion. They hope to recommission the first fractionation train soon.

  Fast Reactor Programme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his statement on the fast reactor programme on 21 July,Official Report, column 1288, what changes have been made to the policy of his Department regarding a proposed European demonstration reprocessing plant to be sited at Dounreay vis-à-vis the evidence submitted to the local public inquiry in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The report of the public local inquiry into the planning application made by the UKAEA and BNFL is being considered by the Secretary
  487
  of State for Scotland. It remains for the European Fast Reactor Collaboration to decide what reprocessing facilities it requires, and when.

  Petroleum Exploration Licences
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will arrange a further opportunity for holders of old-style onshore petroleum exploration licences to convert them into new-style licences.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses the text of a notice to be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes as soon as possible inviting applications for landward petroleum exploration licences. The invitation is directed only to those with exploration licences awarded under the previous 1976 or 1982 Petroleum Production Regulations and I have specified that applications may be made between 10 am and 12 noon on 18 October 1988.

  Old-style exploration licences do not permit exploration drilling to be undertaken. The opportunity which I am now giving will enable the holders of old-style licences to apply for a new exploration licence with a view to proceeding to the drilling stage. Holders of old-style licences expiring within the next 12 months who expect to want to undertake exploration drilling are advised to take advantage of this opportunity, since it is unlikely that there will be any further conversion opportunities until the second half of 1989.

  Any wells to be drilled on new licences will also need the agreement of the landowner and occupier, and the consent of the local planning authorities. In certain cases an environmental impact assessment may also need to be prepared.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Minders
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider giving tax relief on the cost of a child minder.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual value of the concession to company cars.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the fact that the company car scales do not fully reflect the value to an employee of having the private use of a company car. Despite the doubling of the scales for 1988–89, that continues to be the case, by a substantial margin, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his Budget statement. But it is not possible to estimate any additional tax yield from changes without detailed assumptions about the level of each of the scales and the extent to which the rules which currently relate to them would continue to apply.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report, "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have noted the report's recommendations.

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate for the last four years for which figures are available of(a) the income received from licences for amusement-with-prizes machines and (b) the income received from tax on profits made by amusement-with-prizes machines.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information in respect of income tax from profits earned on amusement-with-prizes machines is not available. Estimates of gaming licence duty accruing are as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  37·7

  1985–86

  44·1

  1986–87

  51·4

  1987–88

  163·9

  1 Provisional.

  National Income
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the amount and share of income going to the following tax units for each year since 1978–79, revalued at 1978–79 prices(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the next 2 to 5 per cent., (c) the next 6 to 10 per cent, and (d) the next 10 to 20 per cent, and subsequent deciles;

  (2)if he will list the tax take for each of the following income groups for each year since 1978–79, revalued at 1978–79 prices (a)the top 1 per cent., (b)the next 2 to 5 per cent., (c)the next 6 to 10 per cent, and (d)the next 10 to 20 per cent, and subsequent deciles;

  (3) if he will detail the percentage shares of income tax paid for each year since 1977–78, by (a)the top 1 per cent., of taxpayers (b)the next 2 to 5 per cent., (c)the next 6 to 10 per cent, and (d)the next 10 to 20 per cent, and subsequent deciles.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information is in the table. The analyses are for single people and married couples paying income tax in each year. The quantiles are determined by reference to income tax liability. Estimates are based on the surveys of personal incomes for years up to 1985–86 and projections of the 1985–86 survey for subsequent years; the latter are therefore provisional. For years before 1985–86, estimates of gross income exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source.

  I regret that quantile estimates of gross income before tax for the years 1979–80 to 1982–83 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  489

  Table 1

  Gross incomes before lax at 1978–79 price levels

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 (per cent.)

  £ billion

  Year

  Top 1

  2–5

  6–10

  10–20

  20–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  60–70

  70–80

  80–90

  Bottom 10

  1978–79

  5·0

  9·9

  9·3

  15·0

  12·6

  10·9

  9·6

  8·5

  7·3

  6·0

  4·9

  3·8

  1983–84

  5·8

  11·0

  9·9

  15·3

  12·4

  10·7

  9·2

  8·0

  6·7

  5·8

  4·7

  3·6

  1984–85

  6·2

  11·6

  10·3

  15·8

  12·7

  10·9

  9·4

  8·3

  7·1

  6·0

  4·9

  3·7

  1985–862

  7·2

  12·2

  10·8

  16·9

  13·7

  11·5

  9·9

  8·6

  7·3

  6·3

  5·3

  4·0

  1986–872

  7·6

  12·8

  11·4

  17·7

  14·3

  12·0

  10·3

  8·8

  7·6

  6·4

  5·4

  4·0

  1987–882

  8·0

  13·5

  12·0

  18·8

  15·0

  12·5

  10·7

  9·3

  7·8

  6·6

  5·5

  4·1

  1988–892

  8·7

  14·5

  12·8

  20·1

  16·0

  13·4

  11·5

  9·9

  8·4

  7·1

  5·9

  4·4

  Table 2

  Share of gross income before tax

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 (per cent.)

  Per cent.

  Year

  Top 1

  2–5

  6–10

  10–20

  20–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  60–70

  70–80

  80–90

  Bottom 10

  1978–79

  4·9

  9·7

  9·0

  14·6

  12·3

  10·7

  9·4

  8·2

  7·1

  5·8

  4·7

  3·7

  1983–84

  5·6

  10·7

  9·6

  15·0

  12·0

  10·4

  8·9

  7·8

  6·5

  5·6

  4·6

  3·5

  1984–85

  5·8

  10·9

  9·6

  14·8

  11·9

  10·2

  8·8

  7·8

  6·6

  5·6

  4·6

  3·5

  1985–862

  6·4

  10·7

  9·5

  14·8

  12·1

  10·1

  8·7

  7·5

  6·4

  5·5

  4·7

  3·5

  1986–872

  6·0

  11·0

  10·0

  15·0

  12·0

  10·0

  9·0

  8·0

  6·0

  5·0

  5·0

  3·0

  1987–882

  7·0

  11·0

  10·0

  15·0

  12·0

  10·0

  9·0

  8·0

  6·0

  5·0

  5·0

  3·0

  1988–892

  7·0

  11·0

  10·0

  15·0

  12·0

  10·0

  9·0

  8·0

  6·0

  5·0

  5·0

  3·0

  Table 3

  Income tax liabilities at 1978·79 price levels

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 (per cent.)

  £ billion

  Year

  Top 1

  2–5

  6–10

  10–20

  20–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  60–70

  70–50

  80–90

  Bottom 10

  1978–79

  2·3

  2·6

  2·1

  3·2

  2·5

  2·0

  1·7

  1·4

  1·1

  0·8

  0·4

  0·1

  1979–80

  2·0

  2·5

  2·0

  3·0

  2·4

  2·0

  1·7

  1·3

  1·1

  0·7

  0·4

  0·1

  1980–81

  2·1

  2·6

  2·0

  3·1

  2·4

  2·0

  1·7

  1·4

  1·0

  0·6

  0·4

  0·1

  1981–82

  2·3

  2·7

  2·1

  3·2

  2·4

  2·0

  1·6

  1·4

  1·1

  0·7

  0·5

  0·1

  1982–83

  2·4

  2·8

  2·1

  3·1

  2·4

  2·0

  1·6

  1·3

  1·0

  0·8

  0·4

  0·1

  1983–84

  2·4

  2·9

  2·3

  3·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·7

  1·3

  1·0

  0·7

  0·4

  0·1

  1984–85

  2·4

  2·9

  2·2

  3·2

  2·4

  1·9

  1·6

  1·3

  1·0

  0·7

  0·4

  0·1

  1985–86

  2·9

  3·1

  2·3

  3·3

  2·4

  2·0

  1·6

  1·3

  1·0

  0·7

  0·4

  0·2

  1986–873

  3·1

  3·2

  2·3

  3·3

  2·5

  2·0

  1·6

  1·3

  1·0

  0·7

  0·4

  0·2

  1987–883

  3·3

  3·3

  2·3

  3·3

  2·5

  2·0

  1·6

  1·3

  1·0

  0·7

  0·4

  0·1

  1988–893

  2·7

  3·3

  2·3

  3·3

  2·5

  2·0

  1·6

  1·3

  1·0

  0·7

  0·4

  0·1

  Table 4

  Quantile shares of income tax

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 (per cent.)

  Percent

  Year

  Top 1

  2–5

  6–10

  10–20

  20–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  60–70

  70–80

  80–90

  Bottom 10

  1977–78

  11·9

  13·0

  10·1

  15·0

  12·0

  10·0

  8·1

  7·2

  5·1

  4·4

  2·5

  0·8

  1978–79

  11·2

  12·8

  10·5

  15·7

  12·3

  9·9

  8·8

  6·7

  5·4

  4·0

  2·0

  0·7

  1979–80

  10·4

  13·0

  10·4

  15·7

  12·4

  10·4

  8·6

  6·8

  5·6

  3·7

  2·3

  0·7

  1980–81

  10·9

  13·5

  10·4

  16·1

  12·3

  10·2

  8·5

  7·1

  5·2

  3·3

  1·8

  0·7

  1981–82

  11·3

  13·5

  10·6

  15·6

  12·1

  9·9

  8·1

  6·7

  5·3

  3·8

  2·4

  0·7

  1982–83

  11·7

  13·7

  10·5

  15·5

  12·1

  9·9

  8·2

  6·6

  5·2

  3·7

  2·2

  0·7

  1983–84

  11·4

  14·0

  10·8

  16·2

  12·5

  10·1

  8·1

  6·4

  4·9

  3·5

  1·9

  0·6

  1984–85

  11·8

  14·6

  11·1

  15·7

  11·9

  9·6

  7·8

  6·3

  4·9

  3·5

  2·1

  0·7

  1985–86

  13·8

  14·5

  10·7

  15·4

  11·6

  9·3

  7·6

  6·1

  4·7

  3·4

  2·1

  0·7

  1986–873

  14·0

  15·0

  11·0

  15·0

  11·0

  9·0

  7·0

  6·0

  5·0

  3·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1987–883

  15·0

  15·0

  11·0

  15·0

  11·0

  9·0

  7·0

  6·0

  5·0

  3·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1988–893

  13·0

  15·0

  11·0

  15·0

  12·0

  9·0

  8·0

  6·0

  5·0

  3·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1 Counting married couples as one and combining their incomes.

  2 Provisional; includes estimates of occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source.

  3 Provisional.

  Note: Figures may not sum to 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  P11D Declaration
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the raising of the lower limit for the P11D declaration; and if he will make a statement.
  490
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 17 May at column 435.

  Disposable Wealth
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adults in the United Kingdom had disposable wealth in 1979(a) over £5,000 but less than £10,000, (b) over £10,000 but less than £20,000 and (c) over £20,000; and if he will give details of the numbers for equivalent amounts in real terms for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Norman Lament
  The available estimates are published in "Inland Revenue Statistics" (IRS). The latest estimate of the distribution of marketable wealth for 1979 is given in summary form in IRS 1984 table 4.8 with a fuller distribution of identified wealth in IRS 1983 table 4.12. Estimates have not been made in real terms but estimates in current prices are to be found as follows:

  IRS

  Table

  Marketable wealth:

  1980

  1986

  4·7

  1981–85

  1987

  7·5

  Identified wealth:

  1980

  1984

  4·12

  1981

  1985

  4·11

  1982

  1986

  4·11

  1983

  1987

  7·1

  1984

  1986

  Appendix D1

  1985

  1987

  7·3

  Estimates for 1984 and 1985 are provisional. "Identified wealth" is wealth whose distribution can be estimated directly from capital transfer tax statistics.

  Taxable Benefits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will bring up to date his reply of 6 April 1987 Official Report, column 78, concerning taxable benefits together with an estimate of (a) the amount by which the scale charges for company cars fall short of the true value of the benefit and (b) the estimated yield from taxing the full value;

  (2) what is his estimate of the real and the taxable value of benefits subject to (a) special and (b) general rules, together with the estimated revenue therefrom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information, based on projections from data relating to 1985–86, on the taxable value of benefits and the tax yield arising are as follows:

  Benefit provided by the employer—1988–89

  Taxable value

  Tax yield £ million

  Cars and free fuel for private use

  2,400

  700

  Private medical insurance

  260

  80

  Other expense payments and benefits

  360

  120

  TOTAL

  3,020

  900

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his Budget statement that independent studies had suggested that the 1987–88 scale charges represented only about one quarter of the value of the benefit of a company car. But it is not possible to estimate any additional tax yield from changes without detailed assumptions about the level of each of the scales and the extent to which the rules which currently relate to them would continue to apply.
  492
  The taxable value of free fuel for private use provided by an employer is calculated by reference to a set of scale charges. For private medical insurance premiums and most other expense payments and benefits—the main exceptions being beneficial loans and accommodation provided by an employer—the taxable value is the cost to the employer of providing the benefit. The taxable value of beneficial loans is calculated by reference to the difference between the official rate of interest (which broadly reflects commercial rates) and the actual rate of interest paid; accommodation provided by an employer is taxed by reference to the annual value of the accommodation, less any rent paid. The Inland Revenue does not collect information on any other basis of valuation.

  Taxation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total taxation income tax and national insurance contributions combined constituted in 1979 and in each subsequent year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Following is the information:

  Income tax and national insurance contributions as a percentage share of total taxes and national insurance contributions

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  45·4

  1980–81

  45·6

  1981–82

  44·5

  1982–83

  44·4

  1983–84

  44·6

  1984–85

  43·3

  1985–86

  43·5

  1986–87

  44·4

  1987–88

  43·7

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for an employee on (a) average earnings and (b) 10 times average earnings the marginal rate of income tax and national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The table shows the marginal rate of income tax and NIC of a married man on (a) average earnings and (b) 10 times average earnings under the 1988–89 tax and NIC regimes. The calculations assume that the man's earnings are his only source of income and that he has no reliefs or allowances other than the married man's allowance. Average earnings are those for full-time males paid at adult rates whose pay is unaffected by absence and are estimated at £244·70 per week in 1988–89.

  Marginal rate of income tax and NIC1

  Per cent.

  Average earnings

  34

  10 times average earnings

  40

  1 Assuming contracted in to SERFS.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total expenditure social security, health and personal social services combined constituted in each year from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Major
  The table shows, for the financial years 1979–80 to 1988–89, public expenditure (net of receipts) on
  493
  social security, health and personal social services as a percentage of the public expenditure planning total, excluding privatisation proceeds, the adjustment made to bring the sum of individual estimated outturns in line with the Treasury's view of the likely overall outturn (1987–88) only and the reserve (1988–89) only.

  Percentages

  1979–80 outturn

  39·9

  1980–81 outturn

  41·2

  1981–82 outturn

  43·3

  1982–83 outturn

  44·5

  1983–84 outturn

  44·9

  1984–85 outturn

  44·7

  1985–86 outturn

  46·5

  1986–87 outturn

  47·4

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  147·6

  1988–89 plans

  47·8

  Source: Table 5.11, The Government's Expenditure Plans, 1988–89 to 1990–91, Cm. 288-I.

  1 The figure for 1987–88 does not include the additions to health authority cash limits provided for in Spring Supplementary Estimates.

  Age Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (i) the gain to the Exchequer in the current financial year at present rates of tax of abolishing the age allowances and (ii) the cost of retaining them without the income limit.

  Mr. Norman I.amont
  The yield in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income of abolishing the age allowances for taxpayers aged 65 and over is estimated to be about £400 million. If the age allowances were retained and the income limit abolished, the cost to the Exchequer would be £190 million.

  The estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for direct tax allowances and reliefs listed in table 6.5 of Cm. 288-I, his estimate of the cost in a full year at current rates of incomes and tax for items which will cost the Exchequer £10 million or more.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the estimates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the estimated direct revenue cost in income tax at the standard and higher rates in a full year at current rates of mortgage interest relief, life assurance pensions relief, retirement annuity premium relief and investment income relief of occupational pension funds.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Available estimates are as follows. The cost of mortgage interest relief in 1988–89 is based on the actual mortgage interest rate between April and July and on the assumption that mortgage interest rates remain at the recently announced levels of 11·5 per cent, from August. All estimates are provisional.
  494

  Estimated direct revenue cost 1988–89 £ million

  Mortgage interest relief

  4,750

  —of which relief at the excess over the basic rate

  300

  Life assurance premium relief

  470

  Employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes

  1,700

  Employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes not treated as taxable benefits in kind in the hands of the employees

  2,600

  Retirement annuity premium relief

  450

  —of which relief at the excess over the basic rate

  100

  Relief on investment income of occupational pension funds (assuming relief at the basic rate)

  4,400

  National Savings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for those above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units in receipt of more than £200 gross in national savings accounts and bonds and the average amount received, together with his estimates for 1988–89; and if he will divide the figures to show the amounts for those above and those below pensionable age by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000 and distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing by range of income and tax status an estimate of the saving to the Exchequer in a full year by setting off investment income against mortgage interest qualifying for relief under the mortgage interest relief at source scheme.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The extent of any saving would depend upon the precise rules proposed for offsetting investment income against payments of mortgage interest and, in particular, on the way in which this restriction would impinge on the system of mortgage interest relief at source (MIRAS).

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of receipts from stamp duty in the current financial year and in 1987–88 for transactions in (a) housing and (b) shares.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is as follows:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £ million

  £ million

  (a) Residential property

  800

  1,000

  (b) Shares

  965

  600

  Overseas Debt
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's progress in implementing the debt initiative for the most debt-ridden countries put forward by him.

  Mr. Lilley
  The United Kingdom has converted aid loans into grants for 14 African countries and has taken part in Paris Club reschedulings for 10 sub-Saharan African countries which have resulted in repayment periods of 15 to 20 years. Reducing interest rates on rescheduled officially guaranteed debts is one of the options included in the agreement at the Toronto economic summit. The United Kingdom will choose this option when the agreement is implemented.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount of the debts owed to the United Kingdom by less-developed countries, the annual interest payments due, the current account deficits of those countries, the extent of any debt write-offs in the past 12 months and the proportion of each less developed country's debt owed to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: At end-December 1986 £1,225 million was outstanding from less-developed countries to the Overseas Development Administration. The Export Credits Guarantee Department's amounts at risk are published in its "Summary of Audited Trading Results 1986/87." United Kingdom commercial banks' claims on developing countries are listed in the Bank of England's quarterly bulletin. Comprehensive figures on other private debts are not available.

  In April 1988 the International Monetary Fund, in its world economic outlook, estimated that in 1987 developing countries had a surplus of $4·4 billion on the current accounts of their balance of payments.

  In the calendar year 1987 the ODA wrote off £26·2 million in claims on developing countries. This comprises £24·7 million charged to the aid programme in respect of conversion of aid loans to grants and other exceptional debt relief and £1·5 million in refinancing grants.

  It is not possible to calculate the amount of annual interest payments due to the United Kingdom or the proportion of developing countries' debt owed to the United Kingdom.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people make up the 1 per cent, of taxpayers who pay the most tax; and at what level of income does this 1 per cent, begin.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that in 1988–89 the top 1 per cent, of income tax payers comprises 210,000 single people and married couples, each with total income of at least £50,000.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the tax district which serves Nottingham are in the top 1 per cent, of taxpayers.
  496
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A tax district serves the residents of a number of places, according to who is their employer. Information about the amount of income tax payable is not compiled for smaller areas of residence than counties.

  Millionaires
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the number of millionaires in Britain.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest provisional estimate is that about 10,000 individuals owned wealth exceeding £1 million in 1985.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any representations from the friendly society movement seeking a new legislative framework which will enable them to compete more effectively with other financial institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I received a memorandum from the friendly societies liaison committee earlier this month. I intend to meet its representatives to discuss its proposals.

  London Clearing Banks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the matter of his reply dated 14 July 1986,Official Report, columns 680–81, concerning the profits of the London clearing banks, he will provide the corresponding figures for 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested, updated to include 1986 and 1987, is as follows:

  Pre-tax profits of London clearing banks

  Actual

  Adjusted to 1987 prices

  £ million

  £ million

  1987

  290

  290

  1986

  3,040

  3,167

  1985

  2,556

  2,747

  1979

  1,571

  2,833

  1969

  212

  1,242

  The figures are drawn from the annual reports of Barclays, Lloyds, Midland and National Westminster.

  EC (Budget)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the figures on net contributions to the EEC budget in the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the financial and economic consequences of United Kingdom membership of the European Communities (page 76 of HC57-II Session 1984–85).

  Mr. Peter Brooke
  The updated figures are set out in the table:
  497

  Net contribution to the EC Budget

  £ million

  Year

  Net contribution before refunds or VA T abatements (cash)

  Negotiated refunds

  VAT abatements

  Net contribution after refunds and abatements (cash)'1

  Net contribution after refunds and abatements in constant 1987 prices2

  1975

  -56

  —

  —

  -56

  -170

  1976

  167

  —

  —

  167

  441

  1977

  369

  —

  —

  369

  854

  1978

  822

  —

  —

  822

  1,708

  1979

  947

  —

  —

  947

  1,718

  1980

  804

  98

  —

  706

  1,070

  1981

  1,090

  693

  —

  397

  539

  1982

  1,625

  1,019

  —

  606

  765

  1983

  1,454

  807

  —

  647

  776

  1984

  1,184

  528

  —

  656

  755

  1985

  2,035

  61

  166

  1,808

  1,965

  1986

  2,273

  —

  1,701

  572

  599

  1987

  2,866

  —

  1,153

  1,713

  1,713

  1 United Kingdom figures showing payments to the Community budget on a cash flow basis. Budget refunds and abatements are credited to the year in which they are paid.

  2Constant prices have been constructed using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a revision of the tables on pages 33–36 of Cm. 288-II to take account of what was agreed at the EEC summit meeting on financing the EEC budget and of the current year's budget settlement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: I regret I cannot provide the information requested. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the hon. Gentleman on 22 February, at column 17, the overall effect of the EEC summit agreement will be to increase the United Kingdom's net contribution after abatement by about £200 million to £300 million a year compared to the 1·4 per cent, own resources ceiling, and by an estimated £100 million to £200 million a year compared with the effective level of spending in 1987. Revised estimates of the United Kingdom's net payments to Community institutions which take account of the new financing arrangements and this year's budget will be published in the Autumn Statement.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the sum of £200 was established as the level above which the cost of answering a parliamentary question is considered disproportionate; and if he will place a note in the Library detailing how this sum was arrived at, and the cost assumptions currently used when calculating the cost of parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Brooke
  The disproportionate cost threshold was set at £200 in 1982, being increased to £250 in March 1988 to maintain the value of the cost threshold in real terms.

  The disproportionate cost procedure is designed to identify and draw to ministerial attention the most expensive 1 to 2 per cent, of parliamentary questions. This does not alter the discretion of individual Ministers to decide that a particular question should be answered partially or in full, regardless of cost.

  The cost of answering a parliamentary question is based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs (such as national insurance and superannuation for the Civil Service grades concerned) and on substantive non-staff costs such as computer usage.

  Arts Sponsorship (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Revenue of tax relief on business sponsorships of the arts; and how many companies have claimed such relief for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cost is not known precisely but is currently thought to be no higher than £10 million. The number of companies claiming relief is not known.

  Theatre Tickets (VAT)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the receipts from value added tax on theatre tickets for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information is not directly available. The estimated yield of value added tax based on consumers' expenditure on admissions to theatres, concerts and similar live entertainment for the last five years is:

  VAT Yield

  Nearest £5 million

  1983–84

  35

  1984–85

  35

  1985–86

  40

  1986–87

  50

  1987–88

  155

  1 Estimated

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table for the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 bringing together on the same basis the analysis of charges against public expenditure by departmental programme, Official Report,columns 375–76, 25 May, an analysis of charges by functional composition consistent with table 2.7 of Cm. 288-I.

  Mr. Major
  My reply on 22 July explained that the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of Department programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a)the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Brooke
  The process of evaluation of my Department's programmes is part of the work itself. It is therefore not possible to identify separately the resources involved.

  Budget Council
  Mr. Summcrson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the European Community's Budget Council.

  MECU

  Expenditure ceilings

  Draft budget

  ecu

  £

  ecu

  £

  Commitment appropriations

  FEOGA guarantee

  28,624

  19,886

  28,127

  19,541

  Structural funds

  9,522

  6,615

  9,478

  6,585

  R & D and integrated Mediterranean programmes

  1,708

  1,187

  1,583

  1,100

  Other policies

  2,468

  1,715

  2,298

  1,596

  Reimbursements and administration

  5,153

  3,580

  5,081

  3,530

  Monetary reserve

  1,000

  695

  1,000

  695

  TOTAL

  48,475

  33,677

  47,567

  33,046

  Total payment appropriations1

  46,885

  32,572

  46,009

  31,964

  1 There is only a global ceiling for payments.

  Provision for agricultural guarantee expenditure is almost 500 mecu (£350 million) below the limit agreed at the Brussels Council and given legal effect in the Budget discipline decision. The draft budget also includes provision of 1·45 becu (£1 billion) for the cost of depreciating existing agricultural stocks; and of 1 becu (£695 million) for a monetary reserve which can be drawn upon only to cover unforeseen additional expenditure of over 400 mecu (£280 million) arising from changes in the $/ecu exchange rate.

  Non-obligatory expenditure (DNO) in the draft budget totals 13·5 becu (£9·4 billion) in commitments and 12 becu (£8·3 billion) in payments. In accordance with the conclusions of the Brussels European Council, the Budget Council distinguished between so-called "privileged" and "non-privileged" expenditure. In the first category, the draft budget provides for the substantial increase in appropriations for the structural funds agreed at the Brussels Council and for research and development appropriations at a level consistent with the framework programme adopted in September 1987. As regards non-privileged DNO, the Budget Council reduced the proposed provision in the PDB by an amount sufficient to ensure that, for this category of expenditure, the growth of both payments and commitments was contained within half the maximum rate of 5·8 per cent, communicated by the Commission. The growth of DNO as a whole in the draft budget is some 16·6 per cent, in commitments and some 17·7 per cent, in payments. The fact that the Council substantially exceeded the overall maximum rate was an inevitable consequence of the increase in provision for the structural funds.
  500
  Mr. Brooke
  The Budget Council met in Brussels on 26 July. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council established a first reading draft budget for 1989 totalling 47·6 becu (£33·1 billion) in commitment appropriations and 46·0 becu (£32·0 billion) in payment appropriations, respectively 470 mecu (£325 million) and 480 mecu (£335 million) below the figures proposed by the Commission in the preliminary draft budget (PDB).

  The 1989 budget is the first to be subject to the new arrangements for budgetary discipline arising from the Brussels European Council of 11–12 February and to the inter-institutional agreement (IIA) between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament which incorporates expenditure ceilings for 1988–92. The following table shows that the first reading draft budget is some way within those ceilings.

  The draft budget implies an own resource call up rate of 1·15 per cent, of Community GNP compared with own resources sub-ceiling for 1989 of 11·7 per cent.

  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget at its plenary session in October and is entitled to make amendments and modifications within the ceilings for individual categories of expenditure set out in the II A. The Budget Council will consider these amendments and modifications at its second reading of the budget in November.

  HMSO
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the future of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Lawson
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said in a written answer on 21 July 1987, at column 112, that the Government have no present plans to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office. That remains the present position. However, the Government see every advantage in removing unnecessary constraints and encouraging the management of the office to continue to develop the business on commercial lines. It has therefore been decided to establish Her Majesty's Stationery Office in the autumn as one of the new-style executive agencies as foreseen by the Prime Minister in her announcement on 18 February 1988, at column 1149 et seq, about the future management of the Civil Service. Her Majesty's Stationery Office will remain a trading fund within central Government, accountable direct to Treasury Ministers,

  501
  but the controller and chief executive will have greater freedom, within parameters agreed by Ministers, to manage the day-to-day affairs of the agency and in particular to introduce an organisational and pay structure better suited to the most efficient achievement of the agency's aims and objectives. Details of the new structure will be worked out with the Treasury during the next few months. The proposed changes will be the subject of full consultation with the trade unions.

  Residence Rules
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals for amending the residence rules and the basis of liability to United Kingdom tax of resident individuals.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The present rules on United Kingdom residence and domicile which determine the basis of an individual's liability to United Kingdom income tax and capital gains tax are complex, long-standing and lack a firm statutory basis. Possible changes to these rules need careful consideration and discussion. With my agreement, therefore, the Inland Revenue is today issuing a consultative document which suggests a possible approach to overcome the deficiencies of the present rules. The aim is to move in the direction of greater simplicity, certainty and neutrality, and to relate liabilities to United Kingdom tax more closely to the degree of an individual's connection with this country.

  The Revenue is issuing a press release today giving further details. Comments on the consultative document should be received by 30 November. We shall carefully consider all comments and representations which are made before introducing any legislative changes. I have placed copies of the document in the Library.

  Reduction in income tax liability under independent taxation for

  Quantile group based on income

  quantiles1 of all tax units2 £ million

  quantiles1 of married couples £ million

  quantiles3 of married people £ million

  Top 5 per cent.

  400

  260

  90

  Top 10 per cent.

  440

  400

  140

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  160

  210

  450

  Bottom 60 per cent.

  130

  200

  430

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  100

  170

  400

  Bottom 30 per cent.

  —

  130

  350

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  —

  50

  200

  All

  670

  670

  670

  1 Based on all income of tax unit, ie combining income of husband and wife.

  2 Married couples and single people.

  3 Based on each married person's own income.

  All estimates are provisional and subject to considerable uncertainty; and I regret that it is not possible to provide estimates for the top 1 per cent, of taxpayers.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total spending by his Department on press, public relations and advertising, respectively, in 1987–88.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: Expenditure during 1987–88 was as follows:

  £

  Press and public relations

  591,460

  Advertising

  44,723

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reduction in income tax liability as a result of the introduction of independent taxation in its first full year of operation for(a) the top 1 per cent, of taxpayers, (b) the top 5 per cent, of taxpayers, (c) the top 10 per cent, of taxpayers, (d) the bottom 70 per cent, of taxpayers, (e) the bottom 60 per cent, of taxpayers, (f) the bottom 50 per cent, of taxpayers, (g) the bottom 30 per cent, of taxpayers and (h) the bottom 10 per cent, of taxpayers, with the percentages defined by reference to the joint income of husband and wife.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]: Estimates are given in the table. The first column gives the reduction for quantiles of all married couples and single people liable to income tax and the second column gives quantiles based on married couples only. The quantiles in these two columns are defined by the total income of each current tax unit, that is counting a married couple as one unit. The third column gives the reduction in liability for husbands and wives (counted separately) who are liable to income tax on the basis of their own income. The quantiles in this column are calculated by reference to the income of each individual. This approach is more appropriate for analysing the income tax reductions of independent taxation than approaches in which the incomes of married couples are combined. Reductions in income tax liability relate to a full year at 1990–91 projected levels of income. The 1988 Budget proposals for income tax rates and allowances have been indexed to 1990–91 according to the statutory formula.

  These figures do not include the marketing costs on sales of Government shareholdings (some £44,616,000 including VAT in 1987–88) which are financed from the sales proceeds.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by the Treasury on press and public relations during 1988–89.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The estimated expenditure for the current year is £586,515.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of the Treasury.
  503
  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The number of press and public relations staff employed in the Treasury on 1 July 1988 was 11.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed on press and public relations duties by those parts of the former Management and Personnel Office for which he now has responsibility.

  Mr. Peter Brooke
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: Nil.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure on press and public relations during 1988–89 by those parts of the former Management and Personnel Office for which he now has responsibility.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: Nil.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1988–89 by the Treasury on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The estimated expenditure for 1988–89 is £49,000, none of which is likely to be on television and radio advertising.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1988–89 by those parts of the former Management and Personnel Office for which he now has responsibility on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: Nil.

  Multiple Share Applications
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which privatisation share issue the first computer program to identify multiple share applications was designed; whether it has been purchased by his Department for use in conjunction with subsequent flotations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: The Government place a high priority on detecting multiple applications in privatisation sales. Methods of detection are a matter for the fraud auditors appointed for each sale, but computers have been used as an aid to detection in every sale since the British Gas sale in 1986 and we would expect them to be used in future sales. Different programmes are used in each sale, as the methods of collecting applications and techniques of detection change. Innovation in computer programmes to improve detection of multiple applicants is one of the criteria in the selection of fraud auditors.

  Customs and Excise (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost of preparing, printing, posting and processing the results of the ethnic survey questionnaire recently sent to Customs and Excise staff.
  504
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: This expenditure is included in the Department's general administrative costs and cannot be separately identified without incurring disproportionate expense.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the purposes of the ethnic survey questionnaire sent to Customs and Excise staff for completion.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: The ethnic survey questionnaires issued to staff in Customs and Excise will provide the Department with statistical information about the number, grade and location of employees from ethnic minorities. The information will be used in monitoring the career progression of these staff to ensure they receive equality of treatment in respect of training, promotion and allocation to duties.

  Rating
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the discussions between the Inland Revenue valuation officer and the Scottish Assessors Association regarding the harmonisation of rating practices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: Significant progress has been made and the prospect of reaching agreement in many important areas in time for the 1990 revaluation is good.

  Domestic Credit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the expansion of domestic credit is under control; what effect the influx of foreign funds has had on this; what measures he has taken to sterilise the influx and with what results; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1972 and the current year to date the expansion of domestic credit and the increase in sterling M3 in cash and in percentage terms.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: Domestic credit is monitored as part of the continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions on which interest rate decisions are based. External influences are taken into account together with all other relevant factors.

  The Government's policy is to ensure that, over time, any net foreign exchange intervention is fully funded.

  Sterling M3 is now called M3. Figures for M3 and its credit counterparts are available in the annual supplement of Economic Trends 1988, and more recent figures are in Financial Statistics.

  Government Expenditure
  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 1978 central Government expenditure on goods and services as a percentage of gross domestic product, less the extraction of oil and gas.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: The available information is as follows:
  505

  Central Government expenditure on goods and services as a percentage of GDP at market price, less extraction of mineral oil and natural gas

  Percentage

  1978

  13·0

  1979

  13·0

  1980

  14·3

  1981

  14·7

  1982

  14·9

  1983

  15·2

  1984

  15·1

  1985

  14·8

  1986

  14·1

  1987

  13·6

  Source: Based on United Kingdom National Accounts Statistics.

  Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000, for those above and those below pensionable age and distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples, the estimated saving to the Exchequer of abolishing all allowances and reliefs other than the basic single and married allowances; and if he will provide similar tables on the 1990 basis of separate taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: An answer will be given after summer recess.

  Market Researchers
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether companies using the services of market researchers are advised to issue P45s on completion of their services.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: Companies employing market researchers do not normally issue forms P45 on the completion of an assignment, unless there is no intention of providing the researcher with a further assignment or the researcher indicates that the employment has ceased and requests a form P45.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision has been taken by the Inland Revenue concerning the taxation status of market researchers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: The status of market research interviewers, like the employment status of all other workers, depends on the terms on which they are engaged and work. The Inland Revenue's evaluation of the terms which normally apply leads it to believe that in general market researchers are engaged under contracts of employment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Earnings Taper
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire),Official Report, 29 June, column 269, whether he intends to take any steps to
  506
  ensure that the single homeless living in hostel accommodation who are in full-time training and work placements do not experience a 100 per cent, taper on their earnings, if they earn more than £5 a week;

  (2) if he will give his current estimate of the number of social security recipients living in hostel accommodation who undertake full-time training or work placements and have a 100 per cent, taper on their earnings, under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986;

  (3) which social security recipients, other than the single homeless living in hostel accommodation and undertaking training or work placements have a 100 per cent, taper on their earnings.

  Mr. Scott
  Single people who are working fewer than 24 hours a week will have the first £5 of any earnings disregarded, or £15, if they have an underlying entitlement to the disability or lone-parent premium in income support. The number of income support recipients living in hostels and whose part-time earnings exceed their earnings disregard is not known. Each spouse in a married couple unemployed for less than two years has a part-time earnings disregarded of £5. Couples unemployed for more than two years have a combined disregard of £15. Any income support recipient or dependant whose part-time earnings exceed his or her disregard has those earnings taken fully into account. We have undertaken to monitor the effects of the earnings disregards and to consider their implications. People who are in remunerative work for 24 hours or more a week are not entitled to income support. No full-time workers now experience combined income tax and benefit withdrawal rates of 100 per cent, or more.

  Departmental Offices (Norwich)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of the local offices of his Department at Chantry house and Baltic house, Norwich, how many items of unlinked correspondence were recorded each month since 11 April.

  Mr. Scott
  For the months since 11 April 1988, the totals of income support and supplementary benefit correspondence which were unlinked after two days at the Chantry house and Baltic house offices of the Department were:

  30 April 1988

  31 May 1988

  30 June 1988

  Chantry house

  0

  18

  0

  Baltic house

  17

  38

  4

  No records are maintained on unlinked correspondence for other local office benefits.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of the local offices of his Department at Chantry house and Baltic house, Norwich, what was the average number of new claims and cases awaiting review which were recorded as outstanding each month since 11 April; and how many related to supplementary benefit claims and to single payment claims.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of cases outstanding at the two Norwich offices is as follows:
  507

  Chantry House

  Baltic House

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  1. (a) Income support claims

  181

  126

  125

  178

  182

  273

  (b) Assessment reviews

  78

  44

  46

  359

  173

  73

  2. (a) Supplementary benefit claims

  22

  0

  0

  136

  17

  1

  (b) Single payments

  10

  0

  0

  37

  3

  13

  Source: Internal management information statistics. This information is provisional only and subject to amendment.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of the local offices of his Department at Baltic house and Chantry house, Norwich, how many social fund applications were made each month for budget loans; crisis loans and community care grants since 11 April; how many applications in each of these

  Norwich (Chantry House)

  Norwich (Baltic House)

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  Community care grants

  23

  32

  49

  5

  19

  37

  Budgeting loans

  64

  112

  163

  53

  153

  226

  Crisis loans

  61

  113

  126

  33

  55

  63

  These data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Details of the number of applications processed and the number of awards made each month are in the Library.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, in respect of the local offices of his Department at Baltic house and Chantry house, Norwich, what load of current cases each office has carried(a) in the past six months, and (b) since 11 April; how many new claims for income support were made each month; and how many claims were determined.

  Mr. Scott
  The live case load for each office requested is:

  Chantry house

  Baltic house

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  Claims received

  879

  741

  864

  520

  943

  1,017

  Determinations made

  698

  796

  865

  342

  939

  926

  Source: Internal management statistics. This information is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Poverty and Unemployment Traps
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update again the information given in the first paragraph of the section on poverty and unemployment traps which appears on page 94 of the current issue of "Social Trends", taking into account changes in housing benefit, and the transition from supplementary benefit to income support in April, but assuming that income tax and national insurance remain at current levels; and if he will update again the information given in the second paragraph of the section on poverty and unemployment traps which appears on page 94 of the current issue of "Social Trends" assuming that a married couple with four children were faced with social security changes in April, but assuming that there will be no change in the level of national insurance contributions or income tax.

  Mr. Scott
  For a full-time working family paying income tax and national insurance contributions, and
  508
  categories were determined each month; and how many applications in each of these categories were granted each month.

  Mr. Scott
  The following numbers of social fund applications were made to the two Norwich offices:

  Chantry house

  Baltic house

  Supplementary benefit live load as at 17 November 1987

  15,350

  17,684

  Income support live load as at 31 May 1988

  13,129

  14,633

  Those figures may, however, overstate the number of people receiving supplementary benefit. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the footnote to the replu given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 31 March 1988, at columns 660–61.

  (Source: 100 per cent, count of cases in action which includes a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit.)

  The number of income support claims received and determined for each office is as follows:

  receiving income-related benefits, an extra £1 of gross earnings can lead to an increase in income tax of 25p, a 9p increase in national insurance contributions, 46p reduction in family credit and a 17p reduction in housing benefit—a total of 97p. Only 45,000 out of 17 million working heads of tax units are likely to have combined income tax and benefit withdrawal rates in excess of 90 per cent. In April 1987, 70,000 working heads experienced a combined rate in excess of 100 per cent.

  After the addition of benefits, the net income of a hypothetical married couple with four dependent children (aged 3, 8, 11 and 16), and paying average rent and local authority rates, would be £123·25 at gross weekly earnings of £75. This figure would rise to £140·90 at gross earnings of £165. Prior to the reform of social security, net income at £75 gross earnings would have been about £127. It would then have fallen below this level until gross earnings reached £165.
  509
  The effects under the reformed social security scheme are cushioned somewhat by the fact that family credit is paid for 26 weeks irrespective of any subsequent change in circumstances.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of, or estimates of, people who were in November 1987(a) in receipt of supplementary benefit and (b) dependent upon supplementary benefit in respect of the offices of his Department at Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Eston and Redcar.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit on 18 November 1987 was:

  Number

  Stockton

  20,321

  Middlesbrough

  23,141

  Hartlepool

  12,365

  Eston

  8,445

  Redcar

  9,492

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

  I regret that information on the number of people dependent upon supplementary benefit is not available at local level.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead,Official Report, 9 December, column 206, to give the number of claimants and dependants below and above retirement age for each year since 1979, who have been dependent on supplementary benefit for over five years.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows and up-dates the number of claimants below and above pension age who have been dependent on supplementary benefit for five or more years since 1979. Information about their dependants is not immediately available. When it is I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Supplementary pension claimants (thousands)

  Supplementary allowance claimants (thousands)

  November 1979

  1,053

  234

  December 1980

  1,054

  251

  December 1981

  1,087

  281

  December 1982

  1,090

  308

  December 1983

  1,057

  348

  December 1984

  1,041

  409

  February 1986

  1,026

  535

  May 1987

  1,033

  659

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries.

  There was no annual statistical inquiry in 1985: the one due in December that year was deferred until February 1986.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds claiming supplementary benefit in September in each of the years 1979 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about the number of 16 and 17-year-olds claiming supplementary benefit in any given 510
  period is not available. The numbers in receipt of supplementary benefit on a day in each of the months indicated are shown in the following table:

  Date

  Total number of 16/17-year-olds in receipt of supplementary benefit (thousands )

  November 1979

  79

  December 1980

  141

  December 1981

  166

  December 1982

  183

  December 1983

  175

  December 1984

  184

  February 1986

  168

  May 1987

  141

  Source: Annual sample statistical inquiries.

  Notes: No inquiry was held in 1985.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will detail the extent to which the increase in the number of persons living at or below the supplementary benefit level since 1979 has been due to an increase in the real value of the scale rates;

  (2) what proportion of the increase in the number of persons living at 100 per cent, or below the supplementary benefit level is accounted for by the real increase in the value of benefits over the periods (a) 1979 to 1983 and (b) 1979 to 1985.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how far the fall in the number of persons living(a) below supplementary benefit level, (b) on supplementary benefit and (c) at between 100 and 140 per cent, of supplementary benefit level is accounted for by the changes in the real value of the supplementary benefit scale rate between 1979 and 1985.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 8 July 1988]: The information requested is as follows. The increase attributable to higher supplementary benefit real values is greater in some instances than the increase which actually occurred. Thus, if supplementary benefit had increased only in line with prices, the numbers of people in these ranges would have reduced. Supplementary benefit recipients do not, as a general rule, have incomes of 100 per cent, of the supplementary benefit scale rates. Two individuals shown in the low-income tables as having similar incomes may have incomes which are significantly different because two quite separate scale rates are applied.

  Percentage of the increase in the number of people in benefit units attributable to real terms increases in the supplementary benefit scale rates 1979–85

  Per cent.

  1. People in units receiving supplementary benefit

  30

  2. People in units not receiving supplementary benefit but with RNR below 100

  220

  3. Total: Rows 1 and 2 together

  150

  4. People in units not receiving supplementary benefit and with RNR between 100 and 140

  140

  1 The corresponding figure for the period 1979 to 1983 is 40 per cent.

  Notes:

  (1) Relative net resources is a concept expressing the net income of people not in receipt of supplementary benefit as a proportion of the supplementary benefit scale rates. A full explanation of how RNR is calculated may be found in the technical notes included in "Low Income Familes—1985", copies of which are available in the Library.

  (2) Further information on the relative net resource distribution of

  511
  persons in benefit units receiving supplementary benefit or housing benefit supplement may be found in the reply given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 17 June, at column 366.

  Disabled People (Report)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what considerations he has given to "Last On The List: Community Services for People with Disabilities", an independent report published by the King's Fund Institute, a copy of which has been sent to him; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We welcome the publication of this report, as it sets out a valuable overview on the ways that services are being provided for people with physical disabilities. The report is receiving careful consideration and it is proposed to discuss its implications further with interested parties. It will also be taken into account in framing the Government's proposals on community care policy, following consideration of Sir Roy Griffiths' recent report. The report is not, however, addressed solely to Government and we hope that it will stimulate similar consideration and discussion amongst service providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply dated 25 March 1987,Official Report, columns 199–200, concerning reduced rate national insurance contributions, if he will provide figures for the gross and net contributions, taking into account the figures supplied on the same date in reply to a question asking for an update of table 40.13 of social security statistics 1985, 25 March, Official Report, column 200.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Mildred Edwards
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, dated 27 January, concerning Mrs. Mildred Edwards, departmental reference PO(5) 1223/63.

  Mr. Scott
  A reply was sent on 11 April.

  Ynys Môn
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each local office of his Department in Ynys Môn(a) the load of current cases which each office has carried during the last six months, (b) the number of new claims for income support made in each month since 11 April, (c) the number of claims for income support determined during each month since 11 April for income support and (d) the number of social fund applications made, and the number determined, in each month since 11 April for (i) budget loans, (ii) crisis loans and (iii) community care grants.

  Mr. Scott
  The constituency of Ynys Môn is served by the local office at Anglesey, but the boundaries are not conterminous.
  512
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Supplementary benefit live load at 17 November 1987

  7,323

  Income support live load at 31 May 1988

  6,588

  Note: These are the only figures available for the period. The source is a 100 per cent. count of cases in action. These figures may, however, overstate the number of people receiving supplementary benefit. The footnote to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), 31 March 1988 c 660–61 refers.

  Income support

  11 to 29 April 1988

  May 1988

  June 1988

  Claims made

  278

  448

  623

  Claims determined

  220

  356

  454

  Note: These figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Social Fund applications

  11 to 29 April 1988

  May 1988

  June 1988

  Budgeting loans

  43

  78

  120

  Crisis loans

  25

  38

  56

  Community care grants

  17

  20

  25

  Details of the number of social fund applications determined each month for each office have already been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each local office of his Department in Ynys Môn the average number of new claims and cases awaiting review which were recorded as outstanding in each month since 11 April; how many were related to (i) supplementary benefit claims and (ii) single payment claims; and how many items of unlinked correspondence were recorded in each month since 11 April.

  Mr. Scott
  The constituency of Ynys Môn is served by the local office of Anglesey, but the boundaries are not conterminous.

  The amount of work outstanding in each month since 11 April 1988 is as follows:

  11 to 29 April

  May

  June

  Income support claims

  58

  92

  169

  Assessment reviews

  231

  118

  59

  Supplementary benefit claims

  67

  10

  2

  Single payment claims

  57

  174

  49

  These figures are provisional and are subject to amendment.

  I regret that no details are available about unlinked correspondence.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each local office of his Department in Ynys Mon by staffing grades(a) the current staff complement, (b) the number of permanent staff currently in post, (c) the number of temporary staff currently in post, (d) the number of staff members currently being trained, (e) the number of qualified officers engaged in training staff and (f) the annual turnover of permanent staff.
  513
  Mr. Scott
  Ynys Môn is served by Anglesey integrated local office. The requested information in respect of that office is as follows:

  Grade

  Complement 1988–89

  Permanent staff in post

  Temporary staff' in post

  Turnover

  1 July 1988

  1 July 1988

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Local Officer 1

  25

  25

  —

  —

  Local Officer 2

  39

  37

  —

  6

  Administrative Assistant

  12

  11

  2

  5

  Typist

  2

  1

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  83

  79

  2

  11

  The information regarding turnover relates to the year ending 31 March 1988.

  On 1 July 1988 there were three LO1s and one LO2 being trained by means of self-instruction. Two LO1s supervise and assist their training as and when required in addition to other LO1 duties.

  Family Income Supplement
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much family income supplement rose in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms between (i) 1979 and 1988, (ii) 1979 and 1985 and (iii) 1983 and 1985.

  (i) Period November 1979 to April 1987

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  November 1979 actual

  April 1987 actual

  November 19791 expressed in April 1987 prices

  Actual increase column 2 over column 1

  Real value increase column 3 over column 2

  £

  £

  £

  £

  per cent.

  £

  per cent.

  Family income supplement.

  Prescribed amount for one child family where child is aged:

  Under 11

  56·00

  100·70

  94·61

  44·70

  79·8

  6·09

  6·4

  11–15

  56·00

  101·75

  94·61

  45·75

  81·7

  7·14

  7·5

  16 and over

  56·00

  102·80

  94·61

  46·80

  83·6

  8·19

  8·7

  Maximum amount for one child family, where child is aged:

  Under 11

  13·50

  25·85

  2·81

  12·35

  91·5

  3·04

  13·3

  11–15

  13·50

  26·40

  22·81

  12·90

  95·6

  3·59

  15·7

  16 and over

  13·50

  26·90

  22·81

  13·40

  99·3

  4·09

  17·9

  1 Based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices (all items) between November 1979 and April 1987.

  (ii) Period November 1979 to November 1985

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  November 1979 actual

  November 1985 actual

  November 19791 expressed in November 1985 prices

  Actual increase column 2 over column 1

  Real value increase column 3 over column 2

  £

  £

  £

  £

  per cent.

  £

  per cent.

  Family income supplement.

  Prescribed amount for one child family where child is aged:

  Under 11

  56·00

  97·50

  89·15

  41·50

  74·1

  8·35

  9·4

  11–15

  56·00

  98·50

  89·15

  42·50

  75·9

  9·35

  10·5

  16 and over

  56·00

  99·50

  89·15

  43·50

  77·7

  10·35

  11·6

  Maximum amount for one child family, where child is aged:

  Under 11

  13·50

  25·00

  21·49

  11·50

  85·2

  3·51

  16·3

  11–15

  13·50

  25·50

  21·49

  12·00

  88·9

  4·01

  18·7

  16 and over

  13·50

  26·00

  21·49

  12·50

  92·6

  4·51

  21·0

  1 Based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices (all items) between November 1979 and November 1985.

  514
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is shown in the tables. The latest relevant date for comparison purposes for family income supplement is April 1987, the date of the last uprating. Family income supplement was replaced by family credit in April 1988, but it is not possible to make direct comparisons of the rates of family credit with family income supplement because the structure of the schemes is different.
  515

  (iii) Period November 1983 to November 1985

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  November 1983 actual

  November 1985 actual

  November 19831 expressed in November 1985 prices

  Actual increase column 2 over column 1

  Real value increase column 3 over column 2

  £

  £

  £

  £

  per cent.

  £

  per cent.

  Family income supplement.

  Prescribed amount for one child family where child is aged:

  Under 11

  85·50

  97·50

  94·63

  12·00

  14·0

  2·87

  3·0

  11–15

  85·50

  98·50

  94·63

  13·00

  15·2

  3·87

  4·1

  16 and over

  85·50

  99·50

  94·63

  14·00

  16·4

  4·87

  5·1

  Maximum amount for one child family, where child is aged:

  Under 11

  22·00

  25·00

  24·35

  3·00

  13·6

  0·65

  2·7

  11–15

  22·00

  25·50

  24·35

  3·50

  15·9

  1·15

  4·7

  16 and over

  22·00

  26·00

  24·35

  4·00

  18·2

  1·65

  6·8

  1Based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices (all items) between November 1983 and November 1985.

  Low Incomes
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has any plans to implement the recommendations of the Social Services Committee that the Government should publish data on low income for each country in the United Kingdom and for each English region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Select Committee will receive a formal response to its recommendations in the usual way. It would not be appropriate to comment until the Government have responded to the Committee.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who will lose their general entitlement to benefit in September; and if he will also give an estimate of the number likely to retain their entitlement.

  Mr. Scott
  Our best estimate is that some 70,000 school leavers will be affected by the September changes removing general income support entitlement and guaranteeing a YTS place and a training allowance. In some 18,000 cases income support dependency additions will be payable during the child benefit extension period because the young person's parents will be in receipt of income support. We estimate that of the order of 4,000 young people with good reason for living independently will be entitled to income support in their own right during the child benefit extension period only.

  A possible 90,000 16 and 17-year-olds already in receipt of income support before September will instead receive bridging allowance from the Department of Employment for a limited period until they take up a place on the youth training scheme.

  A total of some 18,000 young people will continue to be entitled to income support in their own right. These will include lone-parents and the severely disabled.

  Fraud
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list for each of his Department's offices the number of people whose claims were disqualified because of(a) fraud and (b) suspected fraud for the years 1983 to 1987:
  516
  (2) if he will list the sums discovered to have been obtained by (a) fraud and (b) suspected fraud for each office of his Department for each of the years from 1983 to 1987;

  (3) if he will list for each of his Department's offices the amount expected to be detected by managers in respect of claims that are either fraudulent or as suspected of being so in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average numbers of days that his Department assumes that a person ceases to claim benefit after having a claim refused by reason of proved or suspected fraud or other wrongful claims.

  Mr. Scott
  Where the amount of benefit in payment is reduced or extinguished following a fraud investigation, it is estimated that on average the changed position will continue for 32 weeks. This is based on a study by the Department's operational research services, a copy of whose report is in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to review the operation of the social fund; and what proposals he has to encourage people to claim benefit to which they are entitled.

  Mr. Scott
  There is continuous review of the operation of the social fund as part of the constant processes of monitoring and policy evaluation. There is a range of booklets, leaflets and posters giving prospective applicants to the social fund details of both the regulated and discretionary payments available under the scheme.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the social fund budget profiles separately for grants and loans for each of the Bradford local offices of his Department and the Keighley office for each month of the financial year 1988–89; and what is expenditure so far.

  Mr. Scott
  The profiles set for these offices at the beginning of the financial year were:
  517

  Loans

  Grants

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Bradford East

  April

  2·23

  9,800

  2·23

  4,150

  May

  8·88

  39,024

  8·88

  16,529

  June

  8·88

  39,024

  8·88

  16,529

  July

  8·88

  39,024

  8·88

  16,529

  August

  8·88

  39,024

  8·88

  16,529

  September

  8·56

  37,618

  8·56

  15,933

  October

  9·47

  41,616

  9·47

  17,626

  November

  9·49

  41,705

  9·49

  17,664

  December

  8·27

  36,343

  8·27

  15,393

  January

  7·87

  34,585

  7·87

  14,649

  February

  9·19

  40,387

  9·19

  17,106

  March

  9·40

  41,309

  9·40

  17,496

  Bradford West

  April

  2·23

  9,982

  2·23

  4,248

  May

  8·88

  39,731

  8·88

  16,906

  June

  8·88

  39,731

  8·88

  16,906

  July

  8·88

  39,731

  8·88

  16,906

  August

  8·88

  39,731

  8·88

  16,906

  September

  8·56

  38,299

  8·56

  16,296

  October

  9·47

  42,371

  9·47

  18,029

  November

  9·49

  42,460

  9·49

  18,067

  December

  8·27

  37,002

  8·27

  15,744

  January

  7·87

  35,212

  7·87

  14,983

  February

  9·19

  41,118

  9·19

  17,496

  March

  9·40

  42,058

  9·40

  17,896

  Bradford South

  April

  2·23

  8,848

  2·23

  3,754

  May

  8·88

  35,233

  8·88

  14,948

  June

  8·88

  35,233

  8·88

  14,948

  July

  8·88

  35,233

  8·88

  14,948

  August

  8·88

  35,233

  8·88

  14,948

  September

  8·56

  33,963

  8·56

  14,409

  October

  9·47

  37,574

  9·47

  15,941

  November

  9·49

  37,653

  9·49

  15,974

  December

  8·27

  32,813

  8·27

  13,921

  January

  7·87

  31,225

  7·87

  13,248

  February

  9·19

  36,463

  9·19

  15,469

  March

  9·40

  37,296

  9·40

  15,823

  Keighley

  April

  2·23

  4,197

  2·23

  1,825

  May

  8·88

  16,713

  8·88

  7,268

  June

  8·88

  16,713

  8·88

  7,268

  July

  8·88

  16,713

  8·88

  7,268

  August

  8·88

  16,713

  8·88

  7,268

  September

  8·56

  16,111

  8·56

  7,006

  October

  9·47

  17,823

  9·47

  7,751

  November

  9·49

  17,861

  9·49

  7,767

  December

  8·27

  15,565

  8·27

  6,769

  January

  7·87

  14,812

  7·87

  6,441

  February

  9·19

  17,296

  9·19

  7,522

  March

  9·40

  17,692

  9·40

  7,694

  Profiles are only a management guide to anticipated expenditure and are adjusted monthly in the light of actual expenditure.

  Details of actual expenditure to date have been placed in the Library.

  There have been technical problems with the social fund microcomputers. These are being corrected as quickly as possible. As a result these figures may be subject to revision.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many appeals to the social fund inspectorate were received at the social security office at Erdington in Birmingham on Friday 22 July; and when the papers for these appeals were sent to the social fund inspectorate.
  518
  Mr. Scott
  One application for a review by the social fund inspectorate was received in Erdington social security office on 22 July and the papers were forwarded on 27 July.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many social fund officers are employed at the social security office at Erdington in Birmingham; what training has been given to these social fund officers; and what training will be given to them in future.

  Mr. Scott
  There are seven social fund officers currently employed at the Erdington office. Details of the training given to social fund officers was provided in the reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 15 December 1987, at columns 483–84. All seven officers have completed their training. The ongoing training needs of social fund officers are the subject of continual review.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for crisis loans were rejected by the social fund officers at the social security office at Erdington in Birmingham in April, May and June.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on numbers of social fund applications processed is in the Library.

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's practice with regard to warning applicants for private pension schemes that they may forfeit state benefits and any local authority benefits dependent on his Department's qualifications, if income from a private pension exceeds a given level.

  Mr. Scott
  The leaflets and guides which the Department issues in relation to each benefit explain the current effect, if any, of receipt of an occupational pension on the benefit concerned. These leaflets and guides are available from local social security offices and post offices. It would not be practicable for the Department to give definitive information to individuals about the likely effect—possibly up to 40 years later—of their entitlement to an occupational or personal pension on state and local authority-administered benefits.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities he is providing to ensure that family credit claims are processed rapidly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The central unit which previously administered family income supplement has been expanded to handle the higher level of claims expected under family credit, and an entirely new computer system has been developed and brought into use. Arrangements provide for priority to be given to claims where people have just started work following unemployment and to cases referred by local offices as being in financial difficulties whilst awaiting the award of family credit.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the total number of applications for family credit which have been processed and paid from his Department's office areas for Leeds road, Law Russell house and Westfield house in Bradford; and if he will make a statement;
  519
  (2) what is the number of applicants for family credit from the office areas for Leeds road, Law Russell house and Westfield house in Bradford; how many people were in receipt of family income supplement for those same areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Family credit claims are dealt with centrally, as were claims for family income supplement, and no information is available about claims from particular local areas for either benefit.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for single payments and supplementary benefit claims had been made before 11 April; and how many are outstanding at his Department's offices serving the London borough of Lambeth.

  Mr. Scott
  The London borough of Lambeth is served by 10 local social security offices. The boundaries of these offices are not conterminous with those of the borough. Local offices do not record single payments claims outstanding. Instead, a record is kept of the number of cases awaiting action. Figures for outstanding supplementary benefit claims and cases awaiting action on single payment claims at the close of business on 8 April and on 30 June are given in the table. The figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Single payment cases

  Supplementary benefit claims

  8 April

  30 June

  8 April

  30 June

  Office

  Balhara

  246

  4

  303

  nil

  Battersea

  271

  194

  458

  nil

  Brixton

  397

  34

  356

  287

  Camberwell

  318

  85

  283

  6

  Crystal Palace

  292

  247

  673

  235

  Kennington Park

  416

  1728

  193

  2

  Oval

  525

  12,085

  368

  6

  Peckham

  230

  51

  343

  3

  Southwark

  238

  42

  341

  20

  Streatham

  402

  1475

  611

  74

  1The later figures exceed the earlier ones because take-up campaign claims were sent to a central clearing office for sorting and onward transmission to the appropriate local office. Some claims made on or before the 8 April did not therefore arrive in local offices until after that date.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of supplementary benefit single payments for each of his Department's local offices in the county of Cleveland in May 1985, 1986 and 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to him on 25 July.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of council house tenants are receiving housing benefit in(a) Glasgow, (b) Manchester, (c) Stockport, (d) Bristol and (e) Barnet.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information is given in the table.
  520

  Proportion of council house tenants receiving assistance through the housing benefit scheme 1987

  Percentage

  Glasgow

  73

  Manchester

  70

  Stockport

  72

  Bristol

  68

  Barnet

  62

  Source:

  The information for English authorities is derived from the publication "Housing Rent Statistics at April 1987" produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The figure for Glasgow is derived from the local authority housing stock as published in "Rating Revenue Estimates of Income and Expenditure 1987" produced by CIPFA Scotland; and rent rebate information from the local authority housing benefit subsidy claims for 1987–88.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table giving the latest estimate of the number of tenants in receipt of housing benefit(a) by tenure, (b) by reason of eligibility for benefit and (c) whether the claims are standard or certificated.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 27 June 1988]: The information available is in the tables.

  Housing Benefit: Estimated number of tenants receiving housing benefit 1988–89

  Table 1—By tenure type

  Rent rebate/allowance 000's

  Rate rebate 000's

  Local authority tenants

  3,430

  3,385

  Private tenants

  1,055

  815

  Note: (1) There is a significant overlap between rent rebate/ allowances and rate rebates. Some tenants may receive help with both rent and rates whereas some may be receiving assistance with only rent or rates.

  Table 2—By reason of eligibility

  Client group

  number 000's

  Pensioners aged 80 and over

  485

  Pensioners aged 60 to 79

  2,075

  Sick and disabled

  165

  Lone parents

  495

  Couples with children

  640

  Others

  640

  Notes:

  (1) Information cannot be separated by tenure type.

  (2) Figures rounded to nearest 5,000.

  Table 3—By tenants recieving/not receiving income support

  number 000 's

  Receiving income support

  2,645

  Not receiving income support

  1,850

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the implications for staff who have previously been working for his Department's offices situated in the London borough of Southwark of the proposed creation of the Department of Social Security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The decision to divide the DHSS into two separate Departments has only just been made and detailed arrangements will be announced later. One of our
  521
  first concerns will be to ensure that proper arrangements are made to protect the legitimate interests of staff. The trades unions representing the staff affected will, of course, be consulted.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will show the effects of the proposed community charge benefit taper of 15 per cent., with tapers of(a) 20 per cent., (b) 12·5 per cent., (c) 10 per cent, and (d) 7·5 per cent., by showing for each of these tapers the cost at 1988–89 prices of paying community charge benefit to each of the following categories of income units, showing for each category how many income units he estimates would actually receive community charge benefit and how many would be entitled to community charge benefit (i) all income units, (ii) income units consisting of a single person over pensionable age, (iii) income units consisting of a couple both of whom are over pensionable age, (iv) income units consisting of a single person with dependent children, (v) income units consisting of a single person of less than pensionable age without dependent children, (vi) income units consisting of a married or cohabiting couple one or both of whom is of less than pensionable age, without dependent children, (vii) income units consisting of a married or cohabiting couple with dependent children and (viii) any income units not included in the categories above;

  (2) what he now estimates will be (a) the total cost of community charge benefits in 1990–91 at 1988–89 prices, (b) the total number of income units in receipt of community charge benefits in 1990–91, (c) the total number of income units entitled to community charge benefits, whether or not they claim and receive benefit, (d) the total cost in 1988–89 of rate rebates, (e) the total number of income units in households which are in receipt of rate rebates in 1988–89, (f) the total number of income units in households which are entitled to rate rebates on 1988–89, whether or not rebate is actually claimed and received and (g) the cost of administering rate rebates in 1988–89 and the cost of administering community charge benefits in 1990–91, at 1988–89 prices; and if he will attribute any additional cost of community charge benefit compared to rate rebates to (i) payment of benefit to non-householders, (ii) the reduction in the taper from 20 per cent, to 15 per cent., (iii) increased administrative costs and (iv) other reasons.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Asbestos
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what progress has been made with the production of a leaflet to give information on claims for industrial disablement benefit, to those diagnosed as suffering from an asbestos-related illness; and when he expects it to be published;

  (2) what organisations outside his Department will be consulted by the officials asked to investigate the possibility of producing a leaflet to give information on claims for industrial benefits to those suffering from an asbestos-related illness.
  522
  Mr. Scott
  A leaflet giving information about claiming industrial injuries disablement benefit for an asbestos-related prescribed disease will be published as soon as resources are available. It is not normal practice to consult organisations outside the Department about such a leaflet.

  Benefits
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time taken to calculate entitlement to transitional payments; and when claimants are likely to receive benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 14 July 1988]: The information requested is not yet available.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, columns 550–51, if he is in a position to state what stage negotiations have reached with the local authority associations regarding their role in administering the claims for transitional payments and the reimbursement of administrative costs solely for the additional work arising out of transitional protection.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 15 July 1988]: Agreement was reached in June with the local authority associations on the information to be provided by local authorities to the new transitional payments unit and the procedures which would be set up to obtain it. Apart from the detailed payment arrangements, negotiations with the associations on the financial support for local authorities' additional administrative costs have now also been completed. The Government are allocating £1 million among authorities for their costs in preparing to assist the transitional payments unit and authorities will be paid £5 for each completed inquiry form returned to the unit.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, if, pursuant to his statement of 27 April,Official Report, columns 356–61, and the answer of 5 May, Official Report, columns 550–51, he will state what arrangements are being made and what resources are available to compensate local authorities for the costs of the publications and other information which they produced for claimants and which have had to be reissued in the light of the changes announced on 27 April and 5 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 15 July 1988]: The publicity campaign carried out nationally through two press advertising campaigns, leaflet RR4 "Housing Benefit New Rules" and posters should ensure that local authorities' additional publicity costs arising from the changes to the schemes are minimised. However, we are making an addition of £2 million to the housing benefit administration costs grant payable to authorities in 1988–89 to reflect their additional workload and costs as a result of the change in the capital rule.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of(a) abolishing the 80 per cent, test of disablement for severe disablement allowance, (b) increasing the rate of severe disablement allowance to the same rate as invalidity benefit and (c) both (a) and (b).
  523
  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: I regret that information is not available on which to base reliable estimates of the cost of abolishing the 80 per cent, disablement condition for severe disablement allowance. It is estimated that the net cost of paying the allowance at the same rate as invalidity benefit to current recipients would be around £210 million a year.

HEALTH

  Immunisation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider making immunisation against certain diseases a precondition of children attending school.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such an idea would effectively make immunisation compulsory. It has not been public policy for immunisation to be compulsory, with the exception of smallpox, which ceased to be so in 1948. Some other European countries without compulsory vaccination achieve equally high immunisation rates as those which employ compulsion, and very high rates are already achieved in many parts of this country already.

  However, we are about to launch a major publicity campaign to introduce a combined immunisation against measles, mumps and rubella, both in the second year of life and, for a limited period as a "catch-up" programme, at pre-school entry. Children should already be called at the latter stage for booster immunisations against diphtheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis. We look to general practitioners, health authorities and parents for active support for this programme.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure the levels of immunisation of children against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and measles, including MMR, exceed 90 per cent, by 1990.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice on contra-indications is given to general practitioners and other doctors administering pertussis vaccine.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Chief Medical Officer has written to all doctors in England about the current upsurge of measles cases, reminding them of the need to improve levels of immunisation. We are also releasing very shortly to all doctors and to members of the nursing profession involved in immunisation a revised edition of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation's memorandum "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease" which includes comprehensive expert advice on contraindications to all immunisations, including pertussis. I shall arrange for a copy of the memorandum to be placed in the Library when it is published. Health professionals and authorities are also being urged to increase their efforts to raise immunisation rates, particularly in relation to the introduction of a combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) on 1 October this year.

  The level of immunisation and the efforts required to meet targets set for 1990 have been discussed at recent ministerial reviews of regional health authorities and family practitioner committees.

  Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the number of women doctors to reach parity with male doctors in the main career grades in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is not possible to make a forecast of this kind. The proportion of women among medical students has risen from 22 per cent, in 1965 to 46 per cent, in 1987, but it is likely to be some years before the increased number of women entering the profession is fully reflected throughout the career structure.

  The Department sponsored the recently published research study by Ms. Isobel Allen, "Doctors and their Careers", which highlighted the problem of women doctors in reaching top medical jobs. A copy of the study is in the Library. We are raising the problems identified with the medical profession and health authorities as part of our policy to ensure that women seeking medical careers have equal opportunity for employment and promotion.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment his Department has made of the annual cost to both the National Health Service and the social services of the treatment of coronary heart disease, taking into account the costs of working days lost through illness, disability payments, unemployment benefits and similar other social costs; and if he will specify such costs.

  Mrs. Currie
  Comprehensive statistics on a precisely consistent basis are not available, but estimates can be made for some cost components. The annual cost to the National Health Service in England is estimated at approximately £560 million per annum. This includes expenditure on hospital in-patients and out-patients treated for coronary heart disease, an attribution of the costs of the general medical services, and the net ingredient cost of pharmaceutical preparations for treating heart disease.

  The number of days of certified incapacity for sickness and invalidity benefit is readily available only on a Great Britain basis. The number of days attributable to coronary heart disease in the period 7 April 1986 to 4 April 1987 was 40·5 million. This statistic excludes periods of incapacity covered by statutory sick pay and working days lost by certain groups of workers who do not claim these benefits. It includes days of incapacity for which invalidity benefit was claimed by men aged 65 to 69 and women aged 60 to 64. It is not possible to attribute costs to these days.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the monitoring of recruitment in respect of ethnic minorities was introduced in his Department; and where and by whom.

  Mrs. Currie
  Recruitment monitoring was introduced throughout the Department in July 1987 and is conducted by designated equal opportunities officers.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what means managers in his Department are encouraged to utilise all possible advertising outlets to attract, in particular, applicants in minority groups; what
  525
  advertisements were placed in the ethnic minority press and radio; which local ethnic employment groups were consulted; when and by whom; and with what results.

  Mrs. Currie
  Guidance for managers on recruitment and ethnic monitoring of job applicants was issued in July 1987. The guidance emphasises the importance of liaison with local community groups, particularly the community relations officer and representatives of ethnic minority groups, when running local recruitment exercises. A central record of recruitment advertising is not kept, but the Department has used a variety of outlets to attract applications from ethnic minority groups including:contact with community relations officers, employment agencies and ethnic community leaders;
  advertising in local press, including free press;
  advertising in the London area in ethnic minority press such as The Voice, Asian Times, Caribbean Times and New Life. In 1987 three advertisements placed in Asian Times, The Voice and New Life (circulations 19,000, 38,000 and 40,000) produced 13, 87 and four applications respectively.

  Snuff and Chewing Tobacco
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what medical evidence he has on the safety of(a) snuff and (b) chewing tobacco.

  Mrs. Currie
  Medical evidence on the carcinogenicity of snuff and chewing tobacco was summarised in the monograph of the International Agency on Research into Cancer (Vol. 37). It concluded that there is sufficient evidence that oral use of snuffs of the types commonly used in North America and western Europe is carcinogenic to humans; that there is limited evidence that chewing tobacco of the types used in these areas is carcinogenic to humans and that there is inadequate evidence that nasal snuff is carcinogenic to humans. These forms of tobacco usage avoid certain effects specifically associated with the combustion of tobacco. However, the nicotine present in tobacco has addictive properties; nicotine may be related to some of the other non-carcinogenic adverse effects on health which can arise in people who smoke tobacco.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what survey his Department has conducted into the present efficiency of the London ambulance service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The South West Thames regional health authority, which is responsible, on behalf of the four Thames regions, for the management of the London ambulance service continually monitors the efficiency of the service in order to ensure that the best possible service is provided to patients.

  Heparin
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment his Department has made of the drug Heparin as an anti-clotting post-operational treatment to prevent death from pulmonary embolism.

  Mrs. Currie
  Products containing Heparin have been licensed for the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic disorders. Use for particular patients is a matter for clinical decision.

  Physiotherapists
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many vacancies there are for physiotherapists in funded and frozen posts by regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information on establishments is not collected centrally. However, the results of most recent sample surveys of health authorities suggest that nationally about 3·6 per cent, of funded posts for physiotherapists are unfilled after three months.

  Mortality Rates
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest available figures for mortality rates by(a) regional health authority, and (b) district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The latest available information is published in table 4.2 of "Key Population and Vital Statistics, local and health authority areas 1986", a copy of which is in the Library.

  RAWP Formula
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will outline the methodology and the criteria used to determine deprivation in the recent report of the resource allocation working party formula.

  Mrs. Currie
  The research for the review of the RAWP formula looked at the relationship between a range of proxy measures of need for health care, and the use of health services, and allowed for the effects of the availability of services on their use.

  Existing composite indices of deprivation, all based on data from the 1981 census, were examined. Details of the research are given in the final report on the review of the resource allocation working party formula, which is in the Library. Annex D to the report describes the indices of deprivation that were considered.

  Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many abortions were performed in 1987 on residents and non-residents at each of the following gestational ages: less than nine weeks, nine to 12 weeks, 13 to 16 weeks, 17 to 20 weeks, 21 to 24 weeks and 25 weeks and over on each of the following grounds; one with other, two alone, three with or without two, four alone, four with any other except one and five and six;

  (2) how many abortions were performed in 1987 on residents and non-residents at each of the following gestational ages: less than nine weeks, nine to 12 weeks, 13 to 16 weeks, 17 to 20 weeks, 21 to 24 weeks and 25 weeks and over, on women in each of the following age groups; under 15 years, 15 years, 16 to 19 years, 20 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, 30 to 34 years, 35 to 39 years, 40 to 44 years and 45 years and over.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is given in the tables.
  527

  Legal abortions in England and Wales (1987 terminations) for residents of England and Wales: Grounds then age by gestation weeks

  Gestation in completed weeks

  Total

  Under 9

  9–12

  13–16

  17–20

  21–24

  25 and over

  Not stated

  Statutory Grounds

  Total

  156,191

  53,821

  81,961

  13,336

  5,629

  1,409

  24

  11

  1 (With any other)

  475

  118

  288

  40

  15

  13

  1

  —

  2 (Alone)

  137,348

  48,375

  71,555

  11,602

  4,618

  1,184

  4

  10

  3 (With or without 2)

  16,499

  5,048

  9,575

  1,390

  425

  59

  1

  1

  4 (Alone)

  1,224

  85

  229

  243

  512

  138

  17

  —

  4 (With any other except 1, excluding 4 alone)

  638

  194

  311

  58

  59

  15

  1

  —

  5

  3

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  4

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Age in years

  Under 15

  907

  198

  454

  144

  71

  40

  —

  —

  15

  2,858

  633

  1,543

  392

  224

  66

  —

  —

  16–19

  35,167

  9,239

  19,532

  4,064

  1,859

  469

  2

  2

  20–24

  49,256

  16,785

  25,762

  4,424

  1,839

  432

  10

  4

  25–29

  31,243

  11,983

  15,988

  2,198

  853

  211

  8

  2

  30–34

  18,960

  7,823

  9,586

  1,101

  375

  72

  2

  1

  35–39

  12,639

  5,143

  6,424

  720

  275

  75

  1

  —

  40–44

  4,757

  1,874

  2,460

  263

  121

  37

  —

  2

  45 and over

  390

  137

  206

  29

  11

  7

  —

  —

  Not stated/unknown

  14

  6

  6

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  156,191

  53,821

  81,961

  13,336

  5,629

  1,409

  24

  11

  Legal abortions in England and Wales (1987 terminations) for non-residents of England and Wales: grounds then age by gestation weeks

  Gestation in completed weeks

  Total

  Under 9

  9–12

  13–16

  17–20

  21–24

  25 and over

  Not stated

  Statutory Grounds

  Total

  18,085

  4,677

  6,024

  3,205

  2,782

  1,396

  —

  1

  1 (with any other)

  5

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 (alone)

  17,279

  4,401

  5,642

  3,123

  2,735

  1,377

  —

  1

  3 (with or without 2)

  748

  256

  367

  72

  40

  13

  —

  —

  4 (alone)

  9

  3

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4 (with any other except 1, excluding 4 alone)

  44

  15

  12

  5

  6

  6

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Age in years

  Under 15

  83

  5

  7

  22

  23

  26

  —

  —

  15

  227

  26

  34

  51

  72

  43

  —

  1

  16–19

  3,315

  481

  935

  766

  727

  406

  —

  —

  20–24

  6,051

  1,428

  2,021

  1,142

  985

  475

  —

  —

  25–29

  3,768

  1,184

  1,325

  583

  473

  203

  —

  —

  30–34

  2,310

  776

  849

  324

  257

  104

  —

  —

  35–39

  1,572

  530

  596

  213

  150

  83

  —

  —

  40–44

  682

  229

  233

  87

  84

  49

  —

  —

  45 and over

  77

  18

  24

  17

  11

  7

  —

  —

  Not stated/unknown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  18,085

  4,677

  6,024

  3,205

  2,782

  1,396

  —

  1

  Legal abortions in England and Wales (1987 terminations) for residents and non-residents of England and Wales: grounds then age by gestation weeks

  Gestation in completed weeks

  Total

  Under 9

  9–12

  13–16

  17–20

  21–24

  25 and over

  Not slated

  Statutory grounds

  Total

  174,276

  58,498

  87,985

  16,541

  8,411

  2,805

  24

  12

  (with any other)

  480

  120

  289

  42

  15

  13

  1

  —

  2 (alone)

  154,627

  52,776

  77,197

  14,725

  7,353

  2,561

  4

  11

  3 (with or without 2)

  17,247

  5,304

  9,942

  1,462

  465

  72

  1

  1

  4 (alone)

  1,233

  88

  231

  246

  513

  138

  17

  —

  4 (with any other except 1, excluding 4 alone)

  682

  209

  323

  63

  65

  21

  1

  —

  5

  3

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  4

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Age in years

  Under 15

  990

  203

  461

  166

  94

  66

  —

  —

  15

  3,085

  659

  1,577

  443

  296

  109

  —

  1

  16–19

  38,482

  9,720

  20,467

  4,830

  2,586

  875

  2

  2

  20–24

  55,307

  18,213

  27,783

  5,566

  2,824

  907

  10

  4

  25–29

  35,011

  13,167

  17,313

  2,781

  1,326

  414

  8

  2

  528 529

  Gestation in completed weeks

  Total

  Under 9

  9–12

  13–16

  17–20

  21–24

  25 and over

  Not stated

  30–34

  21,270

  8,599

  10,435

  1,425

  632

  176

  2

  1

  35–39

  14,211

  5,673

  7,020

  933

  425

  158

  2

  —

  40–44

  5,439

  2,103

  2,693

  350

  205

  86

  —

  2

  45 and over

  467

  155

  230

  46

  22

  14

  —

  —

  Not stated/unknown

  14

  6

  6

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  174,276

  58,498

  87,985

  16,541

  8,411

  2,805

  24

  12

  Abortions

    Definitions of statutory grounds
    1. The continuance of the pregancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
    2. The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
    3. The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk or injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) in the family of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
    4. There is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
    5. In emergency to save the life of the pregnant woman.
    6. In emergency to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

  Conceptions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the numbers of conceptions in 1987 which(a) led to maternities and (b) were terminated under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, among residents of England and Wales aged under 14 years, 15 years, 16 years, 17 years, 18 years and 19 years, giving in each case the rate per 1,000 population in each age group.

  Number and rates of conceptions for girls aged 19 and under resident in England and Wales: 1986

  Age of mother at conception

  All conceptions

  Conceptions leading to maternities

  Conceptions terminated under the 1967 Abortion Act

  Number

  1Rate

  Number

  1Rate

  Number

  1Rate

  Under 14

  292

  0·9

  120

  0·4

  172

  0·5

  14

  1,980

  5·7

  809

  2·3

  1,171

  3·4

  15

  6,922

  18·5

  3,293

  8·8

  3,629

  9·7

  16

  15,425

  41·9

  8,933

  24·3

  6,492

  17·6

  17

  24,776

  64·8

  16,101

  42·1

  8,675

  22·7

  18

  32,177

  83·6

  22,456

  58·4

  9,721

  25·3

  19

  37,205

  93·5

  27,419

  78·9

  9,786

  24·6

  1 Rates per 1,000. The rates for girls under 14 is based on the number aged 13.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the numbers of conceptions in 1987 which(a) led to maternities and (b) were terminated under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, among residents of England and Wales aged under 16 years, 16 to 19 years, 20 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, 30 to 34 years, 35 to 39 years and 40 years and over.

  Mrs. Currie
  The estimated number of conceptions in the calendar year 1987 will be derived from the births and legal abortions data for 1988, which are not yet available. The following table gives the latest available information, which is for the estimated number of conceptions occurring during the year 1986. A commentary on these statistics, together with details of the definitions and methods of estimation, will be included in the next issue of Population Trends to be published in September.

  Conceptions to women resident in England and Wales: 1986

  Age of mother at conception

  All conceptions

  Conceptions leading to maternities

  Conceptions terminated under the 1967 Abortion Act

  All ages

  818,917

  671,259

  147,658

  Under 16

  9,194

  4,222

  4,972

  16–19

  109,583

  74,909

  34,674

  20–24

  253,131

  208,356

  44,775

  25–29

  253,799

  225,557

  28,242

  530
  Mrs. Currie
  The estimated number of conceptions in the calendar year 1987 will be derived from the births and legal abortions data for 1988, which are not yet available. The following table gives the latest available information, which is for the estimated number of conceptions occurring during the year 1986. A commentary on these statistics, together with details of the definitions and methods of estimation, will be included in the next issue of Population Trends to be published in September.

  Age of mother at conception

  All conceptions

  Conceptions leading to maternities

  Conceptions terminated under the 1967 Abortion Act

  30–34

  133,024

  115,352

  17,672

  35–39

  50,266

  37,503

  12,763

  40 and over

  9,920

  5,360

  4,560

  Births
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total numbers of live births and still births in England and Wales in 1987, giving the numbers of each that were(a) legitimate, (b) jointly registered illegitimate and (c) solely registered illegitimate.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Live and still births in England and Wales: 1987

  Live births

  Still births

  Total births

  681,571

  3,423

  Legitimate

  523,080

  2,404

  Jointly registered illegitimate

  107,957

  571

  Solely registered illegitimate

  50,474

  448

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Cleiland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the total number of mentally handicapped people over the age of 18 years who were cared for in hospitals and homes run by health authorities in England and Wales prior to 16 March;

  (2) what is the total number of mentally handicapped people over the age of 18 years currently cared for in health authority hospitals and homes in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Currie
  On 31 December 1986, the latest date for which information is available centrally, there were 30,652 patients aged over 18 years resident in NHS mental handicap hospitals and hospital units in England, and 2,140 mentally handicapped people aged over 18 years resident in NHS community units in England. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Community Care
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what records are kept to show where health authority patients have been resettled in the community; and how their resettlement and the progress of their rehabilitation into the community has been monitored.

  Mrs. Currie
  Oversight of services is maintained nationally through the Health Service planning and review system and the work of the social services inspectorate. It is for professional staff locally to decide what records to keep and how to monitor the progress of individual patients discharged into the community.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how standards of community care are defined; and which body has responsibility for their maintenance.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health and social services authorities have a management responsibility to set and maintain standards in their services. The social services inspectorate, the health advisory service and the national development team for people with a mental handicap advise on professional practice. Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, health and local authorities are responsible respectively for the statutory inspection and registration of independent nursing homes and independent residential care homes. The "Handbook for Health Authorities: Registration and Inspection of Nursing Homes" and the code of practice for residential care "Home Life", give detailed guidance. Copies are available in the Library.

  Ex-mental Patients
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the guidelines used to define rehabilitation and resettlement of ex-mental patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  Our policy is that mentally disordered people who are judged by the clinical team to be no longer in need of in-patient care should be subject to planned discharge from hospital. Planning should take full account of the patient's potential for resettlement and integration into the community, the ability of the individual's family to cope and the facilities and services provided by health and local authorities, voluntary organisations and the private sector which are available to meet his or her particular needs. Rehabilitation programmes are essential before discharge and should be followed up thereafter.

  Cervical and Breast Cancer
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the establishment of fund-raising organisations which claim to provide cervical and breast cancer screening units but which fail to gain charitable status and then fold, he has any proposals for further action to seek to prevent abuse, increase monitoring and strengthen powers available to prevent such fund-raising activity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines his Department offers as to which agenda items should be taken in private at district health authority meetings.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities are subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 under which they may by resolution exclude the public from the whole or part of a meeting"whenever publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted, or for other special reasons stated in the resolution and arising from the nature of that business or proceedings".

  Guidance as to the application of the Act to health authorities is contained in circular HC(81)6. We expect as much business as possible to be conducted in public.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) to whom generalist members of district health authorities are accountable;

  (2) to whom local authority appointed members of district health authorities are accountable.

  Mrs. Currie
  All health authority members are appointed for their personal contribution. They are not appointed to represent any particular section or interest. District health authorities are responsible through their regional health authority to the Secretary of State for the provision of health services within their boundaries.

  District General Managers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to whom a district general manager is responsible.

  Mrs. Currie
  District general managers are directly accountable to their employing authority.

  Health Authorities (Disputes)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what factors determine whether he will intervene when a dispute arises between a district and regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The provision of services at local level is a matter for the district health authority, which will be held accountable by the regional health authority. Any differences should be resolved through discussions between the health authorities concerned.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list those recommendations made by Körner which applied to private hospitals; and when they were implemented;
  533
  (2) what plans he has to collect information suggested by Körner from private hospitals on the same basis as the information collected from National Health Service hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are no Körner recommendations which apply to private hospitals. Körner recommends that information be collected about NHS patients treated in private hospitals under contractual arrangements, such information to be on the same basis as that collected about NHS hospital stays. I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 8.30(b) of the first Körner report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  There are no plans to introduce the Körner recommendations about NHS patients and facilities to private patients in private hospitals. The information that we require from the Körner system is intended to help us in running the National Health Service.

  NHS Patients (Private Hospitals)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish information about(a) the length of in-patient stays, (b) mortality, (c) the nurse-patient ratio, (d) the junior doctor-patient ratio and (e) the senior doctor-patient ratio for all private hospitals which treat National Health Service patients under contractual arrangements with district health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  Statistical information concerning National Health Service patients treated under contractual arrangements with private hospitals is included in the activity information submitted to the Department by health authorities. Information on the numbers of private hospital staff involved in contractual arrangements is not collected centrally. The available data are currently being processed and decisions will be taken in due course as to how much of the information can usefully be published on a routine basis.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to review the working of the management style and structures introduced into the National Health Service following the Griffiths report.

  Mrs. Currie
  All aspects of the provision of hospital services are being examined as part of our review of the National Health Service. General management has been successfully introduced into the NHS and we remain committed to the principles set out in Sir Roy Griffiths' report.

  Mental Illness (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he has any information on the relative proportion of people receiving treatment for mental illness by ethnic group; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any information with respect to the numbers of people committed under different sections of the Mental Health Acts by ethnic group; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what steps were taken as a result of the MIND report, a copy of which has been sent to him, about the disproportionate number of Afro-Caribbeans held in mental institutions, to investigate the causes and to alter the provisions of facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  534
  Mrs. Currie
  The MIND report, "A Place of Safety", dealt primarily with the use of police powers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This part of the Act is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We are aware that there is a concern that ethnic minorities may be over-represented among patients detained under the powers of the Mental Health Act.

  Mental health statistics are not currently collected centrally by ethnicity. There are no immediate plans to introduce the national monitoring of the ethnic origins of National Health Service patients, although the subject is under constant review by the Department.

  It is essential that psychiatric patients receive care and treatment in a way appropriate to their illness, and that such care should be offered in a way acceptable to them, independently of racial origins.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what research he has carried out with respect to the needs of patients from different ethnic minorities with respect to provision of mental health facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department is currently funding a project concerned with mental and other health needs of ethnic minorities in an inner-city context, undertaken by a small voluntary organisation, NAFSIYAT, which runs an inter-cultural therapy centre in north London. A final report on this project is expected next year.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State For Social Services what steps he takes to ensure that mental health provision and treatment for mental illness is made available for members of ethnic minority groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for health and social services authorities to identify and take account of the needs of all sections of the community in planning and funding local mental health services. The importance of this work was emphasised at a seminar on ethnic minority health last November for health authority chairmen and managers. Ministers also drew attention to the difficulties which needed to be overcome when mentally ill patients and those treating them had different cultural backgrounds. In addition, where appropriate, Ministers are raising questions on improving health services for ethnic minorities through the review system.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he has taken to ensure that the training of those involved with the treatment of patients suffering from mental illness recognises the particular problems of patients from ethnic minorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  This is a matter for the bodies responsible for the education and training of professional staff. I understand, however, that the particular needs of members of ethnic minorities are covered in the training syllabuses of the nursing and social work professions, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has established a special committee to consider any special training needs arising from mental illness among people from the ethnic minorities.

  Care Orders (Privately Run Schools)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the criteria applied by his
  535
  Department for registering privately run schools which cater for young persons under care orders by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the registration of privately run schools in a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is writing to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of(a) the amount allocated for evaluation and (b) the Department's total budget.

  Mrs. Currie
  The process of evaluation of the Department's programmes is part of the work itself. It is therefore not possible to identify separately the resources involved.

  Current child abuse research sponsored by DHSS

  Researcher

  Abstract

  1. Dr. F. Boddy, Dr. D. Gough, Glasgow University

  Professional Interventions in Child Abuse

  This study will examine, evaluate literature on interventive strategies in cases of child abuse and attempt to provide a synthesis of present knowledge of value to those working in the field.

  2. Dr. Bentovim, Professor Graham, Great Ormond Street, Hospital/Institute of Child Health

  Child Sexual Abuse

  This study will look at characteristics and outcome of a treatment programme provided to the victims of child sexual abuse and their families.

  3. Margery Smith, Great Ormond Street, Hospital/Institute of Child Health

  Normal Sexual Knowledge in Children

  The aim is to collect systematic and reliable information on:

  (i) sexual knowledge in children;

  (ii) normal behaviour in families.

  A second aim of the study is to see whether children in the community can be distinguished from children who have been sexually abused on the basis of their sexual knowledge and behaviour.

  4. Jane Gibbons, NISW

  Longitudinal Study of Children on NSPCC Abuse Registers

  A feasibility study to examine the possibility of tracing children placed on registers maintained by the NSPCC; identifying the services supplied at the time; and assessing the outcome for the child several years later (seven years).

  5. Elaine Farmer, Bristol University

  Decision Making Intervention and Outcomes in Respect to Children at risk of Abuse

  The aims of this study are to explore the process of decision making and intervention in relation to a group of children at risk of abuse in two local authorities, and to relate these to outcomes over a two year period. Attention will be given to the way in which risk is reassessed over time and to the way in which decisions are made to remove or restore children home.

  6. Christine Hallett, Leicester University

  A Study of Coordination in Child Abuse

  The research aims to study the policies and practices of interagency coordination in child abuse. The research has three dimensions: a conceptual analysis and literature review; a study of professional perspectives using case vignettes and a study of coordination in a sample of cases in selected areas.

  Wakefield District Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if, in view of the fact that the Yorkshire regional health authority inquiry into Wakefield health authority did not look at the policy issues affecting the relationship between its chairman and district general manager and the role of the regional health authority in this situation, he will, as a matter of urgency, reconsider

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Nicholas Winter ton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will commission a research project using information collated from medical records and information from the courts of new cases in order to study the link between the abuse of children and the marital status of and stability of relationship between the carers of the victim, taking full account of whether or not the abuser was the natural parent of the victim, whether he or she had at the time time of abuse been married or was cohabitating with the victim's other parent, and whether at the time of abuse the abuser was separated, divorced or distanced from the other parent of the victim.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: Child abuse is a priority field for research sponsored by the Department, and there is a substantial programme of research, details of which follow. It is well known that disruption of normal family life may be a factor in some child abuse cases and there are no plans at present to focus solely on this question.

  his decision not to set up a full independent public inquiry into the Wakefield health authority's proposed introduction of cook-chill catering and related matters;

  (2) what action he proposes to take on the first recommendation of the report of the Yorkshire regional health authority inquiry into Wakefield health authority concerning the chairman of Wakefield health authority, a copy of which has been sent to him.
  537
  Mrs. Currie
  We are considering the report, which was received only this week.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department was consulted by Yorkshire regional health authority concerning its direction to Wakefield health authority to spend its share of the non-recurrent grant in December 1987 on meeting the additional costs of implementing cook-chill catering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The region informed the Department in advance of discussion with its districts as to how it expected them to use the additional non-recurrent funds allocated in December, including in Wakefield's case that the money should be used to implement cook-chill, thereby securing recurrent savings. No formal direction was issued by the region to its districts.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will request the Yorkshire regional health authority to publish its report on the management of Wakefield district health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No.

  Childhood Cancers
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 604, on childhood cancers on north Humberside, what expert advice has been sought; and when he expects to receive it.

  Mrs. Currie
  Experts on medical statistics have been asked for an assessment of the report on childhood cancers on north Humberside and for advice on the further work which may be required. It is too early to say when their advice will be received.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current level of Government funding for research into the epidemiology of leukaemia; and what have been the comparable figures over the previous five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  In 1986–87 (the latest year for which figures are available) the Department spent £2·7 million on directly commissioned cancer research. I regret that comparable information for the previous five years is not readily available. It is not possible separately to identify expenditure on research into the epidemiology of leukaemia, but the Department's programme contains the following:

  —A programme of research at the Childhood Cancer Research Group, Oxford.

  —Studies arising from the report on the investigation of the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in west Cumbria.

  —A case control study of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in the West Berkshire and Basingstoke, and the North Hampshire district health authorities. The Medical Research Council, the main Government agency for medical research in the United Kingdom, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science, supports a considerable amount of research into the epidemiology of leukaemia.

  538
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which cancer registries and research organisations are involved in the research into the epidemiology of leukaemia; what form the co-ordination between them will take; and what will be the rôle of the Government's Chief Medical Officer.

  Mrs. Currie
  A large number of organisations including the cancer registries, Medical Research Council, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, medical research charities, and the Health Departments are involved in epidemiological research and the analysis of statistics on leukaemia. These activities are brought together in the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR) which also fulfils a co-ordinating role between the governmental and charitable organisations that fund research into leukaemia and other cancers.

  A medically qualified official from the Department attends the UKCCCR on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the implications for staff who have previously been working for his Department's offices situated in the London borough of Southwark of the proposed creation of the Department of Health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The decision to divide the DHSS into two separate Departments has only just been made and details have still to be worked out. One of our first concerns will be to ensure that proper arrangements are made to protect the legitimate interests of staff. The trades unions representing the staff affected will, of course, be consulted.

  Spectacles
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the new National Health Service voucher values will be to take account of the imposition of value added tax on spectacles.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government have introduced an amendment to the Finance Bill which, if approved, would apply VAT to spectacles from 1 September. We have decided that the new voucher values shown in the table would apply from that date if VAT is implemented. The imposition of VAT should not result in prices increasing by 15 per cent. The prices of spectacles already include the VAT which the opticians pay on their purchases of appliances. The only new element of VAT is the tax in the retail margin.

  Voucher type

  Current value

  New value

  (£)

  (£)

  Single Vision

  A

  15·50

  16·25

  B

  25·50

  27·00

  C

  42·00

  44·00

  Bifocal

  D

  29·50

  31·00

  E

  50·00

  52·50

  F

  85·00

  89·00

  Hospital Eye

  G

  85·00

  89·00

  Service Only

  H

  25·00

  26·50

  539

  Voucher type

  Current value

  New value

  (£)

  (£)

  Supplements

  Childs small frame

  30·00

  31·50

  Specially made frame (hospital eye service)

  30·00

  31·50

  National Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has completed his consideration of the National Health Service management consultancy services report on the organisation of the national blood transfusion service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have decided that new management arrangements are needed for the supraregional and national dimension of the national blood transfusion service. We therefore intend that operational responsibility at the national level for the NBTS and the Central Blood Laboratories Authority (CBLA) will be exercised on behalf of the Health Ministers for England and Wales by the NHS management board and undertaken by its director of operations, in consultation in respect of Wales with the director, NHS Wales. Day-to-day implementation of the national strategy will be delegated to a new national director of the NBTS and a small supporting staff.

  The key objectives will be:

  (a) to implement a cost-effective strategy for ensuring an adequate supply of blood throughout England and Wales;

  (b) to implement a cost effective strategy for the supply of plasma to the blood products laboratory of the CBLA;

  (c) to co-ordinate the activities of the NBTS and the CBLA;

  (d) to promote the efficiency of the NBTS.

  In implementing the objectives in (a) and (b) a priority task will be to remove financial disincentives by having a national system of processing and handling charges both between transfusion centres and between them and CBLA. No charges will be made, of course, for freely donated blood.

  The national director will be Dr. Harold Gunson, who is at present the regional transfusion director for north western region.

  I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish the total number of cases deferred other than those listed by KHO7a; and if he will give the reasons for those deferrals.

  (2) if he will break down the figures given in KHO7a into those cases where treatment has been (a) postponed and (b) cancelled.

  Family practitioner services

  Gross expenditure and charge income

  Estimated plans1 out-turn

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (a) Pharmaceutical services

  Gross3

  790·119

  973·700

  1,124·725

  1,290·047

  1,430·575

  1,550·749

  1,657·132

  1,787·071

  1,976·129

  2,171·776

  Income Prescription charges collected by (1) Pharmacists

  -34·615

  -61·257

  -75·395

  -89·510

  -96·020

  -104·528

  -110·131

  -128·021

  -139·322

  -133·671

  540
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: I regret that the information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS Expenditure and Charges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) when he will provide a substantive reply to the questions on health charges tabled by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for priority written answer on 25 May;

  (2) when he will provide a substantive reply to the questions on health charges tabled by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for priority with written answer on 7 July.

  Mrs. Currie
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table, consistent with the reply of 27 May, Official Report, columns 375–76, indicating the receipts in the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 classified as charges 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. Currie
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish in the Official Report tables which provide for (a) pharmaceutical services, (b) general dental services and (c) general ophthalmic services covering the period 1979–80 to 1988–89, gross expenditure, details of income analysed by source, and net expenditure incurred on Supply Votes and public expenditure programmes;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report tables which provide, for (a) pharmaceutical services, (b) general dental services and (c) general ophthalmic services covering the period 1979–80 to 1988–89, gross expenditure, details of income analysed by source and net expenditure incurred on Supply Votes and public expenditure programmes.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answers 25 May and 7 July 1988]: The information requested is given in the table. The figures for 1987–88 are the latest forecasts of outturn for that year and differ from those underlying the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 288-II, which were based on Winter Supplementary Estimates for that year. The figures for 1988–89 are the planning figures underlying Cm. 288-II and are necessarily indicative. They form the basis of the Main Estimate for the year currently before Parliament. They will be reviewed in the light of up-to-date information during the course of the year and if necessary supplementary estimates submitted to Parliament at the appropriate stage.
  541

  Estimated plans1 out·turn

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (2) Dispensing doctors

  -1·734

  -3·161

  -3·934

  -4·847

  -5·294

  -5·969

  -7·057

  -7·718

  -7·892

  -7·645

  Prepayment certificate sales

  -2·862

  -7·334

  -8·769

  -10·458

  -10·883

  -12·303

  -13·540

  -14·628

  -15·700

  -15·918

  Less (1) Prescription charge refunds

  0·275

  0·528

  0·900

  1·385

  1·479

  1·381

  1·531

  1·352

  2·183

  2·095

  (2) Charges collected in respect of prescriptions written by hospital doctors and dispensed by community pharmacists

  0·290

  0·471

  0·578

  0·638

  0·674

  0·671

  1·441

  1·131

  0·966

  0·943

  Total charge income

  -38·646

  -70·753

  -86·620

  -102·792

  -110·044

  -120·748

  -127·756

  -147·884

  -159·765

  -154·196

  Net

  751·473

  902·947

  1,038·105

  1,187·255

  1,320·531

  1,430·001

  1,529·376

  1,639·187

  1,816·364

  2,017·580

  (b) General denial services

  Gross

  336·404

  419·120

  481·083

  538·445

  584·440

  640·379

  660·026

  741·744

  827·366

  889·200

  Income Charges collected by dentists

  -69·777

  -92·633

  -115·521

  -141·709

  -1560·80

  -171·321

  -196·866

  -221·670

  -237·409

  -286·482

  Charges collected by Health Centres

  -0·072

  -0·108

  -0·127

  -0·144

  -0·154

  -0·177

  -0·187

  -0·186

  -0·200

  -0·246

  Charges collected by Family Practitioner Committees

  -0·015

  -0·022

  -0·030

  -0·039

  -0·040

  -0·034

  -0·041

  -0·044

  -0·060

  -0·054

  Less Refunds

  0·180

  0·276

  0·571

  0·844

  0·994

  1·031

  1·016

  0·949

  0·900

  1·482

  Total charge income

  -69·684

  -92·487

  -115·107

  -141·048

  -155·280

  -170·501

  -196·078

  -220·951

  -236·769

  2-285·300

  Net

  266·720

  326·633

  365·976

  397·397

  429·160

  469·878

  463·948

  520·793

  590·597

  603·900

  (c) General Ophthalmic services

  Gross3

  89·868

  104·033

  125·713

  201·096

  161·657

  172·880

  143·099

  128·716

  151·065

  160·300

  Income Charges collected by opticians

  -27·613

  -28·915

  -32·253

  -380·86

  -43·783

  -44·140

  -11·798

  -0·782

  —

  —

  Charges collected by Family Practitioner Committees

  -0·010

  -0·012

  -0·018

  -0·013

  -0·023

  -0·016

  -0·022

  -0·019

  —

  —

  Less4 Refunds

  0·103

  0·116

  0·166

  0·253

  0·368

  0·388

  0·297

  0·291

  —

  —

  Total charge income

  -27·520

  -28·811

  -32·105

  -37·846

  -43·438

  -43·768

  -11·523

  -0·510

  -0·000

  -0·000

  Net

  62·348

  75·222

  93·608

  163·250

  118·219

  129·112

  131·576

  128·206

  151·065

  160·300

  1 These are the figures underlying the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288·11) and are subject to in·year review.

  2 The basis is given in the reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 12 April, at columns 104·5.

  3 Certain amounts appropriated in aid are offset against gross expenditure on the Phs and GOS (for example, receipts from drug manufacturers)

  4 The cessation of supply of NHS glasses in 1985·86 following the introduction of the voucher scheme resulted in the reduction, then cessation of GOS charge income.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish in the Official Report a table providing a detailed analysis of the various line entries for charges in the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 in table 14.1 of Cm. 288-II;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a table providing a detailed analysis of the various line entries for charges in the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 in table 14.1 of Cm. 288-II;

  (3) if he will provide a detailed breakdown for the years 1982–83 to 1990–91, by nature of item and functional area of charge, of the receipts to his programme classified memberconstituency charges for the purposes of the public expenditure survey.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answers 25 May and 7 July 1988]: The requested information is given in the table.

  Analysis of charge income in table 14.1 of Cm. 288–11

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  estimated outturn

  plans

  plans

  plans

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Hospital and community health services and central health miscellaneous services1

  Prescription charges

  5

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  Private patients

  52

  56

  56

  60

  62

  65

  68

  72

  75

  Overseas visitors

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Road traffic accidents

  6

  7

  7

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  Laboratory services

  5

  6

  6

  7

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Special hospital receipts

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other

  6

  8

  9

  9

  12

  10

  11

  12

  12

  TOTAL2

  75

  85

  87

  95

  101

  102

  107

  113

  116

  Family practitioner service

  Prescription charges

  103

  110

  121

  128

  148

  148

  154

  161

  168

  542
  The 1987–88 income figures for prescription and dental charges in the family practitioner services underlying Cm. 288-II were based on winter Supplementary Estimates. Later forecasts of outturn are as given in my other reply to the hon. Member today.

  The figures for 1988–89 and later years are the planning figures underlying Cm. 288-II and are necessarily indicative. Those for 1988–89 form the basis of the main Estimates for that year currently before Parliament. These figures for the family practitioner services will be reviewed in the light of up-to-date information during the course of the year and if necessary Supplementary Estimates submitted to Parliament at the appropriate Supply stage. The income in later years will be determined, where appropriate, by the level of charges, when these come to be set by Parliament, and by the volume of chargeable activity.
  543

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  estimated outturn

  plans

  plans

  plans

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Dental charges

  141

  155

  171

  196

  221

  245

  3285

  334

  361

  Ophthalmic charges

  38

  43

  44

  12

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL2

  282

  308

  336

  336

  370

  393

  4439

  495

  529

  Personal social services5

  Residential care

  274

  287

  296

  352

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Support services

  36

  40

  44

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Day care

  22

  24

  24

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Administration

  3

  3

  3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL2

  336

  355

  368

  433

  474

  472

  493

  510

  530

  1 Hospital and community health services and Central health miscellaneous services totals have been combined to overcome the effect of transfers of services between the two sub-programmes.

  2 Differences between totals in the analysis and table 14.1 are due to roundings in individual items. The convention used in Cm. 288–11 was to round the last two years to the nearest £10 million.

  3 The basis is given in the reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 12 April, at columns 104–5.

  4 Differs from table 14.1 which included assumed receipts of £80 million from the reconstitution of the GPFC.

  5 Total receipts only are indicated for the years 1986–87 to 1990–91. They are estimates based on the proportional relationship between gross and net expenditure in previous years and a breakdown of this figure would be meaningless.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the period 1958 to 1988, in a form consistent with the written answer of 29 March 1982, Official Report, columns 27–30 (a) prescription charges per form or item (b) the real charge, as measured after adjusting by (i) the retail price index and (ii) the gross domestic product deflator (c) the proportion of prescriptions for which the nominal payment was in fact made (d) the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions exempted from the nominal payment and (e) the estimated proportions of the (y) adult and (z) total population estimated to liable to make the nominal payment.

  Prescription charge per item1

  Prescription charge per item revalued to 1987 prices using:

  Proportion of prescriptions

  RPI

  GDP Deflator

  paid3 2

  £

  £

  £

  per cent.

  1 December 1956 5p per item

  1958

  0·05

  0·41

  0·44

  —

  1959

  0·05

  0·40

  0·44

  —

  1960

  0·05

  0·40

  0·42

  —

  1 March 1961 10p per item

  1961

  0·09

  0·71

  0·75

  —

  1962

  0·10

  0·76

  0·79

  —

  1963

  0·10

  0·75

  0·78

  —

  1964

  0·10

  0·72

  0·74

  —

  1 February 1965 charges abolished

  1965

  0·01

  0·06

  0·06

  —

  1966

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10 June 1968 12·5p per item

  1968

  0·07

  0·42

  0·44

  —

  1969

  0·125

  0·73

  0·75

  —

  1970

  0·125

  0·68

  0·69

  —

  1 April 1971 20p per item

  1971

  0·18

  0·90

  0·92

  —

  1972

  0·20

  0·93

  0·94

  —

  1973

  0·20

  0·84

  0·88

  —

  1974

  0·20

  0·71

  0·73

  —

  1975

  0·20

  0·57

  0·58

  —

  1976

  0·20

  0·50

  0·52

  —

  1977

  0·20

  0·44

  0·45

  37

  1978

  0·20

  0·40

  0·41

  37

  16 July 1979 45p per item

  1979

  0·31

  0·55

  0·55

  36

  1 April 1980 70p per item

  1980

  0·66

  0·99

  0·98

  30

  1 December 1980 £1·00 per item

  1981

  1·00

  1·34

  1·35

  25

  1 April 1982 £1·30 per item

  1982

  1·23

  1·53

  1·54

  25

  1 April 1983 £1·40 per item

  1983

  1·38

  1·64

  1·65

  22

  1 April 1984 £1·60 per item

  1984

  1·55

  1·76

  1·78

  22

  1 April 1985 £2·00 per item

  1985

  1·90

  204

  2·06

  20

  1 April 1986 £2·20 per item

  1986

  1·90

  1·98

  2·00

  18

  544
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: The requested information on the prescription charge per item, together with the proportion of prescriptions for which such charges were paid, is given in the table. In addition, some 5 per cent, of all prescriptions dispensed are covered by pre-payment certificates.

  Information is not available on the estimated proportion of patients, or of the population who are exempt from the single item prescription charge. It is thought however that approximately half the population is exempt from all prescription charges.
  545

  Prescription charge per item1

  Prescription charge per item revalued to 1987 prices using:

  Proportion of prescriptions

  RPI

  GDP Deflator

  paid3 2

  £

  £

  £

  per cent.

  1 April 1987 £2·40 per item

  1987

  2·35

  2·35

  2·35

  18

  1 April 1988 £2·60 per item

  1988

  2·55

  2·45

  2·44

  *

  1 For years for which the charge was changed in the course of the year, the values above are weighted averages according to the number of months at each rate.

  2 Relates to prescriptions for which the single item charge was made.

  3 Data not available prior to 1977.

  * Not yet available.

  Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Feam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the average daily occupancy of acute hospital beds in England by region and age groups(a) birth to four years, (b) five to 14 years, (c) 15 to 44 years,

  Regional health authority

  All ages

  0 to 4 years

  5 to 14 years

  15 to 44 years

  45 to 64 years

  65 to 74 years

  75 years and over

  Estimated average number of beds occupied daily, acute sector, 1979

  Northern

  7,002

  377

  351

  1,514

  1,879

  1,408

  1,473

  Yorkshire

  8,586

  532

  441

  1,992

  2,227

  1,729

  1,667

  Trent

  8,241

  487

  426

  1,782

  2,210

  1,641

  1,695

  East Anglian

  3,666

  157

  163

  787

  965

  822

  772

  North West Thames

  8,678

  417

  341

  2,073

  2,232

  1,766

  1,849

  North East Thames

  10,302

  405

  342

  2,136

  2,718

  2,298

  2,403

  South East Thames

  9,036

  590

  598

  1,733

  2,202

  1,924

  1,990

  South West Thames

  6,186

  304

  356

  1,196

  1,287

  1,288

  1,755

  Wessex

  5,434

  289

  304

  1,016

  1,315

  1,203

  1,308

  Oxford

  4,375

  274

  249

  972

  1,098

  866

  917

  South Western

  6,443

  301

  295

  1,111

  1,536

  1,509

  1,691

  West Midlands

  10,381

  720

  596

  2,064

  2,733

  2,136

  2,132

  Mersey

  6,202

  454

  332

  1,286

  1,587

  1,242

  1,301

  North Western

  9,836

  736

  550

  2,098

  2,740

  2,105

  1,607

  SHA's

  2,085

  316

  241

  470

  596

  308

  156

  England

  106,452

  6,358

  5,584

  22,229

  27,:t23

  22,243

  22,715

  Estimated average number of beds occupied daily, acute sector, 1982

  Northern

  6,746

  350

  316

  1,257

  1,858

  1,332

  1,633

  Yorkshire

  8,220

  545

  331

  1,582

  2,079

  1,761

  1,923

  Trent

  8,109

  477

  378

  1,673

  2,!44

  1,647

  1,791

  East Anglian

  3,650

  177

  133

  697

  959

  870

  814

  North West Thames

  7,633

  397

  279

  1,607

  1,725

  1,557

  2,068

  North East Thames

  10,704

  417

  336

  2,176

  2,644

  2,451

  2,681

  South East Thames

  8,555

  455

  409

  1,529

  2,042

  1,842

  2,279

  South West Thames

  5,732

  281

  237

  1,047

  1,204

  1,167

  1,795

  Wessex

  5,334

  277

  278

  929

  1,163

  1,126

  1,560

  Oxford

  4,303

  275

  179

  928

  1,001

  892

  1,028

  South Western

  6,463

  290

  244

  1,040

  1,461

  1,435

  1,993

  West Midlands

  10,396

  752

  470

  2,129

  2,602

  2,172

  2,272

  Mersey

  5,946

  490

  250

  1,061

  1,514

  1,191

  1,440

  North Western

  9,598

  702

  468

  1,896

  2,620

  2,024

  1,888

  SHA's

  1,969

  267

  158

  427

  648

  308

  162

  England

  103,358

  6,151

  4,464

  19,978

  25,664

  21,776

  25,325

  Estimated average number of beds occupied daily, acute sector, 1983

  Northern

  6,904

  362

  359

  1,343

  1,905

  1,316

  1,618

  Yorkshire

  8,326

  518

  354

  1,661

  2,135

  1,811

  1,848

  Trent

  8,284

  469

  354

  1,739

  2,139

  1,602

  1,980

  East Anglian

  3,761

  153

  142

  770

  1,026

  804

  867

  North West Thames

  7,555

  422

  254

  1,482

  1,774

  1,588

  2,036

  North East Thames

  10,454

  406

  333

  2,171

  2,825

  2,218

  2,500

  South East Thames

  8,529

  425

  398

  1,567

  2,012

  1,904

  2,222

  South West Thames

  5,791

  274

  229

  1,071

  1,461

  1,095

  1,661

  Wessex

  5,369

  291

  223

  978

  1,210

  1,188

  1,480

  Oxford

  4,281

  226

  171

  913

  1,018

  821

  1,134

  South Western

  6,419

  277

  228

  1,092

  1,432

  1,435

  1,955

  West Midlands

  10,437

  592

  544

  2,038

  2,762

  2,092

  2,409

  Mersey

  5,796

  428

  277

  1,054

  1,549

  1,166

  1,322

  North Western

  9,630

  673

  433

  1,902

  2,755

  2,001

  1,866

  SHA's

  1,920

  319

  165

  473

  560

  283

  120

  England

  103,454

  5,833

  4,462

  20,254

  26,562

  21,324

  25,018

  546
  (d) 45 to 64 years, (4)65 to 74 years and (f) 75 years and over for each year from 1974 to the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 20 July 1988]: The information that can be provided without incurring disproportionate cost is given in the table.
  547

  Regional health authority

  All ages

  0 to 4 years

  5 to 14 years

  15 to 44 years

  45 to 64 years

  65 to 74 years

  75 years and over

  Estimated average number of beds occupied daily, acute sector, 1984

  Northern

  6,876

  351

  297

  1,258

  1,792

  1,353

  1,825

  Yorkshire

  8,118

  559

  330

  1,623

  2,079

  1,770

  1,757

  Trent

  8,187

  473

  321

  1,757

  2,111

  1,585

  1,940

  East Anglian

  3,684

  145

  150

  787

  964

  782

  857

  North West Thames

  7,299

  361

  215

  1,448

  1,737

  1,421

  2,117

  North East Thames

  10,046

  407

  319

  2,085

  2,581

  2,045

  2,609

  South East Thames

  8,186

  474

  321

  1,442

  1,898

  1,759

  2,293

  South West Thames

  5,672

  263

  215

  1,083

  1,251

  1,195

  1,667

  Wessex

  5,380

  286

  203

  1,019

  1,213

  1,103

  1,557

  Oxford

  4,248

  246

  171

  935

  1,006

  788

  1,102

  South Western

  6,358

  272

  232

  1,068

  1,472

  1,411

  1,903

  West Midlands

  10,361

  629

  442

  2,071

  2,722

  2,060

  2,438

  Mersey

  5,566

  371

  234

  1,075

  1,589

  1,107

  1,189

  North Western

  9,488

  641

  394

  1,915

  2,611

  1,935

  1,992

  SHA's

  1,848

  382

  148

  367

  528

  275

  147

  England

  101,316

  5,860

  3,993

  19,930

  25,552

  20,588

  25,392

  Estimated average number of beds occupied daily, acute sector, 1985

  Northern

  6,784

  338

  333

  1,327

  1,687

  1,342

  1,758

  Yorkshire

  7,978

  559

  355

  1,563

  2,069

  1,634

  1.798

  Trent

  8,246

  488

  446

  1,704

  2,028

  1,576

  2,004

  East Anglian

  3,758

  175

  127

  808

  982

  778

  888

  North West Thames

  7,172

  361

  251

  1,352

  1,624

  1,512

  2,072

  North East Thames

  9,759

  434

  298

  2,163

  2,393

  1,833

  2,637

  South East Thames

  8,139

  480

  381

  1,442

  1,857

  1,795

  2,186

  South West Thames

  5,611

  294

  191

  992

  1,148

  1,120

  1,867

  Wessex

  5,485

  265

  313

  1,014

  1,252

  1,091

  1,551

  Oxford

  4,346

  283

  159

  911

  1,019

  750

  1,223

  South Western

  6,420

  294

  206

  1,149

  1,397

  1,329

  2,046

  West Midlands

  10,379

  644

  393

  2,063

  2,608

  2,163

  2,508

  Mersey

  5,494

  386

  288

  1,000

  1,396

  1,075

  1,350

  North Western

  9,353

  642

  389

  1,881

  2,645

  1,919

  1,877

  SHA's

  1,734

  313

  131

  375

  525

  253

  138

  England

  100,658

  5,955

  4,259

  19,744

  24,628

  20,169

  25,903

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to establish such guidelines for the care of persons residing in nursing and residential homes as will ensure the early development of improved standards of care through the provision of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, chiropody and similar health-related support services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Edwina Currie
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: This is our policy already. Through registration and inspection under the Registered Homes Act 1984, health and local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that appropriate and acceptable levels of care are provided to all patients and residents. It is a statutory requirement that the person registered in respect of a nursing home should provide and maintain adequate medical, surgical and nursing equipment and adequate treatment facilities to meet the needs of patients.

  In 1985, the National Association of Health Authorities produced a handbook for health authorities, which the Department commended to all registering health authorities. The handbook provides comprehensive advice on all aspects of registration and inspection and advice relating to individual client groups. I understand a supplement is to be issued in September.

  People living in residential care homes are entitled to receive the same standard of remedial care as other members of the community and the full range of remedial facilities provided by the local health authority or social
  548
  services authority should be available to them. "Home Life: a code of practice for residential care" gives guidance about the provision of these services by authorities.

  Copies of the handbook and "Home Life" are in the Library.

  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each regional health authority the number of whole-time staff employed and number of hours worked of (a) hospital nurses, (b) midwives, (c) health visitors, (d) district nurses, (e) ancillary staff, (f) ambulance personnel and (g) administrative and clerical staff for each year from 1974 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: Such information as can be provided without incurring disproportionate costs is shown in the tables.

  Number of whole-time staff employed and number of hours worked have been interpreted as whole-time equivalents.

  Although not in the precise form requested, some additional information for years prior to 1981 can be obtained from two tables in Regional Trends publications, copies of which are in the Library. The particular tables are:

  Health authorities: analysis by type of staff and practitioner, and primary health care nursing services: staff employed, within section 4—health.
  549

  NHS staff m post at 30 September 1981

  Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  Hospital nursing staff1 including agency

  Hospital and community midw ives including agency

  Health visitors2

  District nurses3

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Administrative and clerical staff

  1. Northern RHA

  22,183·6

  1,315·2

  617·5

  1,039·4

  11,673·0

  1,473·0

  6,162·0

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  25,487·1

  1,690·6

  687·9

  1,103·8

  13,478·0

  1,606·0

  7,083·0

  3. Trent RHA

  29,183·3

  2,079·8

  860·3

  1,386·1

  16,739·0

  1,842·0

  8,952·0

  4. East Anglian RHA

  11,790·1

  881·7

  327·6

  549·5

  6,037·0

  599·0

  3,877·0

  5. North West Thames RHA

  24,687·7

  1,515·4

  732·0

  895·6

  12,995·0

  492·0

  8,799·0

  6. North East Thames RHA

  27,576·0

  1,743·6

  648·0

  987·6

  15,092·0

  566·0

  0,481·0

  7. South East Thames RHA

  26,496·3

  1,706·4

  686·8

  1,235·5

  15,249·0

  938·0

  9,341·0

  8. South West Thames RHA

  21,601·2

  1,201·3

  661·0

  973·0

  11,030·0

  638·0

  6,718·0

  9. Wessex RHA

  17,954·1

  1,183·7

  554·4

  797·5

  8,799·0

  947·0

  5,460·0

  10. Oxford RHA

  13,401·1

  1,040·4

  462·0

  737·8

  6,395·0

  753·0

  4,762·0

  11. South Western RHA

  22,443·7

  1,071·0

  607·5

  932·1

  10,735·0

  1,408·0

  6,734·0

  12. West Midlands RHA

  34,432·8

  2,097·9

  1,004·9

  1,602·3

  16,955·0

  1,873·0

  10,830·0

  13. Mersey RHA

  18,988·9

  1,189·0

  485·7

  756·0

  9,466·0

  852·0

  5,391·0

  14. North Western RHA

  29,637·7

  2,167·4

  908·5

  1,527·3

  14,935·0

  1,649·0

  9,761·0

  20. London post-graduate special health authorities

  4,243·6

  148·0

  —

  —

  2,484·0

  —

  1,798·0

  London Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·0

  2,587·0

  91·0

  DEB/PPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76·0

  —

  3,561·0

  England Total

  330,107·2

  21,031·4

  9,244·1

  14,523·2

  172,177·0

  18,221·0

  108,800·0

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  NHS staff m post at 30 September 1981

  Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  Hospital nursing staff1including agency

  Hospital and community midwives including agency

  Health visitors2

  District nurses3

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Administrative and clerical staff

  1. Northern RHA

  22,377·2

  1,323·2

  620·7

  1,062·2

  11,402·0

  1,474·0

  6,094·0

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  25,339·1

  1,570·6

  680·8

  1,132·9

  13,324·0

  1,622·0

  7,085·0

  3. Trent RHA

  29,505·5

  2,073·2

  909·0

  1,433·8

  16,564·0

  1,890·0

  9,019·0

  4. East Anglian RHA

  12,114·3

  873·9

  344·0

  562·7

  6,035·0

  626·0

  3,854·0

  5. North West Thames RHA

  24,375·1

  1,416·7

  777·5

  970·3

  12,410·0

  484·0

  8,476·0

  6. North East Thames RHA

  30,022·5

  1,722·6

  655·1

  1,055·1

  16,043·0

  584·0

  10,119·0

  7. South East Thames RHA

  26,392·4

  1,656·2

  757·9

  1,263·8

  14,970·0

  942·0

  9,366·0

  8. South West Thames RHA

  21,166·5

  1,165·1

  644·8

  940·6

  10,529·0

  637·0

  6,489·0

  9. Wessex RHA

  18,260·1

  1,196·2

  566·4

  816·7

  8,747·0

  954·0

  5,483·0

  10. Oxford RHA

  13,597·4

  1,014·8

  447·8

  692·3

  6,256·0

  762·0

  4,715·0

  11. Southwestern RHA

  22,541·6

  1,041·0

  607·4

  950·3

  10,6330

  1,424·0

  6,807·0

  12. West Midlands RHA

  34,537·5

  2,124·2

  1,046·7

  1,598·5

  16,827·0

  1,849·0

  10,826·0

  13. Mersey RHA

  19,154·6

  1,108·0

  495·9

  773·5

  9,351·0

  870·0

  5,349·0

  14. North Western RHA

  30,712·7

  2,023·8

  919·0

  1,596·6

  14,924·0

  1,688·0

  9,809·0

  20. London post-graduate special health authorities

  4,740·7

  240·6

  26·4

  48·5

  2,399·0

  —

  1,805·0

  London Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·0

  2,519·0

  87·0

  DEB/PPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72·0

  —

  3,421·0

  England Total

  334,837·2

  20,549·7

  9,499·4

  14,897·8

  170,525·0

  18,324·0

  108,803·0

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  NHS staff in post at 30 September 1983

  Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  Hospital nursing staff1including agency

  Hospital and community midwives including agency

  Health visitors2

  District nurses3

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Administrative and clerical staff

  1. Northern RHA

  22,688·6

  1,383·9

  651·0

  1,069·7

  11,17:5·5

  1,482·4

  6,218·5

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  24,924·0

  1,726·9

  735·3

  1,162·9

  13,131·8

  1,630·2

  7,102·6

  3. Trent RHA

  29,321·2

  2,112·8

  905·9

  1,441·1

  16,158·2

  1,903·7

  9,019·9

  4. East Anglian RHA

  12,176·6

  921·9

  347·6

  554·8

  6,028·8

  638·0

  4,055·1

  5. North West Thames RHA

  23,886·1

  1,446·6

  718·1

  968·4

  12,082·0

  467·1

  8,495·9

  6. North East Thames RHA

  29,814·4

  1,891·2

  647·8

  1,083·0

  15,433·7

  565·0

  10,169·1

  7. South East Thames RHA

  26,209·4

  1,780·9

  753·2

  1,269·6

  14,456·8

  942·7

  9,381·8

  8. South West Thames RHA

  21,186·7

  1,179·9

  641·9

  978·4

  10,200·7

  632·6

  6,614·1

  9. Wessex RHA

  18,399·8

  1,278·2

  575·6

  865·1

  8,588·6

  942·9

  5,646·1

  10. Oxford RHA

  13,362·0

  1,104·2

  505·8

  684·4

  6,108·5

  750·0

  4,697·7

  11. South Western RHA

  22,235·4

  1,210·2

  608·0

  975·7

  10,332·5

  1,437·8

  6,892·6

  550 551

  Region

  Hospital nursing staff1 including agency

  Hospital and community midwives including agency

  Health visitors2

  District nurses3

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Administrative and clerical staff

  12. West Midlands RHA

  33,981·4

  2,340·4

  1,044·2

  1,557·0

  16,466·4

  1,889·3

  11,121·0

  13. Mersey RHA

  18,934·9

  1,159·9

  498·4

  794·9

  8,944·1

  894·2

  5,320·2

  14. North Western RHA

  30,293·2

  2,300·9

  1,048·0

  1,666·3

  14,563·5

  1,702·8

  9,810·5

  20. London post·graduate special health authorities

  4,741·8

  237·7

  27·1

  53·3

  2,397·5

  —

  1,855·3

  London Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·2

  2,518·3

  87·6

  DEB/PPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74·9

  —

  3,477·0

  England Total

  332,155·4

  22,075·3

  9,707·8

  15,124·3

  166,183·7

  18,396·9

  109,964·8

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  NHS staff in post at 30 September 1984

  Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  Hospital nursing staff1 including agency

  Hospital and community midwives including agency

  Health visitors2

  District nurses3

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Administrative and clerical staff

  1. Northern RHA

  22,476·0

  1472·7

  630·8

  1,107·3

  10,657·9

  1,423·5

  6,314·9

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  24,935·1

  1,782·4

  726·6

  1,168·7

  12,085·0

  1,603·5

  7,271·4

  3. Trent RHA

  29,467·7

  2,115·3

  909·7

  1,502·1

  14,942·4

  1,904·8

  9,328·0

  4. East Anglian RHA

  12,509·9

  962·0

  278·8

  574·9

  5,549·0

  645·9

  4,134·7

  5. North West Thames RHA

  23,742·1

  1,479·1

  676·9

  997·1

  11,018·9

  455·9

  8,445·2

  6. North East Thames RHA

  29,920·0

  1,901·3

  579·9

  1,041·6

  13,860·7

  537·3

  10,064·7

  7. South East Thames RHA

  25,802·4

  1,819·6

  649·5

  1,252·1

  12,546·6

  958·1

  9,265·5

  8. South West Thames RHA

  20,864·6

  1,216·1

  624·8

  954·1

  9,049·8

  595·6

  6,416·6

  9. Wessex RHA

  18,620·2

  1,315·4

  565·0

  867·8

  8,048·1

  952·2

  5,709·7

  10. Oxford RHA

  13,713·8

  1,143·2

  465·4

  704·1

  5,682·3

  749·9

  4,891·8

  11. South Western RHA

  22,268·1

  1,213·4

  599·0

  975·9

  9,542·6

  1,430·4

  6,818·5

  12. West Midlands RHA

  33,931·5

  2,506·0

  1,008·5

  1,547·4

  15,235·1

  1,848·6

  11,150·9

  13. Mersey RHA

  18,429·2

  1,173·2

  491·0

  798·1

  8,233·4

  909·7

  5,448·9

  14. North Western RHA

  30,445·6

  2,283·9

  1,093·4

  1,671·0

  13,568·3

  1,584·0

  9,748·7

  20. London post-graduate special health authorities

  4,567·9

  230·8

  —

  13·0

  2,065·7

  —

  1,725·4

  London Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·7

  2,504·5

  82·8

  DEB/PPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75·2

  —

  3,487·2

  England Total

  331,694·2

  22,614·5

  9,299·1

  15,174·4

  152,201·6

  18,103·8

  110,304·2

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  NHS staff in post at 30 September 1985

  Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  1Hospital nursing staff including agency

  Hospital and community midwives including agency

  2Health visitors

  3District nurses

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  A4 Administrative and clerical staff

  1. Northern RHA

  22,749·1

  1,492·5

  675·3

  1,135·4

  10,017·3

  1,396·0

  6,116·8

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  25,159·4

  1,791·0

  789·5

  1,187·2

  11,302·9

  1,595·5

  7,016·6

  3. Trent RHA

  30,417·2

  2,148·5

  931·5

  1,580·0

  13,989·8

  1,934·4

  9,014·2

  4. East Anglian RHA

  12,983·3

  954·1

  373·8

  587·3

  4,853·5

  674·5

  4,028·3

  5. North West Thames RHA

  23,365·6

  1,510·7

  791·9

  1,069·2

  9,565·9

  455·5

  7,839·6

  6. North East Thames RHA

  29,071·5

  1,882·8

  708·7

  1,083·6

  12,562·8

  541·5

  9,812·0

  7. South East Thames RHA

  25,540·5

  1,778·1

  746·3

  1,226·1

  11,356·3

  949·4

  8,902·4

  8. South West Thames RHA

  20,580·4

  1,212·0

  651·1

  979·8

  7,587·4

  628·6

  6,022·7

  9. Wessex RHA

  19,058·1

  1,326·6

  602·7

  907·3

  7,577·8

  946·0

  5,448·5

  10. Oxford RHA

  13,463·5

  1,185·0

  568·8

  704·3

  5,012·2

  757·4

  4,687·3

  11. Southwestern RHA

  22,661·4

  1,286·9

  662·6

  1,003·4

  8,814·8

  1,441·4

  6,670·9

  12. West Midlands RHA

  34,728·9

  2,550·6

  1,111·3

  1,631·6

  14,370·5

  1,880·2

  11,0121

  13. Mersey RHA

  18,6750

  1,188·6

  517·0

  795·8

  7,631·4

  892·5

  5,274·7

  14. North Western RHA

  30,597·6

  2,364·6

  1,153·8

  1,680·4

  12,788·0

  1,604·9

  9,394·2

  20. London post-graduate special health authorities

  4,623·2

  226·9

  —

  19·0

  1,832·2

  2,490·5

  6,302·1

  London Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·7

  —

  86·0

  DEB/PPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76·0

  —

  3,419·8

  England Total

  333,674·6

  22,898·6

  10,284·3

  15,590·8

  139,379·3

  18,188·1

  111,048·1

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.
  552 553

  NHS staff in post at 30 September 1986

  Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  Hospital nursing staff1 including agency

  Hospital and community midwives including agency

  Health visitors2

  District nurses3

  Ancillary staff

  Ambulance staff

  Administrative and clerical staff

  1. Northern RHA

  22,993·0

  1,517·0

  691·0

  1,162·1

  9,199·5

  1,401·3

  6,262·5

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  25,355·0

  1,829·6

  742·6

  1,106·4

  9,868·5

  1,640·1

  7,024·2

  3. Trent RHA

  30,928·6

  2,127·6

  955·8

  1,524·4

  12,973·1

  1,968·1

  8,899·6

  4. East Anglian RHA

  13,110·6

  939·9

  374·9

  587·1

  4,494·8

  769·8

  4,029·7

  5. North West Thames RHA

  23,646·2

  1,509·5

  809·7

  988·5

  7,788·8

  488·4

  7,735·6

  6. North East Thames RHA

  28,890·4

  1,938·5

  738·8

  1,010·7

  11,060·9

  590·5

  9,794·2

  7. South East Thames RHA

  24,916·8

  1,850·2

  834·2

  1,241·1

  10,109·3

  956·5

  8,945·8

  8. South West Thames RHA

  20,330·2

  1,204·1

  638·7

  966·0

  6,409·0

  666·6

  5,909·0

  9. Wessex RHA

  19,405·3

  1,312·3

  608·4

  909·8

  6,623·3

  990·2

  5,441·9

  10. Oxford RHA

  13,6020

  1,202·5

  5630

  691·9

  4,477·2

  814·5

  4,662·1

  11. South Western RHA

  22,942·9

  1,332·7

  680·2

  969·8

  8,064·2

  1,470·2

  6,732·1

  12. West Midlands RHA

  35,352·9

  2,565·3

  1,118·0

  1,570·2

  13,186·1

  1,936·0

  11,283·1

  13. Mersey RHA

  18,801·4

  1,218·8

  501·7

  800·3

  6,698·0

  946·7

  5,306·4

  14. North Western RHA

  30,897·1

  2,385·4

  1,173·3

  1,638·1

  11,638·7

  1,667·8

  9.563·4

  20. London post-graduate special health authorities

  4,523·3

  219·6

  —

  20·0

  1,559·7

  —

  6,275·0

  London Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37·8

  2,659·1

  79·7

  DEB/PPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  78·3

  —

  3,406·9

  England Total

  335,695·9

  23,152·7

  10,430·2

  15,186·7

  124,267·1

  18,965·7

  111,351·2

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes qualified nurses, unqualified nursing staff and learners.

  2 Includes health visitors in both the community and school health services, health visitor field work teachers, TB visitors with HV certificates; dual/triple parts (HV/DN/MID and bank health visitors. Excludes HV students.

  3 Includes district nurse practical work teachers, registered/enrolled nurses assisting district nurses, dual parts (DN/MID) and bank district nurses. Excludes tutorial staff, other nursing staff in district nursing and district nurse students.

  4 1985 and 1986 figures include general managers.

  Child Protection Services (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he plans to publish the social services inspectorate survey of child protection services in London; and if he will distribute copies to all London hon. Members.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 25 July 1988]: I am today placing copies of the report in the Library. The report was discussed with London directors at a meeting on 18 July. They are now examining the report and will be taking action locally where needed. Some directors, however, reported a continuing rise in the numbers of registrations of child abuse and it may therefore take some time before there is a satisfactory resolution of the problem of unallocated cases. The inspectorate will continue to monitor progress and to work with boroughs with the worst problem.

  I am also placing in the Library copies of the report by the social services inspectors on child protection services in Haringey. That report makes recommendations and puts forward a sensible action plan to tackle the serious problems it identifies. These can all be implemented within the resources available to Haringey. The council has already reported to me on the work that it has in hand to implement the key recommendations of the report.

  Listeriosis
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will institute an immediate inquiry 554
  into the possible connection between cook-chill food and the incidence of listeriosis; and what steps have been taken to ensure that no risk exists in National Health Service hospitals using this system of catering to patients who are pregnant or elderly or with weakened immune systems;

  (2) what advice he has received from the chief medical officer on the possible connection between the incidence of listeriosis and cook-chill catering in National Health Service hospitals; and what urgent action he proposes to take.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: While the incidence of listeriosis is increasing, only two cases are known to have been associated with food in the United Kingdom, neither of which was connected with the cook-chill catering system. There is no evidence to suggest the system is connected with this increased incidence and we have no plans to institute an enquiry. The Public Health Laboratory Service is investigating the food histories of all reported cases of listeriosis.

  Hernia Repairs and Hip Replacements
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of hernia repairs and hip replacement operations performed in each region, each year, since 1974 to the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: Such information as can be provided without incurring disproportionate costs is given in the following tables.
  555

  Estimated number of hernia operations (Codes1: 410–412,515) performed in NHS non-psychiatric hospitals, by region of treatment, England 1979–85

  Region of treatment

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  England

  69,210

  76,740

  75,400

  63,450

  74,000

  73,780

  74,810

  Northern

  4,200

  4,820

  4,560

  3,330

  4,620

  4,960

  4,020

  Yorkshire

  5,330

  6,040

  5,670

  4,340

  5,940

  5,400

  6,130

  Trent

  6,130

  7,540

  7,080

  5,060

  6,690

  7,380

  7,700

  East Anglian

  3,220

  3,610

  3,760

  3,150

  3,660

  3,630

  4,290

  North West Thames2

  4,920

  5,070

  4,860

  4,240

  4,760

  4,800

  5,110

  North East Thames2

  6,500

  7,560

  6,760

  6,690

  6,930

  6,620

  6,070

  South East Thames2

  6,260

  6,270

  6,850

  5,840

  6,240

  6,030

  5,820

  South West Thames2

  4,440

  4,090

  4,610

  3,580

  4,720

  4,500

  4,350

  Wessex

  4,440

  4,600

  5,110

  4,960

  4,200

  4,630

  4,730

  Oxford

  3,460

  4,260

  4,450

  3,610

  3,510

  3,840

  3,840

  South Western

  5,070

  5,390

  4,930

  4,350

  5,320

  4,940

  5,260

  West Midlands

  6,760

  7,380

  7,090

  6,330

  7,250

  7,130

  7,650

  Mersey

  2,870

  3,120

  3,050

  2,260

  3,300

  3,180

  3,230

  North Western

  5,430

  6,730

  6,380

  5,400

  6,590

  6,510

  6,340

  Special Heath Authorities2

  180

  260

  240

  310

  270

  230

  270

  Notes:

  In 1979 and 1982 surgical activity in the NHS was affected by industrial action.

  1 OPCS classification of surgical operations and procedures—3rd revision: 1975.

  2 Because of NHS restructuring in 1982, regional figures are not strictly comparable over the whole period.

  Estimated number of total hip replacements and other arthroplasty of hip operations (Codes1: 810,811) performed in NHS non-psychiatric hospitals, by region of treatment, England, 1974–1985

  Region of treatment

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  England

  21,100

  22,400

  25,110

  27,080

  28,060

  29,520

  32,550

  33,440

  33,730

  37,320

  37,970

  37,650

  Northern

  810

  1,170

  1,240

  1,180

  1,440

  1,630

  1,490

  1,780

  1,560

  1,470

  2,010

  2,060

  Yorkshire

  1,590

  1,760

  1,830

  1,660

  1,790

  1,860

  2,110

  2,340

  2,200

  2,620

  2,540

  2,470

  Trent

  1,260

  1,340

  1,840

  1,830

  1,780

  2,200

  1,880

  2,600

  2,530

  2,900

  3,190

  3,330

  East Anglian

  920

  1,160

  1,130

  1,290

  1,200

  1,410

  1,920

  1,530

  1,680

  1,980

  1,890

  1,560

  North West Thames2

  1,140

  1,240

  1,390

  1,450

  1,630

  1,740

  1,770

  2,020

  2,100

  2,260

  2,350

  2,480

  North East Thames2

  2,360

  2,140

  2,180

  2,610

  2,470

  2,330

  2,690

  2,780

  3,460

  3,940

  3,550

  3,660

  South East Thames2

  2,410

  2,110

  2,230

  2,920

  3,040

  2,820

  3,100

  2,910

  3,110

  3,130

  3,320

  2,850

  South West Thames2

  2,090

  2,020

  2,470

  2,400

  2,560

  2,320

  2,370

  2,510

  2,590

  3,060

  2,880

  2,640

  Wessex

  1,070

  1,590

  1,780

  2,340

  2,110

  2,220

  2,370

  2,580

  2,620

  2,670

  2,780

  2,730

  Oxford

  1,080

  1,180

  1,510

  1,620

  1,620

  1,810

  1,940

  1,750

  1,970

  2,180

  2,060

  2,090

  South Western

  1,300

  1,750

  1,950

  1,840

  2,140

  2,220

  2,620

  2,360

  2,350

  2,650

  2,740

  2,840

  West Midlands

  2,220

  2,110

  2,430

  2,370

  2,560

  3,080

  3,530

  3,510

  3,610

  3,660

  3,950

  4,020

  Mersey

  700

  750

  1,000

  850

  1,110

  850

  990

  1,330

  1,190

  1,400

  1,530

  1,550

  North Western

  1,650

  1,590

  1,640

  2,300

  2,110

  2,600

  3,270

  3,000

  2,720

  3,390

  3,180

  3,330

  Special Health Authorities2 3

  490

  490

  480

  410

  500

  400

  490

  440

  40

  20

  0

  20

  Notes: In 1975, 1978–79 and 1982 surgical activity in the NHS was affected by industrial action.

  1 OPCS classifications of surgical operations and procedures—3rd revision 1975.

  2 Because of NHS restructuring in 1982, the regional figures are not strictly comparable over the whole period.

  3 Special health authorities.

  Essex Hospitals
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many individual representations he has received in opposition to West Essex health authority plans for Princess Alexandra hospital, Harlow, and the corresponding downgrading of St. Margaret's hospital, Epping, and the Hertfordshire and Essex hospital, Bishop's Stortford.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 27 May 1988, c. 419]: The number of letters we had received direct from members of the public about changes to services at St. Margaret's and the Herts and Essex hospitals proposed by West Essex health authority was about 250, not several thousand as stated. A petition with several thousand signatures was mistakenly included in the earlier total.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much inward investment has been 556
  attracted to the Province during his term of office; and if he is considering any further initiatives, similar to the Locate in Scotland initiative by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Tom King
  Since I took office on 2 September 1985, 21 new projects, which are expected to create 1,330 jobs, have been finalised. The aggregate investment associated with those projects has been £47·15 million.

  These investments reflect the hard work of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board and we have no current plans to alter the basis of its operation.

  Fair Employment
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he now expects to publish a Bill on fair employment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when it is the Government's intention to publish the Bill on religious equality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland.
  557
  Mr. Viggers
  The preparation of the legislation is well in hand, and a Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the representations he has received from employers in Northern Ireland following the publication of the fair employment White Paper.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes will be made in the proposals contained in the fair employment White Paper following the representations received since its publication.

  Mr. Viggers
  The broad framework of policy and proposals for legislation is set out in the White Paper. The Government will give careful consideration to representations which are received, but I cannot anticipate the detailed provisions of the Bill.

  The question of the publication of such representations is a matter for those who submitted them.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from employers in Northern Ireland following publication of the fair employment White Paper.

  Mr. Viggers
  Representations have been received from the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce and industry, the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors.

  Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act 1971
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received seeking the repeal of the payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In the last year there have been a number of questions on this subject from hon. Members and a letter from Derry city council.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland unemployment figures for June.

  Mr. Tom King
  There were 115,640 unemployed at 9 June 1988. I am pleased to note that this represented a decrease of 516 from May and a decrease of 9,910 from June 1987.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about trends in employment in Northern Ireland during the last five years.

  Mr. Viggers
  At March 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 495,580 employees in employment in Northern Ireland. This figure is 1,850 higher than the corresponding estimate five years ago and 5,000 higher than the figure one year ago.

  Security
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to improve security in Northern Ireland since 30 June.
  558
  Mr. Tom King
  Since 30 June, the reorganisation of Army deployments has been completed with the establishment of a new brigade headquarters in Armagh. Various new physical improvements have been completed. New legislative measures to combat terrorism have been brought forward. A proposal for a draft Police and Criminal Evidence Order has also been published. Meetings between senior Royal Ulster Constabulary and Garda Siochana officers have continued and a further meeting between the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana took place at the Intergovernmental Conference on 27 July, which discussed a number of proposals for further improving the level of cross-border security co-operation.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Province.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with the level of cross-border co-operation.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Co-operation takes place over a wide range of activities, and we and the Irish Government are committed to developing it further.

  Education
  Mr. Bid well
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has had with the educational groups.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received recently from interest groups in the education field; and on what subjects.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have in recent months, received a large number of representations, written and oral, on a wide range of educational topics. These include representations on the consultation paper on education reform, substitution provision in schools, school development proposals, the cross-community contact scheme, youth service review and funding for arts, museums, sport and community services.

  Mr. Anthony Hughes
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to when he expects police inquiries into the death of Mr. Anthony Hughes at Loughgall on 8 May 1987 to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I understand that the RUC have completed their investigations. The Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) will decide whether any criminal proceedings should be brought.

  Protection Rackets
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on current progress on the ending of the protection racket system operating against firms in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The combating of paramilitary racketeering has a high priority in our overall law and order drive. Protection rackets have proved most difficult to counter, chiefly because of evidential difficulties. Nevertheless, determined police efforts have continued and there have been 12 successful court cases since the beginning of 1987, with a number of other cases currently pending.

  We have been examining the best ways further to tackle the protection racketeers. In particular, we look to a forthcoming major administrative initiative to help spearhead this drive, an action which should be complemented by the forthcoming Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which will provide us with a further opportunity to fill any gaps in the legislative support being given to the RUC. We intend in the Bill to broaden further and to strengthen our attack on paramilitary racketeering.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many planning applications have been approved during 1986 and 1987 in(a)the borough of Newtownabbey and (b)the borough of Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  In Newtownabbey borough, 544 planning applications were approved in 1986, and 459 in 1987. The corresponding figures for Antrim borough were 466 and 363.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received any representations from the public concerning recent developments affecting the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have received occasional letters from the public about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest assessment of the effect that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has had on the level of violence in the Province, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I believe that, through the operation of the structures established following the agreement, co-operation on security across the border continues to develop, to the benefit of our common anti-terrorist effort.

  Community Groups
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of funds for community groups in the Province.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1987–88, £37–24 million was provided to community groups through the action for community employment scheme, the community volunteering scheme and the youth training programme. In addition, £9·78 million was paid in grants to the health and social services boards and district councils to support community services and voluntary groups.
  560
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had recently with representatives from community groups in the Province.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ministers and officials frequently meet representatives from community groups; some seven meetings have taken place at ministerial level in the past six months.

  Housing Order 1988
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received on the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  During the consultation period on the proposal for a draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order, submissions were received from 58 organisations and individuals. I also met representatives from four of the main voluntary organisations concerned with homeless-ness to discuss their views.

  International Investment Ltd.
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the progress of investigations into the affairs of International Investment Limited (in liquidation) Gibraltar.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have nothing further to add to the information I gave to the hon. Gentleman when I wrote to him on 27 June 1988.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with Mr. Ravi Tikkoo on the future of the Harland and Wolff shipyard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  My right hon. Friend met Mr. Tikkoo earlier this year. Discussions are being carried out by my officials and their advisors.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met trades union representatives from Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any recent meetings with trades union representatives from Harland and Wolff. He is, however, due to meet the Northern Ireland council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the near future to discuss general economic issues.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the state of current dicussions on his plans to privatise Harland and Wolff.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Government have appointed merchant bankers to advise on possible privatisation. Preliminary discussions have been held with Tikkoo Cruise Line Ltd. but these are at a very early stage.

  A number of other parties have also expressed an initial interest.

  Northern Health Board
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent High Court decision on health service cuts and closures in the Northern health board area.

  Mr. Needham
  I wholeheartedly welcome the court's decision on this matter, since it frees the Northern board to proceed with its plans for 1988–89, which include service developments totalling over £800,000.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met National Health Service trade unions to discuss the High Court's recent decision on the service cuts planned by the Northern health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The judgment in this case was given only on 8 July and I have not met the trade unions during the intervening period.

  I am glad of course that this case has been resolved and that the board can now proceed with implementing its operational plan—including the development of new services at a cost of more than £800,000.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next have meetings with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland; and what subjects he will discuss.

  Mr. Tom King
  I met Irish Ministers yesterday at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference.

  I gave details of our discussions in a reply earlier to a question from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

  IRA (Aid)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about efforts by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to prevent aid to the Irish Republican Army from outside Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I understand that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is in regular contact with law enforcement agencies throughout the United Kingdom and in other countries with a view to preventing the supply of arms and funds to terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce full concessionary fares for pensioners throughout the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  No. I have no plans to extend the existing scheme, which entitles persons over the age of 65, as well as children under 16 and the registered war disabled, to concessionary travel throughout Northern Ireland at half-fare on all scheduled bus and rail services, without restriction on time of travel or length of journey. Registered blind persons travel free. These concessions are financed by grants to the bus and rail companies amounting to some £6 million a year.

  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ask the chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights when his predecessor received the representations of the hon. Member for Epping Forest against the continued discrimination against members of the armed forces and police by the Gaelic Athletic Association; and when the commission expects to report.

  Mr. Tom King
  Representations by my hon. Friend on this issue were referred to the commission, which is an independent body, in 1984. I understand that a final completion date has not been fixed for the commission's major review of the adequacy and effectiveness of legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of religious or political belief. However, the commission's report on fair employment (Cm. 237) referred to the matter raised by my hon. Friend, at paragraph 14.4

  Consultants
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the cost to his Department of employing management or computer consultants for each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The total cost to all Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Financial Year

  £

  1983–84

  3,309,283

  1984–85

  3,841,035

  1985–86

  4,006,116

  1986–87

  5,125,405

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract extant in his Department as at 1 January 1987, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The following management and computer consultancy contracts were extant at 1 January 1987:

  Firms

  Subject of assignment

  Barnard Systems

  DOE land registry BIS-IPSE

  DANI animal health

  NIO prison officers payroll

  Beecom Management Consultants Ltd.

  To provide work study staff under an agency agreement

  Finance for managers consultancy service for client company

  Beecom (NI) Ltd.

  II appreciation training

  DOE roads service integrated systems

  DOE water service integrated systems

  Belfast Information Technology Service

  "Hands On" IT sessions

  British Telecom

  Government network

  Business Information Systems-Beecom

  Management and finance accounting systems, IT sessions

  Cap Industry Ltd.

  To maintain the computerised rates assessment and collection system in NI

  CCTA

  DFP methodology support

  DFP strategy development

  DOE strategy study

  Centre House Management

  Financial appraisal for IDB

  563

  Firms

  Subject of assignment

  CIPFA Computer Services Ltd.

  Implementation of IT strategy

  H. Cloutt Associates

  VME technical consultancy

  Computer Learning Centre

  "Hands On" IT sessions

  Computing Consultancy and Services

  Report on software, staff availability and demand

  Elsdon Computer Services Ltd. (London)

  Development of payroll system under VME (virtual machine environment)

  Ernst and Whinney

  Review on internal audit in Northern Ireland Civil Service

  Ewbank Preece

  Feasibility study

  Gilpin Black Associates

  Objective setting exercise

  Goldblatt Management Consultancy

  Carpet sector Review

  Financial appraisals for IDB

  Marketing appraisals for IDB

  Gresham Computer Personnel Southampton

  VME operations consultancy

  P. Hyde

  IT "The Human Dimension"

  Industrial Training Service Ltd.

  Development of Youth Training Programme (YTP) workscheme Enterprise training for YTP trainers

  Industrial Training Services

  Provide specialist advice and input to IDB's executive development programme

  Johnson Andrews & Co.

  Sales development training programme

  Learmouth Burchett Management Systems

  DANI works service

  Lindsay Marketing Services

  Marketing appraisal for IDB

  Management Development Services (NI) Ltd

  Consulting support service to participants in the enterprise allowance scheme

  Market Research NI

  Market appraisal for IDB

  McCormick Tracey & Mullarbey

  Meat plant survey

  McFarland Edmund

  International investment and market research

  Market appraisal for IDB

  Mclver Jenkins Associates Ltd.

  Marketing advice

  NI Council on Alcohol

  Alcohol awareness

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates

  The development and implementation of a departmental information technology strategy for social security benefit payments

  Marketing appraisals for IDB

  Financial appraisals for IDB

  To carry out a survey of standard capital grants scheme claimants

  Energy consultants—to advise on the technical and economic aspects of private sector electricity generation and to evaluate competing private and public sector proposals for the next tranche of generating capacity required in Northern Ireland

  To assist the Department to supervise and monitor the affairs of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and the three subsidiary transport operating companies

  Enabling study for Northern Ireland Prison Department

  David Rigby Associates

  Linen task force update Marketing appraisal for IDB

  Deloitte Haskins and

  Financial appraisals for IDB

  Sells

  To devise a system to meet the management, accounting and information needs of the Department's works service

  564

  Firms

  Subject of assignment

  Denton Hall Burgin and Warrens

  To negotiate and draft contractural arrangements with private sector electricity generators for the generation and sale of electricity to Northern Ireland Electricity

  PA Management Consultants

  Organisational change in DED

  Pactel

  Evaluation of benefits of Belfast London information system

  Peat Marwick

  Financial appraisal for IDB

  PE Consultancy Services

  Marketing appraisal for IDB

  Price Waterhouse

  Assistance with statutory audits Investment appraisal

  Professional qualification in internal audit

  Toolmaking requirements for a tooling facility for injection moulding; Financial appraisals for IDB

  Purchasing Index (UK) Ltd.

  Road vehicle-mobile plant purchasing and management in Department of Agriculture(Northern Ireland)

  QUB (Department of Agriculture)

  Cheese survey

  Queen's University

  Basic book-keeping

  Belfast

  Investment appraisal

  Professional qualification on internal audit

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.

  Financial consultants—to advise on the viability of the financial structure underlying private sector electricity generating proposals

  Rowena Mills Associates

  Marketing appraisal for IDB

  Software Ireland

  DFP valuation and lands office

  DED companies registry

  DFP methodology support

  IT awareness

  Users role in micro-computers

  Software Ireland and Beecom

  IT awareness programme (users role in system development)

  Software Ireland Ltd.

  Computerisation of valuation and lands office

  Touche Ross

  Assessment of audit needs, development of audit processes and assistance with computer audit, both for departmental internal audit and the statutory audit function

  Touche Ross Management

  Monitoring Harland and Wolff on behalf of DED

  Consultants

  To monitor Short Bros plc

  University of Ulster

  Investment appraisal

  Warner International

  Marketing appraisal for IDB

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government's investment appraisal of Kilroot II and the competing public and private sector lignite proposals for electricity generation is likely to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The investment appraisal of the competing power station proposals has been completed and the Government have decided that Kilroot phase II will be developed to meet the need for new generating capacity in Northern Ireland. It has also been decided to set in hand immediately an examination of ways of privatising the entire Northern Ireland electricity system.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the future of electricity generation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I announced on 15 July that the Government have decided to meet the need for new
  565
  generating capacity in Northern Ireland, which will occur in the mid-1990s by installing the third and fourth generating sets in the Kilroot power station as dual coal-oil fired units.

  On the same day I announced plans to examine ways of privatising the entire Northern Ireland electricity system.

  Handicapped Persons (Central Heating)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will extend the provision of central heating in respect of handicapped adaptations from those who are totally immobile to those in the severely handicapped categories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive can make house renovation grants to all disabled people to help meet the cost of any necessary adaptations to their homes. Such grants are made only following assessment of the needs of each disabled person by professional staff of health and social services boards.

  If professional staff recommend that adaptations, including modification of existing heating systems or the installation of alternative systems, are necessary, grants are made available.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  £ million

  Armagh

  Omagh

  Dunmurry-Sprucefield

  Capital works

  Maintenance

  Capital works

  Maintenance

  Capital works

  Maintenance

  1982–83 (cash terms)

  0·4

  1·3

  0·2

  1·1

  3·0

  1·5

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  0·5

  1·7

  0·3

  1·5

  3·9

  2·0

  1983–84 (cash terms)

  0·4

  1·4

  0·7

  1·1

  3·3

  l·7

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  0·5

  1·8

  0·9

  1·4

  4·1

  2·1

  1984–85 (cash terms)

  1·5

  1·3

  0·4

  1·1

  2·5

  2·1

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  1·8

  1·5

  0·5

  1·3

  3·0

  2·5

  1985–86 (cash terms)

  1·7

  1·1

  0·4

  1·0

  3·2

  2·0

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  1·9

  1·3

  0·5

  1·1

  3·6

  2·3

  1986–87 (cash terms)

  3·2

  1·3

  0·4

  1·1

  2·1

  2·0

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  3·5

  1·5

  0·5

  1·2

  2·2

  2·2

  1987–88 (cash terras)

  3·9

  1·2

  0·9

  1·0

  3·1

  1·8

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  4·0

  1·3

  0·9

  1·1

  3·2

  1·9

  1988–89 Projection

  4·2

  1·3

  1·3

  1·1

  2·0

  2·1

  Cash terms have been repriced using the GDP factors. Figures are not available in the form requested for earlier years, but the total expenditure in Northern Ireland in those years was:

  Capital works

  Maintenance

  £ million

  £ million

  1980–81 (cash terms)

  2·8

  3·1

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  4·3

  4·7

  1981–82 (cash terms)

  3·5

  4·0

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  4·9

  5·5

  The Drainage NI Order 1973 does not charge the Department of Agriculture with responsibility for the prevention of flooding but its ongoing programme of
  566
  Mr. Needham
  This detailed report and its recommendations are currently being considered. They cover the areas of responsibility of a number of Government Departments, both at national level and in Northern Ireland.

  Flooding
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the costs of repairing the damage caused to flood protection works by the floods of last October fall on the drainage division's maintenance budget.

  Mr. Viggers
  Yes. The 1987–88 maintenance budget of the Department of Agriculture's drainage division was increased by £80,000 to allow for purchase of additional materials for repair of damage caused to flood banks last October.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the sums of money in cash and real terms for each year since 1980 expended on (a)capital works and (b)maintenance on river drainage in (i) the Armagh area, (ii) the Dunmurry-Sprucefield area and (iii) the Omagh area; what are his projections for the current year; and if he will indicate what extra sums he has made available to prevent a repetition of the floods of last October, and what extra sums have been made available to repair damage caused by these floods in the current year.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information is as follows for the years 1982–83 to 1987–88 together with a projection of current year expenditure.providing flood protection in vulnerable areas has been supplemented by an additional £1 million in the current year.

  The Department's maintenance effort has been concentrating on the repair of those flood defences requiring immediate attention in October 1987 and account continues to be taken of damage caused at that time in prioritising future works programmes.

  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to eliminate discrimination against the disabled in Northern Ireland.
  567
  Mr. Viggers
  Our approach towards the disabled in Northern Ireland is directed towards enabling them to acquire the training, skills, opportunities and support they need to secure employment. A range of measures is available to provide practical help to employers.

  Belfast
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new funds are being provided to promote enterprises, employment and social improvement in the poorer parts of Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 19 July 1988 at column 562

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations took place with Lisburn district council and Newtonabbey district council before the Whitehouse, Coole and Collin wards were included in areas of special need contained in "Making Belfast Work".

  Mr. Needham
  Wards within the Belfast urban area were assessed as areas of need on the basis of objective indices of deprivation and this did not, therefore, require consultation with any of the district councils.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria were used in defining areas of social need as Catholic West Belfast and Protestant West Belfast as contained in the map on figure 1 of "Making Belfast Work".

  Mr. Needham
  As the published material indicates, wards within the area were designated as either Protestant or Catholic on the basis of the 1981 census of population, after making allowance for those persons not stating their religion and those not enumerated. Objective indices of deprivation were used in defining the areas of social need.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the amount of money invested in the area defined in the document "Making Belfast Work" published by his Department, as Catholic West Belfast, in projects for industrial development, housing, assistance to voluntary projects, health and social services and education for each year from 1970 through to 1980 and from 1980 until 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  The area in the document is defined by reference to council wards. The information requested is not held at ward level and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  MVs Portaferry and Strangford
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days MV Portaferry and MV Strangford vessels operated from Strangford to Portaferry and from Portaferry to Strangford in each of the years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Needham
  The Strangford lough ferry service was run using either the MV Strangford Ferry or the MV Portaferry for all or part of the daily scheduled period of service on 363 days in 1984–85, 339 days in 1985–86, 349 days in 1986–87 and 365 days in 1987–88.
  568
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days the MV Portaferry and MV Strangford vessels were scheduled to operate from Strangford to Portaferry and from Portaferry to Strangford in each of the years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Needham
  The Strangford lough ferry service, operated by the MV Strangford Ferry as the main vessel and by the MV Portaferry as a standby-vessel, was, and is, scheduled to run every day of the year apart from Christmas day.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of the Environment will replace the MV Portaferry vessel on the Strangford-Portaferry route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment has no present plans to replace the MV Portaferry. The Department's aim is to ensure that the MV Portaferry is maintained as is required to enable the vessel to act as a safe and effective standby for the main Strangford lough ferry service vessel, the MV Strangford Ferry.

  Schools (Cleaning Services)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) why the education and library boards in Northern Ireland have decided to employ contract cleaning services in all their schools from 1 September; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps will be taken to ensure that the same standards of hygiene and cleanliness are maintained under the contract cleaning services scheme in all schools in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: Experience in other public bodies has shown that savings are possible by subjecting services to competitive tendering and education and library boards were requested by the Department to consider the market testing of a number of services, including cleaning. However, the extent to which they will employ contract cleaning services in their schools is not yet known.

  The maintenance of standard of hygiene and cleanliness in controlled and maintained schools is the responsibility of the appropriate education and library board.

  For voluntary schools and independent schools this responsibility rests with the individual school authority.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efficiency savings will be made in each of the education and library boards in Northern Ireland due to the introduction of contract cleaning services in schools from 1 September.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: The Southern education and library board obtained tenders for a pilot scheme for cleaning services at 26 of its schools in its area and awarded contracts for 16 schools; the estimated saving in the period 1 September 1988 to 31 March 1989 is £29,000. The other boards have not yet subjected their cleaning services to competitive tendering.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the education and library board budget in each education and library boards was used for cleaning services for all types of schools in each of the years from 1980–81 to 1987–88.
  569
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]The information is as follows:

  Belfast

  North-Eastern

  South-Eastern

  Southern

  Western

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1980–81

  8·18

  6·85

  5·11

  6·05

  5·77

  1981–82

  7·94

  6·49

  5·11

  6·07

  5·80

  1982–83

  7·95

  6·19

  5·19

  6·13

  5·93

  1983–84

  8·13

  6·19

  5·33

  6·06

  5·58

  1984–85

  7·88

  6·10

  5·23

  6·09

  5·73

  1985–86

  8·36

  6·44

  5·34

  6·38

  6·02

  1986–87

  6·69

  6·20

  5·29

  5·94

  5·70

  1987–88

  6·90

  6·52

  5·53

  6·24

  6·09

  These figures include cleaning and caretaking services; separate figures for cleaning are not available.

  Short Brothers
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he proposes to take steps to prevent any foreign countries from purchasing the missile division of Short Brothers, Northern Ireland;

  (2) if he will take steps to prevent Libyan interests from purchasing the missile division of Short Brothers, Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]In considering any approaches relating to the company the national and other interests will be fully taken into account.

  Public Order (Charges)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those elected councillors and hon. Members who have been charged under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the outcome of the subsequent trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: This information is not readily available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Economic League
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to him on the activities or associations of the Economic League in Northern Ireland; and whether the Royal Ulster

  Name

  Date of death

  Circumstances

  Francis Rowntree

  22 April 1972

  Francis Rowntree was hit in the head by a rubber baton round fired during rioting at Divis Flats in Belfast on 20 April 1972. He died in hospital two days later.

  Tobias Molloy

  16 July 1972

  On 16 July 1972 a number of rubber baton rounds were fired by the security forces when a crowd of youths attacked an army checkpoint near Strabane, Tobias Molloy is believed to have been struck by one of the rounds and was reported dead on arrival in hospital, across the border, in the Republic of Ireland.

  Stephen Geddis

  30 August 1975

  On 28 August 1975, as the army moved in to dismantle a barricade built by youths at a road junction in Belfast, they were stoned by a crowd. The security forces fired a number of plastic baton rounds and later Stephen Geddis was admitted to hospital with head injuries from which he died the following day.

  Brian Stewart

  10 October 1976

  On 4 October 1976 the security forces fired a number of plastic baton rounds to disperse a crowd of around 500 people who were stoning them in the Turf Lodge area of Balfast Shortly afterwards Brian Stewart was admitted to hospital suffering from a fractured skull; he died on 10 October.

  570
  Constabulary has investigated whether that body might receive, possess or circulate information or misinformation which might be useful to some terrorist groups.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 15 July 1988]: I understand that no such information is held by my Department, nor has any such investigation been carried out by the RUC.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Government at any level in Northern Ireland have or have had contacts with the Economic League, receive information or representations from it or give information to it or have had such contacts with individuals or bodies whom Government might regard as acting for or with the Economic League.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 15 July 1988]: I am not aware of any such relationships between my Department and the Economic League.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each incident involving death or injury by plastic bullet rounds in Northern Ireland since 1972, the victim, the date of the incident, the circumstances leading to death or injury, the amount of compensation paid, if any, and whether it was paid under criminal injuries compensation legislation or other provisions.

  Mr. Ian Stewart [holding answer 8 July 1988]
  Since 1972, 13 people have died after being struck by plastic baton rounds. During the same period two people died as a result of rubber baton round injuries. The names of those who died and the details of the circumstances of each death are as follow:
  571

  Name

  Date of death

  Circumstances

  Michael Donnolly

  9 August 1980

  On 9 August 1980 the security forces fired a number of plastic baton rounds during a period of sustained rioting in Leeson Street in Belfast. Michael Donnolly was struck by one of these rounds and died a short time later in hospital.

  Paul Whitters

  25 April 1981

  On 15 April 1981 during rioting in Londonderry masked youths approached a bakery throwing stones and breaking windowes and apparently intending to hijack a lorry. The security forces fired a plastic baton round at the crowd which hit one of them, Paul Whitters, on the head. He was admitted to hospital where he died 10 days later.

  Julie Livingstone

  13 May 1981

  On 12 May 1981 members of the security forces in an armoured vehicle in Belfast fired 3 plastic baton rounds when they were attacked by youths throwing petrol bombs. Julie Livingstone was seen to fall and she later died as a result of a head injury.

  Carol Ann Kelly

  22 May 1981

  On 19 May 1981 in the Twinbrook area of Belfast two army landrovers came under attack from youths throwing stones and other missiles, and the security forces fired two plastic baton rounds. Carol Ann Kelly was struck on the head by the second of these baton rounds and she died in hospital three days later.

  Henry Duffy

  22 May 1981

  On 22 May 1981, during a period of heavy rioting in the Bogside area of Londonderry, the security forces fired a number of plastic baton rounds when they came under attack from youths throwing petrol and nail bombs. Henry Duffy was hit in the head by a baton round and died after admission to hospital.

  Norah McCabe

  9 July 1981

  In the early hours of 8 July 1981 two police landrovers were attacked with stones and other missiles whilst travelling on the Falls Road in Belfast. At the junction of Linden Street a plastic baton round was fired from one of the landrovers and Norah McCabe was struck on the head, she died the following day in hospital.

  Paul Doherty

  31 July 1981

  On 24 July 1981 following disturbances and demonstrations in connection with the Republican hunger strike, barricades were erected outside Divis Flats in Belfast. As the army removed these barricades they were stoned and petrol bombed by youths on the road and in the adjacent flats. A member of the security forces fired two plastic baton rounds and one of these struck Peter Doherty, who was near an open window in the kitchen of a flat. He died a week later.

  Peter McGuinness

  9 August 1981

  On 9 August 1981 police on the Whitewell Road in Belfast were attacked with stones and petrol bombs by about 50 youths. As two petrol bombs burst on the roof of a police vehicle the security forces fired one plastic baton round and Peter McGuinness, who had been demonstrating with the crowd, was hit in the chest and died shortly afterwards.

  Stephen McConomy

  19 April 1982

  On 16 April 1982, as a suspected explosives device was examined by the army, an armoured vehicle came under attack from rioters, Stephen McConomy was one of a group of youths near the vehicle. He was hit by a plastic baton round and died three days later in hospital.

  John Downes

  12 August 1984

  On 12 August 1984 the police attempted to arrest Mr. Martin Galvin, the banned Noraid publicity director, at a rally in Andersonstown, West Belfast to mark the thirteenth anniversary of the introduction of internment, in the disturbances which followed the security forces fired a number of plastic baton rounds. John Downes died after being struck by one of them.

  Keith White

  14 April 1986

  On 31 March 1986 following rioting in Portadown, Keith White was struck by a plastic baton round. He died in hospital from his injuries on 14 April 1986.

  Since 17 March 1981, when records were first collated, 417 people are recorded as having been injured by baton rounds. More detailed information concerning these alleged injuries is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The information in respect of compensation is not available in the form requested, but between 1982 and 1988 (to 8 July) 48 of the claims made under the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 against the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for deaths and injuries from baton rounds have been settled at a figure of £505,516. Information relating to such claims made against the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Northern Ireland Order 1977 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regarding the details of those of the 48 settled claims that were concluded in court and are therefore in the public domain, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given him today to his written question.
  572
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many actions were brought against the Royal Ulster Constabulary by individuals or the families of individuals injured or killed by plastic bullets in each year since 1972.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 8 July 1988]: The information requested is not readily available since 1982 and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, since 1982, 183 cases, of which 107 have been concluded and 76 are pending, involving the use of plastic baton rounds, have been brought against the RUC. These cases include civil bills, writs and letters of claim, and cover claims for personal injury or death and also damage to property.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if for those actions brought against the Royal Ulster Constabulary by individuals or the families of individuals injured or killed by plastic bullets since 1972, he will list(a) the outcome in each case whether
  573
  compensation was paid, to whom, in what amount and on what date and (b) for those cases settled out of court, amounts of compensation paid, to whom and on what date.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 8 July 1988]: The complete information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, since 1982, 107 cases have been concluded as follows:

  (a) 48 cases were concluded with an amount of £505,516 paid in compensation. No admissions of liability were made in these cases.

  (b) Liability was denied in 35 cases.

  (c) 15 cases were disallowed at court.

  (d) In nine cases there were no further proceedings.

  It would not be appropriate to give details of individual cases that were concluded out of court or the names of recipients of settlements in court. The other details of the 15 out of the 48 concluded cases that were settled in court were as follows:

  Date of incident

  Amount paid

  Date of settlement

  9 August 1981

  3,000

  20 December 1983

  8 July 1981

  2,000

  7 February 1985

  21 May 1981

  1,000

  14 December 1984

  9 August 1980

  1,500

  11 December 1984

  24 April 1981

  2,000

  21 March 1983

  2 August 1981

  3,000

  18 December 1984

  22 May 1981

  8,500

  4 June 1985

  20 April 1981

  515

  3 November 1983

  8 July 1981

  41,000

  19 December 1984

  9 August 1986

  1,000

  29 December 1987

  9 August 1980

  1,250

  27 December 1984

  15 July 1981

  750

  21 April 1982

  12 August 1984

  10,000

  18 December 1986

  9 August 1980

  750

  27 December 1984

  8 May 1981

  14,050

  8 July 1987

  Total

  90,315

  Educational Qualifications
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the percentages of the total post-primary school population, who have attained passes in qualifications such as City and Guilds and B Tec certificates in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987;

  (2) if he will list the percentages of the total post-primary school population, who have attained passes at each grade level including upgraded status in CSE and GCE O and A-level in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: The information is not available.

  Electrical Equipment Testing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to guarantee the same standards of consumer protection after the discontinuing of electrical equipment testing services in the industrial science division of the Department of Economic Development.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: Following a review of the work of the Department of Economic Development's industrial science division it has been possible to reinstate the service for the testing of electrical
  574
  equipment and the same standards of consumer protection will therefore be provided as before the service was temporarily suspended.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review his recent decision to discontinue electrical equipment testing in the industrial science division of the Department of Economic Development, taking into account the increased financial burdens which will be placed on local authorities required to despatch articles to Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: I have had representations from a number of local authorities in Northern Ireland and from consumer organisations about the difficulties they are encountering in getting electrical equipment tested. A review has been conducted of the work of the Department's industrial science division and it has been possible to reinstate this service. Some increase in charges will be necessary so that the service covers its cost and the local authorities are being informed of these increases.

  Schools (Cleaners)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were employed as cleaners in primary, secondary and further education in Northern Ireland in each of the years from 1980–81 to 1987–88.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 27 July 1988]: The information is as follows in respect of grant-aided controlled and maintained schools (including nursery and special schools):

  Cleaners

  1980–81

  5,313

  1981–82

  5,155

  1982–83

  5,194

  1983–84

  5,257

  1984–85

  5,262

  1985–86

  5,188

  1986–87

  4,984

  1987–88

  5,072

  At present some 78 per cent, of cleaning staff' are employed on a part-time basis.

  A breakdown of these figures on a sectoral basis is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The figures also exclude voluntary grammar schools for which such information is not held centrally.

DEFENCE

  Submarine Compex
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, subsequent to the publication of the results of frigate compex report in March 1987, the results of the submarine compex exercise are now available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My predecessor announced on 5 March 1987 the results of the comparison exercise for the refits of two Leander class frigates. A detailed report has now been drawn up to compare the commercial refits of the Oberon
  575
  class submarine HMS Otter at Humber Shiprepairers Limited, and her sister ship HMS Osiris undertaken at Devonport royal dockyard.

  Against an allocation of 105 weeks at the outset (including five weeks for sea trials), the submarine Otter was taken in hand on 3 December 1984 and completed on 2 March 1987, a period of 117 weeks inclusive. In effect, this was a delay of only one week since Humber Shiprepairers Limited was granted an 11-week extension to repair the port main engine at the Ministry of Defence's cost and liability. The Osiris refit commenced on 16 December 1985 and was completed on 11 June 1987, a period of just over 90 weeks inclusive. With less work to undertake, Devonport dockyard had contracted, during the refit, to complete in this time scale. Both refits achieved the required quality standards, having been examined by the same acceptance authorities, and both submarines are now operational.

  The comparison of costs was again carried out by the Ministry of Defence's principal director of accountancy services, independently of the director general of ship refitting. In order to place the two refits on a comparable basis, the principal director of accountancy services made adjustments for differences in specification work content, condition of the ships, and yard facilities. He also took into account the work subcontracted by Humber Shiprepairers Limited, services provided to Humber Shiprepairers Limited and Devonport by the Ministry of Defence, and inflation between the different refit time scales. The costs were finally adjusted for the differences in the amount of work actually done on the respective submarines, with the result that the dockyard cost was assessed as approximately 30 per cent, more than Humber Shiprepairers Limited for comparable work.

  Overall the performance of both yards was commendable in different ways. For HSL to complete Otter's refit to time and quality with no previous warship experience was most creditable, particularly in the light of the disruption to its schedules due to the poor quality of some of the Ministry material supplied to it. On the other hand, Devonport completed Osiris in a time not achieved for 13 years and to a high-quality standard. The report concludes that private ship repairers can compete with the royal dockyards, despite the latter's depth of experience, and recommends that, in view of the cost advantage, suitable ship repair yards should be invited to tender for future Oberon class refits. It describes the problems that arise during refits and suggests how these can be solved. Except as noted below the conclusions and recommendations of compex have been disseminated and are already being used by DGSR in the naval refit programme, the great majority of which is conducted now under commercial disciplines.

  The Government are committed to the extension of competition as part of their policy of putting the royal dockyards under commercial management. The recommendation about future Oberon class refits will therefore be taken into account as decisions are made in each case. The recommended introduction of reduced complement refits will need further thought because of the budgetary implications.

  Compex proved that the private ship repair sector was capable of conducting both submarine and surface warship refits. It has confirmed the opportunities for tightening our refit procedures across the board to achieve better value for money. It also confirms that we should
  576
  pursue the goal of greater competition to reap those benefits in the future. The transfer of the royal dockyards to commercial management was wholly consistent with this policy.

  I have placed in the Library copies of the executive summary of the report on the submarine refits, and will place copies of the full report there shortly.

  Military Lands Act 1892
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in chronological order the byelaws made under the Military Lands Act 1892 that were in force on 1 July; and if he will place a copy of each of these byelaws in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18 May, at column 509, listing byelaws made under the Military Lands Act 1892 since May 1979. All these were extant on 1 July although the RAF Greenham Common Byelaws 1985 and the RAF Fylingdales byelaws are currently sub judice.

  In addition, byelaws made before May 1979 affecting principal Army training areas include:

  Byelaws

  Cinque Ports Training

  Lydd Ranges Byelaws 1939

  Area:

  Hythe Ranges Byelaws 1986

  Shorncliffe and District Military Lands Byelaws 1976

  Dover and District Military Lands Byelaws 1976

  Salisbury Plain Training

  Bulford Ranges Byelaws 1963

  Area:

  Imber Ranges Byelaws 1963

  Larkhill Artillery Ranges Byelaws 1965

  Perham Down Ranges Byelaws 1969

  The Porton and Winterbourne Gunner Military Lands Byelaws 1977

  Otterburn Training Area:

  Otterburn Training Area Byelaws 1971 (as amended by the Otterburn Training Area (Amendment) Byelaws 1980)

  Stanford Training Area:

  Stanford Training Area Byelaws 1970 (as amended by the Stanford Training Area (Amendment) Byelaws 1975)

  Sennybridge Training Area:

  Sennybridge Training Area Byelaws 1974

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vehicles are owned by his Department and by each branch of the armed forces; and how many of these have been converted to run on unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence owns 87,500 vehicles which are allocated as follows:

  Vehicles

  Royal Navy

  3,000

  Army

  58,000

  Royal Air Force

  10,000

  Procurement Executive

  2,000

  Held in vehicle storage depots

  14,500

  A significant proportion of the current stock runs on diesel fuel, but it is not possible to provide the precise number without disproportionate effort. Other vehicles in

  577
  the current stock which cannot run on unleaded petrol will not be specifically converted, but, as and when they need to be replaced, they will be replaced whenever possible by vehicles which run on either diesel or unleaded petrol.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the results of the ethnic monitoring of recruitment carried out in accordance with his equal opportunities action plan; and how many and what percentage of people from ethnic minorities were shown in such ethnic monitoring exercises to be employed at each grade or level of his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave him on 17 June at column 343.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the results of the ethnic monitoring of recruitment commenced in 1987 to become available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Not before the end of the year.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has received to the voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of all non-industrial and industrial staff thus far carried out.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The response rate to the three phases of the survey of non-industrial staff completed to date was 79 per cent. Information on the response rate to the survey of industrial staff is not yet available.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Sainsbury
  NDPBs and other bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Defence are responsible for arrangements for recruitment and personnel management of staff they employ. Bodies 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.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the respondents from ethnic minorities employed in his Department in grade seven and above were in grades one, two, three, four, five, six and seven, respectively;

  (2) how many of the respondents from ethnic minorities employed in his Department were senior executive officers and higher executive officers, respectively.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I regret this information cannot be provided. The code of practice governing the protection of data collected through ethnic origins surveys requires Departments not to publish information in a way which could lead to individuals being identified.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will institute a monitoring exercise in 578
  accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality in order to ascertain figures for ethnic minorities in part-time posts in his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department now has the capability to monitor the number of ethnic minorities in part-time posts, and the number of such persons currently employed part-time is 27.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library the results of the survey of ethnic origins of all non-industrial and industrial staff now being conducted by his Department, as and when each of the three phases are completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The results of the surveys of the ethnic origins of MOD staff will be published by the Cabinet Office and copies of the reports will be placed in the Library.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the strength of his equal opportunities unit; how many members thereof are female and from ethnic minorities, respectively, and whether the equal opportunities officer is female or from an ethnic minority or both.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The unit consists of three people, two men and one women, none of whom is from the ethnic minorities.

  Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advertisements he has placed in the ethnic press in order to encourage more applicants from the ethnic minorities; and when.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Recruitment advertisements are run for two months out of every three throughout the year. Advertisements have been placed in The Voice, The Asian Times, The Sri Lankan Monthly, New Life and Sing Tao.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what scheme his Department participates which provides training for potential executive officer recruits; and in what way this encourages more applicants from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD is co-operating with the Cabinet Office in developing an access training course to enhance the job-related skills of candidates who wish to re-apply to enter the Civil Service through the executive officer competition. A pilot course is planned for the autumn.

  Bisley Camp
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what statutory authority he has power to sell or otherwise dispose of any part of the Bisley camp and its ranges; and if he will name the property developers presently preparing(a) the residential and (b) the commercial developments.

  Mr. Freeman
  Bisley camp and its ranges are the property of the National Rifle Association and any question of disposal would be its responsibility.
  579
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total area of the ranges at Bisley; and whether he has any plans to dispose of any part of that area.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The ranges at Bisley are owned by the National Rifle Association from which MOD leases a number of administrative buildings; we have no plans to reduce these requirements.

  USAF (Air Refuelling)
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if refuelling at low levels was practised over the United Kingdom or surrounding waters by the United States Air Force B52 aircraft deployed at RAF Fairford in May.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Flying (Mallet Blow Exercises)
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether flying during future Mallet Blow exercises will be allowed during the period between sunset plus 30 minutes and sunrise minus 30 minutes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Flying during the periods sunset plus 30 minutes is considered for those Mallet Blow exercises which take place at a time of the year when dusk is early. The next such exercise is planned to take place in April. No flying in the period before sunrise is planned for aircraft participating in Mallet Blow exercises.

  Table 1

  Running costs receipts

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  516

  610

  645

  670

  704

  818

  777

  808

  828

  A more detailed analysis of running costs receipts for the period 1985–86 to 1990–91 is provided in tables 2 and 3. Table 2 reflects receipts arising from other public

  Table 2

  Running cost receipts from other government departments

  £ million

  Vote

  Section1

  Description

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Appropriations-in-Aid of

  1

  BZ

  Army Personnel costs

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  LZ

  Educational services

  2·5

  2·3

  2·4

  2·6

  2·7

  2·8

  2

  AZ

  Departmental expenses

  1·0

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Total

  3·7

  3·4

  3·5

  3·9

  4·0

  4·1

  Table 3

  Other running cost receipts

  £ million

  Vote

  Section1

  Description

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Appropriations-in-Aid of

  1

  AZ

  Naval Personnel costs

  10·4

  9·3

  16·3

  13·3

  13·6

  13·9

  BZ

  Army Personnel costs

  168·S

  169·9

  163·7

  169·9

  174·1

  178·5

  CZ

  Air Force Personnel costs

  19·6

  24·2

  23·0

  22·5

  23·1

  23·7

  DZ

  Civilian Personnel costs

  60·2

  66·6

  73·2

  79·0

  81·0

  83·0

  EZ

  Movements

  23·7

  16·4

  13·4

  12·4

  12·7

  13·0

  FZ

  Accommodation etc Stores

  8·1

  9·2

  9·5

  10·1

  10·4

  10·7

  GZ

  Clothing and Victualling

  98·5

  95·2

  100·7

  105·6

  108·2

  110·9

  Uranium Ammunition
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will update his report on the development of depleted uranium ammunition for Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Further to the replies given by my hon. Friend on 17 January 1985, at columns 183–84, I can announce that a minimum series of trial firings of Phalanx ammunition will be conducted at the royal aircraft establishment, West Freugh, commencing in August this year. The amounts of DU involved will be no more than that previously approved for other MOD ranges.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table in the Official Report, in the same format as the reply of 7 July, Official Report, column 707–4, 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. Archie Hamilton
  The figures provided in answer to the hon. Member on 7 July 1988, at columns 701–4, related to receipts in respect of programme expenditure. MOD running costs receipts anticipated for the period 1982–83 to 1990–91 are detailed in table 1:

  expenditure programmes. Figures on the same basis for 1982–83 to 1984–85 are not readily available and could be produced only with disproportionate effort.
  581

  Vote

  Section1

  Description

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  HZ

  Liquid fuels and utilities

  49·0

  49·5

  51·5

  56·9

  58·3

  59·8

  LZ

  Other Services

  207·0

  234·9

  303·5

  272·2

  290·2

  297·5

  Vote 1 Total

  645·0

  675·2

  754·8

  741·9

  771·6

  791·0

  2

  AZ

  PE Headquarters costs

  4·9

  6·9

  42·9

  10·9

  11·2

  11·5

  BZ

  Research and Development establishment costs

  0·1

  0·1

  4·0

  4·6

  4·7

  4·8

  CZ

  Other PE outstanding costs2

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  Total Vote 2

  50

  7·0

  46·9

  15·6

  16·0

  16·4

  4

  AZ

  Defence Works services2

  15·7

  17·0

  12·7

  15·7

  16·1

  16·5

  5

  AZ

  Ship refitting and repair2

  0·6

  1·4

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  Total Defence

  666·3

  700·6

  814·7

  773·2

  803·7

  823·9

  1 Sections reflect the 1988–89 Supply Estimates structure.

  2—indicates receipts of less than £0·1 million.

  The amount of receipts in respect of programme expenditure met from other public expenditure programmes is not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate effort.

  Catering
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider the privatisation of the services' catering arrangements; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of officers and other ranks in each grade in each service who are wholly or partly responsible for catering, including the ordering, transporting and holding of stocks of foodstuffs and kitchen equipment and materials, the total cost including all administrative overheads, pension provision etc. and the cost per meal served.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Recruitment and Promotion Policy
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD, in common with other Government Departments, is an equal opportunities employer. All applicants for recruitment, and candidates for promotion, are considered wholly on their merits and on an equal basis. The instructions and training given to those in the MOD who are responsible for recruitment and promotion specifically cover the need to avoid discrimination, whether direct or indirect, including discrimination in the circumstances referred to in the question.

  RAF (Reserve Forces)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in attempts to make greater use of reserve forces in the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  Trials to evaluate the potential use of Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve aircrew have recently been concluded. The trials have shown that while it is not possible to replace regular crew members on RAF VC10s by means of reservists and the trial is being terminated, there is some scope for Volunteer Reserve air electronics
  582
  operators to augment the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance force in time of tension and war. Accordingly, the possibility of developing and expanding this capability is being examined. In addition, a further trial has recently been set in hand to assess the feasibility of using some test pilots and navigators from the commercial sector in a reserve role to provide front-line aircrew in war.

  In the case of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, a trial has been carried out to establish the feasibility of recruiting and retaining a dedicated support force (the RAuxAF Support Force). The force adds to our ground defence capability, thus relieving regular uniformed personnel of diversionary tasks. The trial was a considerable success and attracted its full quota of 350 volunteers. We are hoping to build further upon this promising foundation.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the use of landfill sites for the disposal of military radioactive waste; what use has been made of this technique in the past; what steps are taken to ensure that no environmental contamination takes place; and what measurements have been made of the actual level of contamination.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence believes that shallow land burial is an appropriate and safe method of disposing of its low-level radioactive waste. It is the normal method for disposal of low-level radioactive waste, which arises from a variety of sources including hospitals and industry.

  All disposals are measured and recorded. Regular monitoring of the disposal sites and surrounding area is carried out by the appropriate agencies to ensure that no harm to the local population or the environment occurs from past disposals.

  Dartmoor (Mock Battles)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to put advance notices in the local press and in post offices, similar to those warnings given on live firing days, when mock battles using blank ammunition, flares, explosions and thunder flashes are planned by his Department on Dartmoor.

  Mr. Freeman
  The advance notification on live firing on Dartmoor range is intended to warn the public of the closure of these areas for safety reasons and is a
  583
  requirement under the byelaws. Training or range areas are not closed when the training taking place involves no live firing as this does not constitute a danger to the public; there is, therefore, no need to give advance notice to the public of this form of training.

  RNADs Milford Haven and Trecwn
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet representatives of the work force of Milford Haven and Trecwn RNADs before 30 September to discuss the consultative document "The Future of RNADs Milford Haven and Trecwn" issued on 25 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it was originally intended to issue the report on the future of RNADs Milford Haven and Trecwn.

  Mr. Freeman
  No specific date was fixed for the publication of the consultative document. It was issued as soon as the relevant Ministry of Defence departments had considered all aspects of this complex question, and the Welsh Office had been consulted.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the main features of the normal rules for order of redundancy referred to in paragraph 11 of the consultative document on the future of the royal naval arms depots at Milford Haven and Trecwn.

  Mr. Freeman
  Redundancy procedures would be implemented only if a final decision to close Milford Haven is taken after completion of the consultative process and it was not possible to offer alternative jobs within the MOD. However, the normal rules for redundancy can be summarised as follows:

  Selection of employees for redundancy

  1. The head of establishment will select the employees to be declared redundant from these categories and in this order:

  a. VOLUNTEERS. Those aged 57 to 60 years being given preference.

  b. EMPLOYEES AGED 65 AND OVER

  1. The oldest should normally be declared redundant first.

  2. In industrial grades from which there is in line promotion, eg to chargehand, certain stores grades etc., employees in the higher grade aged 65 or over will be declared redundant before those in the lower grade under 65, despite the absence of redundancy in the higher grade, provided that there are employees in the lower grade suitable for promotion.

  c. DILUTEES. Where the redundancy occurs in a craft grade, dilutees employed in the craft concerned will be declared redundant before fully qualified craftsmen.

  d. EMPLOYEES OVER THE MINIMUM RETIREMENT AGE. Provided the correct inefficiency or ill health procedures have been followed, and there has been no subsequent improvement, the head of establishment may call on industrial employees over the minimum retirement age (60 in most cases) to retire if on account of health or reduced ability they are no longer capable of carrying out the full duties of their grade.

  e. OTHER EMPLOYEES. If the number of employees under sub-paragraphs a to d is insufficient to resolve the redundancy, the head of establishment will select other employees to make up the required number. In doing so, while having regard to the efficiency of the establishment, and therefore, to the general proficiency and reliability of individual employees, and their suitability for other work, he will adhere as closely as possible to the order determined by the length of service, that is, reverse order of seniority.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by age, sex and length of service the 584
  total number of staff in each category E grade employed at royal naval arms depots (a) Milford Haven and (b) Trecwn.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

  Apprentice Training School (RNAD Milford Haven)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had or he intends to have with the Training Commission and other interested parties concerning the apprentice training school at RNAD Milford Haven.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. There are no plans to close the apprentice training school at present.

  RNAD Milford Haven
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many industrial or commercial companies have made representations to him concerning their possible purchase or use of the site of royal naval arms depot Milford Haven.

  Mr. Freeman
  There has been one inquiry of which my hon. Friend will already be aware.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give his estimate of the cost of(a) removing the explosive impregnation from the site of royal naval arms depot Milford and (b) of removing all existing buildings from the site in order that it might be available for industrial or commercial use.

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimated cost of(a) certifying RNAD Milford Haven free from explosives is estimated at between £500,000 and £1 million and (b) no estimate of the cost of removing all existing buildings has been made, nor is one considered necessary at this stage, as the future of the site has still to be decided.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what other defence uses for the Milford Haven royal naval arms depot have been considered.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no naval requirement for RNAD Milford Haven. The Army and Royal Air Force have no present need of extra storage space and no other defence uses have been identified, as yet, which are considered to be feasible.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what non-defence uses by other Departments for the Milford Haven royal naval arms depot have been invited and considered.

  Mr. Freeman
  It would be inappropriate at this stage to invite other Government Departments to consider alternative uses for the RNAD Milford Haven site. If no futher use is found for it, our normal practice would be to offer the site for sale on the open market. I will ensure that there is full consultation with the Welsh Office and public authorities.

  Borders Tactical Training Area
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the percentage increase in the size of the Borders tactical training area represented by the recent expansion of this area;
  585
  (2) on what date the military low-flying management group recommended the recent extension of the Borders tactical training area;

  (3) what increase is planned in the number of military training flights authorised to fly at less than 250 ft above the ground in the Borders tactical training area;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the extension of the Borders tactical training area;

  (5) what population density threshold was used in determining the new boundaries of the Borders tactical training area;

  (6) what types of low-level training at less than 250 ft altitude, other than work-up training for exercises in the United States of America and Canada, are conducted in the Borders tactical training area;

  (7) how long it takes in terms of (a) years and (b) the cumulative number of low-flying sorties, for the training value obtained from extending low-flying into new, unfamiliar territory to decline to a level at which it ceases to be operationally valuable;

  (8) what are the specified standards which a Royal Air Force pilot must achieve before being permitted to fly at less than 250 ft;

  (9) what changes have taken place since 1979 in the amount of operational low-flying training at less than 250 ft which is calculated to be the minimum operationally necessary;

  (10)if he will list the changes to the boundaries of the Borders tactical training area since 1979, specifying the geographical location and date of any changes;

  (11) if he will list the planned periods of operational low-flying training to be conducted in the Borders tactical training area up to the end of 1988;

  (12) what proportion of low flying at less than 250 ft in the Borders tactical training area is conducted between the hours of (a) 7 am and 7 pm (b) 7 pm and 11 pm and (c) 11 pm and 7 am; and what changes are planned in these proportions;

  (13) if he will list the major accidents to Royal Air Force aircraft since 1979 which occurred during flights authorised to fly at less than 250 ft.

  (14) if he will publish statistics indicating the rate of accidents to Royal Air Force aircraft flying at less than 250 ft;

  (15) how many complaints have been received in each year since 1979 about low flying by aircraft authorised to fly at less than 250 ft.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low flying area 17.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low flying area 17 covers(a) parts of the counties of Cumbria, Durham, Iancashire and North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire and (b) the parliamentary constituencies of Barrow and Furness, Workington, Carlisle, Copeland, Westmorland and Lonsdale, and Morecambe and Lunesdale, and parts of the parliamentary constituencies of Penrith and The Border, Durham,
  586
  North-West, Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield, Darlington, Richmond, Yorks, Skipton and Ripon, Keighley, Pendle, Ribble Valley, Iancaster and Wyre.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low flying area 18.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low flying area 18 covers(a) the Isle of Wight and parts of the counties of Kent, East Sussex and West Sussex, Dorset, and Hampshire and (b) the parliamentary constituencies of Thanet, North, Thanet, South, Canterbury, Dover, Folkestone and Hythe, Ashford, Hastings and Rye, Bexhill and Battle, Eastbourne, Lewes, Brighton, Kemptown, Brighton, Pavilion, Hove, Shoreharn, Worthing, Arundel, Isle of Wight, Bournemouth, West, Bournemouth, East, Christchurch, Southampton, Test, Southampton, Itchen, Eastleigh, Gosport, Portsmouth, South, Portsmouth, North and Havant and parts of the parliamentary constituencies of Faversham, Mid-Kent, Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, Wealden, Mid-Sussex, Crawley, Horsham, Chichester, Hampshire, East, Fareham, Winchester, Romsey and Waterside, New Forest, Dorset, North and Poole.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the: Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county or region and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low flying area 15.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is currently no low flying area 15 in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county or region and (b) by parliamentary constituency is covered by low flying area 13.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low flying area 13 covers(a) parts of the counties of Borders, Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, Durham and Northumberland and (b) parts of the parliamentary consitituencies of Roxburgh and Berwickshire, Hexham, Durham, North-West, Penrith and The Border, and Dumfries.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low flying area 9.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low flying area 9 covers(a) part of the counties of Shropshire and Staffordshire and (b) parts of the parliamentary constituencies of Shropshire, North, Wrexham, Stafford, The Wrekin, Ludlow, Shrewsbury and Atcham, and Montgomery.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the number and dates of accidents since 1979 involving aircraft training in the United Kingdom low-flying system;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that no aircraft or aircrew of any foreign country will be allowed to train in the extended United Kingdom low-flying system area announced on 9 June.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  587
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what increase is planned in the number of night low-level training sorties over the United Kingdom as a result of the operational deployment of the Royal Air Force's thermal imaging and laser designator pod.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the requirement for an advanced airborne laser designating pod. No decision has yet been made regarding the purchase of such a system which, if procured, is unlikely to be in service before the end of the decade, when it would be only one of a number of electro-optical devices. As such, its introduction would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the night flying requirement.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating in the Otterburn danger areas, D512 and D512A;

  (2) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating in the Spadeadam danger areas, D510;

  (3) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating in the Garelochhead danger areas, D601;

  (4) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over the landward portion of the danger area known as D119;

  (5) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over the landward portion of the South Uist danger area, D 701;

  (6) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over the landward portion of the Lydd danger area, D 044;

  (7) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over the landward portion of the Eastney danger area, D 035;

  (8) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over the landward portion of the Bhzhearty danger area, D 708;

  (9) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over the landward portion of the Loch Ryan danger area, D 402;

  (10) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating in the Porton danger area, D 127;

  (11) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating in (a) the Warcop danger area, D 407, (b) the Catterick danger areas, D 408A, D 409A and D 409B, (c) the Stanford danger area, D 208, (d) the Ferrybridge danger area, D 203, (e) the Pontrilas danger area, D 147, (f) the Pembrey danger area, D 118, (g) the landward portion of the Cowden danger area, D 307, (h) the landward portion of the Donna Nook danger area, D 307, (i) the landward portion of the Wainfleet danger area, D 306, (j) the landward portion of the Holbeach danger area, D 207, and (k) the Dartmoor danger area, D 011;

  (12) what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over the landward portion of the Luce bay danger area, D 403.

  Mr. Freeman
  The permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating over ranges and danger areas varies according to the aircraft involved, the training being undertaken, the prevailing climatic conditions and 588
  whether activity is by day or by night. In general, aircraft may transit such areas at 250 ft minimum separation distance (msd) when a range or danger area has not been activated or, where it has been activated, with the prior approval of the danger area co-ordinating authority. Over certain ranges, service aircraft may descent to 100 ft msd during their final approach to target. Royal Air Force Harriers may descend to 85 ft msd. In exceptional circumstances and where specifically authorised, certain Royal Navy aircraft operating in danger areas and ranges may descent to 50 ft msd. Aircraft conducting trials under Procurement Executive auspices do so to meet trial aims; in each case the minimum permitted height is determined by safety considerations.

  Body Searches
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been issued to Ministry of Defence police concerning the compatibility of body searches of the type applied to Ms. Mann-Cairns at RAF Greenham common with the relevant provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 27 July 1988.

  World War 2 (Records)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take immediate steps to declassify records relating to the prisoners held by the Japanese at Mukden during world war 2; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Documents relating to the prisoners held at Mukden during world war 2 are public records. Their status has been determined in accordance with the requirements of the Public Record Acts and there is no reason to change this.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on the evaluation of departmental programmes; and what proportion this constitutes of (a) the amount allocated for evaluation and(b) the Department's total budget.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department gives careful evaluation to its programmes at every stage of the procurement process. This evaluation is part of the normal responsibilities of project managers and other MOD staff. The costs of this activity are included in the Department's overall running costs, but cannot be identified in the way requested.

  Correspondence
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Taunton can expect a reply to his letter of 22 March, enclosing letters from Taunton United Nations Association and West Somerset CND, about statements and developments on NATO nuclear rearmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am afraid that we have no record of having received the letter to which my hon.
  589
  Friend refers. However, if my hon. Friend would send a further copy of the correspondence to which he refers, we will, of course, provide a reply as soon as possible.

  British Forces Overseas (Rates)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the total amount by receiving state of payments made by Her Majesty's Government to them in lieu of rates, or their equivalent, and direct payments for services provided for British service men; if such payments are made to central Government of the receiving states or the respective local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 14 July 1988]: Her Majesty's Government make the following payments for services provided for British service men to central Government or their respective local authorities:

  £

  Belize

  Water and drainage

  8,190

  Kenya

  Water and drainage

  2,817

  Canada

  Refuse collection

  173

  Education Services

  272,720

  Environmental Services

  7,573

  Water and drainage

  121,747

  Norway

  Water and drainage

  148

  Refuse collection

  19,650

  Denmark

  Water and drainage

  195

  Refuse collection

  4,000

  Turkey

  Water and drainage

  700

  Refuse collection

  938

TRANSPORT

  Tractors
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the percentage change in first quarter tractor registrations for each United Kingdom region.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  New registrations of tractors1 1st Quarter 1988 compared to 1st Quarter 1987.

  Percentage increase

  North

  56

  Yorks and Humberside

  16

  East Midlands

  8

  East Anglia

  -16

  South East

  8

  South West

  14

  West Midlands

  21

  North West

  52

  Wales

  80

  Scotland

  13

  Northern Ireland2

  36

  1 Agricultural machines, including agricultural tractors, fishermen's tractors, tractors, agricultural engines and locomotive ploughing engines.

  2 Agricultural machines, but also including digging machines, mobile cranes, works' trucks, mowing machines and showmen's and general haulage vehicles.

  Cross-Channel Traffic
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, further to his reply of 20 May concerning the 1973 forecasts for cross-Channel traffic, he will add the actual figures for 1980 and the latest forecast for 1990 and the year in which the tunnel is due to be completed; and who is responsible for ensuring that the fares charged by the cross-Channel ferries for passengers and accompanied vehicles are not fixed collusively.

  Mr. Portillo
  The actual figures for 1980, comparable with those given earlier for 1986 and which correspond as closely as possible to the 1973 forecast categories, are as follows:

  Shipping Services

  1980 Pasiengers

  (millions)

  Accompanied vehicle passengers

  9·0

  Other passengers

  7·7

  Air Services

  22·5

  Total Passengers

  39·2

  Roll-on/Roll-off and Container Traffic

  115·4

  1 million tonnes

  Regarding current forecasts for future years, I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 18 May, at column 460, to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley).

  The tunnel is due to be completed in 1993. The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring undertakings given by ferry companies. Any allegations of collusive pricing would be a matter for him to consider under the competition legislation.

  M40 Extension
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress on continuation of the M40 extension.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The two contracts on the Warwick section started last year and are well under way. Completion is expected in summer 1989. Three of the contracts on the Banbury section have now been let. Tenders for the remaining one, and also for the Gaydon section contract, are due to be returned on 5 August. We expect the whole of the Banbury section and the Gaydon section to be open to traffic: by autumn 1990.

  Revised proposals for the Waterstock to Wendlebury section, north-east of Oxford were considered at a public inquiry which ended earlier this year. The inspector's report is awaited.

  EC Transport Ministers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met his counterparts from the other European Community states; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last attended the EEC Council of Transport Ministers; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met his European counterparts since the EC Transport Council on 20 and 21 June. I have therefore nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on Monday 4 July, at column 488.

  Community Bus Schemes (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding community bus schemes in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None since May 1987. Community bus schemes are nourishing in Cornwall. Eight of them receive support from the rural transport development fund.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to privatise air traffic control.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is for the airport operator to decide who provides airport navigation services at a particular airport. At some airports these services are already provided by private sector suppliers. There are no plans to privatise en route air traffic control services.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Links)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail links to the north of England and Scotland from the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor my predecessor as Minister of State have discussed this specific subject with the chairman recently, but they have discussed the pattern of Channel tunnel rail services in general terms with him from time to time. Under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act, British Rail is required to publish by the end of 1989 a plan setting out its proposals for services through the Channel tunnel. It is are currently consulting interested parties.

  London Transport (Fares)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding fare levels on public transport in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  I receive representations on fare levels from time to time but the level and distribution of fares is a matter for the public transport operators.

  Aviation Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the inquiry set up by the civil aviation authority into the increase in general aviation fatal accidents in 1987 to be completed; and whether any preliminary conclusions have been reached.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The investigation has been completed. The authority hopes to publish the report within the next few weeks. In the meantime the hon. Member might like to refer to the Official Report, 31 March 1988 at columns 1289–93.

  Heavy Lorries (PAC Report)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be in a position to announce what action he intends to take on the Public Accounts Committee's report on the regulation of heavy lorries.
  592
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to Cm. 367—the Public Accounts Committee's eighteenth report on the regulation of heavy lorries.

  M6 (Congestion)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the causes of the congestion and delays on the northbound carriageway of the M6 between junctions 6 and 23 on the afternoon of 8 July.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Traffic flows were heavy on the M6 that day. The major maintenance work under way between junctions 6 and 7, and essential resurfacing and bridge works between junctions 16 and 17 and junctions 21 and 23, all of which involved contraflow working, will have exacerbated the congestion.

  East Coast Ports
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish tables showing the number of vessels using English east coast ports over the past 18 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The numbers of ship arrivals in 1987, compiled from Lloyd's of London shipping data, are in the table. No figures are available yet for 1988.

  Number

  North East

  Blyth

  454

  Tyne

  1,441

  Sunderland

  528

  Tees and Hartlepool

  4,889

  Other North East ports

  854

  Humber

  Hull

  3,032

  Goole

  1,267

  Ouse wharves

  1,097

  Trent wharves

  2,349

  Humber wharves

  1,271

  Immingham

  3,975

  Grimsby

  721

  Haven

  Felixstowe

  5,355

  Ipswich

  1,981

  Harwich

  2,452

  Other ports

  374

  Thames and Kent

  Colchester

  1,084

  London

  111,500

  Medway

  3,546

  Ramsgate

  2,250

  Dover

  22,112

  Folkestone

  2,076

  Other ports

  489

  Wash and North East Anglia

  Boston

  1,091

  King's Lynn

  1,045

  Great Yarmouth

  1,590

  Other ports

  1,141

  All East Coast ports

  79,964

  1 Provisional.

  Central London Rail Study
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the earliest and (b) the latest date by which the central London rail study will be (i) completed and (ii) published.

  Mr. Portillo
  I hope to be able to announce the findings of the central London rail study before the end of the year.

  Monorails
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has on the number of monorails in use in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no direct responsibility for monorail systems. As far as we are aware, the only systems currently in use are in amusement parks and similar locations.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current front seat belt wearing rate; and what were the figures for each month since January 1983.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest survey for which results are available is October 1987. The table shows the seat belt wearing rates for front-seat drivers and passengers for each survey since January 1983:

  Counting month

  Percentage wearing rates

  Drivers

  Passengers

  1983

  January

  53

  54

  February

  93

  93

  March

  94

  95

  April

  95

  95

  May

  95

  95

  June

  94

  95

  July

  94

  95

  August

  95

  96

  September

  95

  96

  October

  95

  94

  November

  94

  96

  December

  95

  96

  1984

  January

  95

  96

  February

  95

  95

  March

  95

  96

  April

  95

  96

  May

  95

  95

  June

  95

  96

  August

  94

  95

  October

  94

  96

  December

  95

  96

  1985

  February

  95

  96

  April

  93

  94

  June

  94

  95

  August

  94

  95

  October

  93

  94

  December

  94

  95

  1986

  April

  94

  94

  October

  94

  94

  1987

  April

  94

  95

  October

  94

  94

  594
  These rates are thought to be the highest in the world.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received supporting the introduction of the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts by adults; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his Department's policy on the wearing of rear seat belts by adults; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has any plans to review the operation of section 33A of the Road Traffic Act 1972; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what estimate his Department has of the effect on the rate of road accidents fatalities in the United Kingdom in 12 months if the wearing of rear seat belts were made compulsory; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what evidence is available to his Department on the level and trend of voluntary use of rear seat belts either in the United Kingdom or abroad; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) how much he expects to spend during the years 1988 and 1989, respectively, in campaigns to encourage the voluntary wearing of rear seat belts;

  (7) what research his Department is currently undertaking on the effects of the compulsory wearing of front seat belts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Seat belts save lives. The transport and road research laboratory and independent experts agree that the wearing of front seat belts saves at least 200 lives and prevents 7,000 serious injuries each year.

  We continue to monitor the usage and effects of front-seat belt wearing. The usage rate remains high at 95 per cent. This autumn we shall undertake a survey of seat belt use among rear-seat occupants.

  We have not received any recent representations supporting the introduction of compulsory wearing of rear-seat belts by adults, although responses to our road safety consultation paper "The Next Steps" generally supported the view that this should remain a goal for the longer term. Our current aim is to increase the voluntary use of rear restraints and their voluntary fitting in cars which do not already have them. We estimate that the wearing of rear-seat belts by adults could reduce deaths and serious injuries among rear seat adult passengers by at least 50 per cent.

  All new cars registered from April last year must be fitted with rear restraints. That should encourage their use. It will take some years before most cars are fitted with them. We therefore believe that it would be premature at this stage to consider making rear-seat belt wearing by adults compulsory.

  We will continue to take every opportunity to advise people to use seat belts. Over the next year some 27 million leaflets will be distributed with all vehicle excise licence reminders.

  A27 (Worthing)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library full details of the cost-benefit analysis carried out by the consultants he appointed to examine the future route of the A27 in the Worthing area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Full details of the results of the economic analysis carried out by the consultants on each of their four favoured routes, using the Department of
  595
  Transport's 1986 cost-benefit analysis (COBA) computer programme, are contained in the consultants' report. A copy is now being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what origin and destination surveys were carried out by the consultants he appointed to consider the future route of the A27 in the Worthing area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None. The consultants made use of traffic information surveys by West Sussex county council in 1978, 1982 and 1983, which included roadside interviews.

  Settle-Carlisle Line
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests he has made to the transport users consultative committees for Yorkshire and the north-west regarding public hearings into any hardship caused by the closure of the Settle to Carlisle section of British Rail; and if he will make a statement,

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has requested a supplementary report from the transport users consultative committees for north-eastern and north-western England under section 56(10) of the Transport Act 1962 to notify him of any changes in the use of the line which would lead them to modify their advice. It is for the committees to decide their own procedure for undertaking this task.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to what mileage of rail on the Settle to Carlisle section of British Rail is continuously welded flat-bottomed rail, as to its current value and as to what would be the replacement cost of either flat-bottomed or bull-head track of equivalent weight; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not available.

  Pavement Parking
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the responses to the discussion paper on pavement parking; what action he now proposes to take in respect of pavement parking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Over 450 responses were received it would not be practicable to publish them. We shall announce the outcome of the review as soon as possible.

  Refrigerated Vehicles
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the expected effects of the recent European Community directive permitting an increase in the width of refrigerated vehicles to 2·6 m.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Thick-walled refrigerated vehicles operating between EC member states may be 2·6 m wide as from 1 January 1989. We are therefore circulating proposals to increase the permitted width of refrigerated vehicles in Britain. This will assist British operators who already use refrigerated vehicles complying with the maximum limit of 2·58 m currently allowed by the construction and use regulations. It will further help operators by allowing future vehicles to be built at 2·6 m wide.

  Direction Signs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the outcome of his consultation on the report of the review of direction signs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The results of that consultation have been considered in the context of the wider revision of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981. These regulations cover not only directional signs, but a wide range of signs which play an essential part in promoting safety on our roads. All signing needs reviewing from time to time in the light of new traffic needs, road safety research and new technology.

  We intend to make a thorough overhaul of the current regulations with several purposes in mind. First, we need to implement the new arrangements for white on brown tourist signs, and certain other changes either proposed in the direction signs review or associated with our demonstration project at Guildford. Second, we need to make changes for road and rail safety reasons (in particular, in connection with signing on motorways, at low bridges and at level crossings). In addition, changes in signing are needed to cater for bus deregulation, to regularise changes already authorised by special procedure, to simplify certain signs (particularly for parking restrictions), to introduce greater flexibility in varying signs, and more generally to consolidate various amending regulations made since 1981.

  I am in touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales about the early issue of general consultation letters on the substance of all these changes. We shall be consulting local authority associations particularly on the financial implications of the proposals. When the comments received in response to this consultation have been considered, the intention is to circulate for more detailed comment a draft statutory instrument giving effect to the changes which it has been decided to make. Our target is to introduce the revised regulations by autumn 1989.

  A3 (Grayshott)
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish details of the junction arrangements for access to Grayshott off the A3 at Hindhead following his recent announcement of the preferred route.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Full details will not be available until the detailed design has been completed. I will send my hon. Friend a plan giving an indication of what is currently envisaged.

  Institute of Motorcycling
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take in the light of the information pack provided by the Institute of Motorcycling for callers to its freephone number, an example of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes, I congratulate the Institute of Motorcycling on the emphasis in its material on road safety and the encouragement given to new and young riders to take proper training. I recommend anyone thinking of taking up motor cycling to ring the IMC's Bikeline on 0800 400 483.

  Dim-dip Devices
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the result of the recent European Court judgment with particular reference to the question of whether dim-dip devices should still be fitted to motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of Tuesday 12 July, at columns 140–41.

  The requirement for all new cars to have dim-dip devices will be waived only where a vehicle fully meets the requirements of the EC vehicle lighting installation directive (76/756/EEC) and has a headlamp-levelling device.

  The object of both types of device is to cut road accidents by enabling the headlights to be used to make the vehicle fully visible without dangerous dazzle. This is particularly important in towns where the interaction between street lights and vehicle lights can create hazards, especially on wet roads.

  The advantage of the dim-dip system is that it is cheaper, always automatic rather than at the driver's discretion, and not dependent on the very precise initial setting for full effectiveness. I believe it will be in the interests of road safety, as well as to the advantage of manufacturers, car owners and other road users for all new cars to continue to be fitted with dim-dip devices.

  Unlike other countries we have not made it directly illegal to drive on side lights. It is better to have self-working dim-dip.

  We shall shortly be consulting in the usual way on the draft Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations to give effect to this judgment.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the effect of the current programme of check-testing of driving instructors on the register of approved driving instructors.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The object of the approval system is to ensure that driving instructors have the right skills to help their pupils learn to drive safely and with consideration. The rolling programme of check tests at the higher standard introduced in 1985 has revealed a significant number who fall below this standard. Instructors who cannot raise their performance are removed from the register. The programme of check tests over the next two years aims to cover all existing instructors.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which motor cycle manufacturing companies have approached him individually to discuss road and machine safety.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Norton, Triumph and BMW.

  Drinking and Driving
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the results of the roadside surveys of drinking and driving conducted earlier in the current year.
  598
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As soon as possible.

  Suzuki Four-wheel Drive Vehicles
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has on the safety record of four-wheel drive vehicles manufactured by Suzuki;

  (2) what investigations have recently been conducted by his Department into the safety record of four-wheel drive vehicles manufactured by Suzuki;

  (3) if he has any plans to seek to prevent further sales of four-wheel drive vehicles manufactured by Suzuki;

  (4) if he has any plans to seek to obtain the recall of four-wheel drive vehicles manufactured by Suzuki.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 July 1988]: The Department is investigating allegations by the Consumers' Association that these vehicles are unstable under certain conditions. The question is being discussed with both Suzuki and the Consumers' Association. The Department is studying the test results available and seeking to establish whether (here is any unacceptable road safety risk.

  Horses and Riders
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent steps he has taken to remind other road users of the need to give due consideration to horses and riders on the public highway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Advice to road users on the consideration needed when encountering horses on the roads is given in the Highway Code and the Department's "Driving" manual. Our TV filler, "Passing Horses," is shown once a week on average. Valuable current guidance is also issued by the British Horse Society and the AA, and we endorse this.

  The basic message is "slow down, allow plenty of room, and don't sound your horn or rev your engine."

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals for the second Severn crossing in the light of new estimates of(a) the capacity of the present bridge and (b) future traffic flows.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House today.

  Social Science Research
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent by his Department in each of the 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 Bottomley
  The available information relates to gross expenditure on research and development including that performed elsewhere in central Government for research and development in total and for social science and humanities. On this basis the figures are in £ million pounded.
  599

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £million

  £ million

  Social science and humanities

  1·0

  1·0

  1·2

  2·4

  2·2

  Percentage of total Department of Transport expenditure (research and development plus social science and humanities)

  3·8 per cent.

  3·4 per cent.

  3·5 per cent.

  8·8 per cent.

  8·3 per cent.

  Social science and humanities within the Department of Transport

  0·4

  0·4

  0·5

  1·5

  1·6

  Social science and humanities within higher education institutions

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  Social science and humanities within industrial research associations and non-industrial research institutions

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  Zeros indicate less than £005 million.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of(a) drivers and (b) front seat passengers (i) killed and (ii) injured in motor vehicle accidents in each month since 1980.

  Drivers and front seat passengers of cars

  Killed and injured

  Great Britain 1980–1987

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  1980

  January

  115

  47

  7,065

  2,936

  7,180

  2,983

  February

  95

  35

  5,636

  2,543

  5,731

  2,578

  March

  92

  48

  6,607

  2,967

  6,699

  3,015

  April

  100

  39

  5,281

  2,669

  5,381

  2,708

  May

  95

  62

  5,958

  3,107

  6,053

  3,169

  June

  114

  64

  6,305

  3,177

  6,419

  3,241

  July

  102

  50

  6,436

  3,482

  6,538

  3,532

  August

  104

  75

  6,223

  3,569

  6,327

  3,644

  September

  132

  58

  6,298

  3,114

  6,430

  3,172

  October

  136

  47

  7,508

  3,520

  7,644

  3,567

  November

  117

  43

  7,379

  3,452

  7,496

  3,495

  December

  137

  69

  7,758

  3,497

  7,895

  3,566

  Total

  1,339

  637

  78,454

  38,033

  79,793

  38,670

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers i

  Front seat passengers

  1981

  January

  111

  45

  6,476

  2,890

  6,587

  2,935

  February

  106

  38

  5,982

  2,829

  6,088

  2,867

  March

  98

  48

  6,841

  3,187

  6,939

  3,235

  April

  84

  46

  5,810

  3,003

  5,894

  3,049

  May

  94

  52

  6,438

  3,358

  6,532

  3,410

  June

  105

  64

  5,794

  2,912

  5,899

  2,976

  July

  123

  56

  6,632

  3,436

  6,755

  3,492

  August

  109

  58

  5,929

  3,344

  6,038

  3,402

  September

  130

  51

  7,057

  3,545

  7,187

  3,596

  October

  153

  62

  7,963

  3,726

  8,116

  3,788

  November

  134

  49

  7,394

  3,254

  7,528

  3,303

  December

  99

  44

  7,417

  3,460

  7,516

  3,504

  Total

  1,346

  613

  79,733

  38,944

  81,079

  39,557

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  1982

  January

  115

  44

  6,355

  2,665

  6,470

  2,709

  February

  104

  54

  5,875

  2,567

  5,979

  2,621

  March

  131

  46

  6,507

  2,904

  6,638

  2,950

  April

  108

  56

  5,656

  2,825

  5,764

  2,881

  May

  103

  49

  6,304

  3,201

  6,407

  3,250

  June

  115

  46

  6,760

  3,375

  6,875

  3,421

  July

  122

  65

  6,225

  3,444

  6,347

  3,509

  600
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the tables. The data refer to car occupants as seating position is only identified for these vehicles.
  601

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  August

  122

  64

  6,855

  3,862

  6,977

  3,926

  September

  125

  47

  6,761

  3,435

  6,886

  3,482

  October

  137

  63

  7,787

  3,827

  7,924

  3,890

  November

  138

  51

  8,633

  3,786

  8,771

  3,837

  December

  152

  73

  9,073

  4,209

  9,225

  4,282

  Total

  1,472

  658

  82,791

  40,100

  84,263

  40,758

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passenger

  Drivers

  Front seat passenger

  Drivers

  Front seat passenger

  1983

  January

  120

  46

  6,427

  2,756

  6,547

  2,802

  February

  95

  31

  5,120

  1,958

  5,215

  1,989

  March

  100

  37

  5,807

  2,364

  5,907

  2,401

  April

  89

  30

  5,808

  2,669

  5,897

  2,699

  May

  82

  43

  5,882

  2,716

  5,964

  2,759

  June

  89

  32

  5,256

  2,446

  5,345

  2,478

  July

  60

  34

  5,680

  2,859

  5,740

  2,893

  August

  84

  48

  5,133

  2,592

  5,217

  2,640

  September

  113

  48

  6,399

  2,807

  6,512

  2,855

  October

  126

  49

  6,684

  3,136

  6,810

  3,185

  November

  122

  46

  6,544

  2,517

  6,666

  2,563

  December

  118

  36

  7,201

  2,844

  7,319

  2,880

  Total

  1,198

  480

  71,941

  31,664

  73,139

  32,144

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passenger

  Drivers

  Front seat passenger

  Drivers

  Front seal passenger

  1984

  January

  92

  30

  6,619

  2,523

  6,711

  2,553

  February

  86

  36

  5,651

  2,254

  5,737

  2,290

  March

  81

  40

  6,109

  2,495

  6,190

  2,535

  April

  84

  41

  5,408

  2,452

  5,492

  2,493

  May

  87

  51

  6,466

  2,895

  6,553

  2,946

  June

  92

  42

  6,050

  2,683

  6,142

  2,725

  July

  81

  45

  6,146

  2,970

  6,227

  3,015

  August

  96

  46

  5,911

  2,953

  6,007

  2,999

  September

  122

  55

  6,815

  3,075

  6,937

  3,130

  October

  122

  51

  7,691

  3,095

  7,813

  3,146

  November

  138

  56

  8,484

  3,294

  8,622

  3,350

  December

  156

  51

  8,343

  3,628

  8,499

  3,679

  Total

  1,237

  544

  79,693

  34.317

  80,930

  34,861

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passenger

  Drivers

  Front seat passenger

  Drivers

  Front seal passenger

  1984

  January

  104

  29

  6,374

  2,510

  6,478

  2,539

  February

  73

  37

  5,727

  2,248

  5,800

  2,285

  March

  86

  35

  6,770

  2,814

  6,856

  2,849

  April

  94

  38

  6,031

  2,756

  6,125

  2,794

  May

  91

  34

  6,370

  2,956

  6,451

  2,990

  June

  99

  29

  6,695

  3,080

  6,794

  3,118

  July

  108

  37

  6,904

  3,187

  7,012

  3,224

  August

  119

  53

  7,254

  3,733

  7,373

  3,786

  September

  112

  43

  6,533

  2,833

  6,645

  2,876

  October

  117

  37

  7,048

  2,894

  7,165

  2,931

  November

  133

  50

  9,350

  3,735

  9,483

  3,785

  December

  117

  37

  7,893

  3,347

  8,010

  3,384

  Total

  1,253

  45.9

  82,949

  36,102

  84,202

  36,561

  602 603

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  1986

  January

  98

  45

  7,383

  2,708

  7,481

  2,753

  February

  91

  29

  6,378

  2,378

  6,469

  2,407

  March

  102

  35

  7,305

  3,145

  7,407

  3,180

  April

  95

  29

  6,929

  2,770

  7,024

  2,799

  May

  116

  42

  7,471

  3,419

  7,587

  3,461

  June

  100

  37

  6,403

  2,820

  6,503

  2,857

  July

  105

  48

  7,157

  3,271

  7,262

  3,319

  August

  132

  52

  7,630

  3,715

  7,762

  3,767

  September

  101

  45

  6,391

  2,776

  6,492

  2,821

  October

  124

  52

  8,613

  3,469

  8,737

  3,521

  November

  148

  52

  8,966

  3,597

  9,114

  3,649

  December

  128

  48

  9,190

  3,556

  9,318

  3,604

  Total

  1,340

  514

  89,816

  37,624

  91,156

  38,138

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  Drivers

  Front seat passengers

  1987

  January

  78

  30

  5,952

  2,256

  6,030

  2,286

  February

  97

  33

  6,624

  2,401

  6,721

  2,434

  March

  84

  41

  7,300

  2,703

  7,384

  2,744

  April

  114

  38

  6,577

  2,799

  6,691

  2,837

  May

  114

  32

  7,314

  3,353

  7,428

  3,385

  June

  113

  52

  8,113

  3,224

  8,226

  3,276

  July

  125

  47

  7,584

  3,352

  7,709

  3,399

  August

  109

  53

  7,311

  3,736

  7,420

  3,789

  September

  106

  49

  7,610

  3,298

  7,716

  3,347

  October

  125

  38

  9,107

  3,613

  9,232

  3,651

  November

  140

  44

  8,574

  3,303

  8,714

  3,347

  December

  122

  34

  8,617

  3,333

  8,739

  3,367

  Total

  1,327

  491

  90,683

  37,371

  92,010

  37,862

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of rear seat passengers(a)killed and (b) injured in road accidents; and how many were restrained, in each month since 1980.

  Rear seat passenger casualties by severity, use of restraint and month:

  Great Britain: 1980

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  1

  14

  35

  1,199

  36

  1,213

  February

  —

  9

  32

  1,089

  32

  1,098

  March

  —

  16

  21

  1,318

  21

  1,334

  April

  —

  13

  29

  1,223

  29

  1,236

  May

  1

  24

  32

  1,617

  33

  1,641

  June

  —

  19

  36

  1,497

  36

  1,516

  July

  —

  21

  47

  1,691

  47

  1,712

  August

  1

  15

  54

  2,012

  55

  2,027

  September

  —

  25

  26

  1,462

  26

  1,487

  October

  —

  20

  38

  1,407

  38

  1,427

  November

  —

  21

  36

  1,440

  36

  1,461

  December

  —

  14

  22

  1,535

  22

  1,549

  Total

  3

  211

  408

  17,490

  411

  17,701

  1 Excluding restraint usage unknown.

  Rear seat passenger casualties by severity, use of restraint and month:

  Great Britain: 1981

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  1

  15

  32

  1,125

  33

  1,140

  February

  1

  10

  25

  1,160

  26

  1,170

  March

  —

  22

  22

  1,273

  22

  1,295

  April

  —

  17

  33

  1,493

  33

  1,510

  May

  —

  17

  49

  1,635

  49

  1,652

  June

  —

  26

  44

  1,439

  44

  1,465

  604
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the tables. The data refer to car occupants as seating position is only identified for these vehicles.
  605

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  July

  —

  22

  56

  1,793

  56

  1,815

  August

  —

  23

  48

  1,949

  48

  1,972

  September

  —

  32

  55

  1,587

  55

  1,619

  October

  —

  26

  35

  1,790

  35

  1,816

  November

  1

  22

  37

  1,426

  38

  1,448

  December

  15

  53

  1,375

  53

  1,390

  TOTAL

  3

  247

  489

  18,045

  492

  18,292

  1 Excluding restraint usage unknown.

  Rear seat passenger casualties by severity, use of restraint and month:

  Great Britain: 1982

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  —

  9

  46

  1,030

  46

  1,039

  February

  —

  19

  49

  1,141

  49

  1,160

  March

  1

  21

  44

  1,262

  45

  1,283

  April

  —

  16

  38

  1,367

  38

  1,383

  May

  3

  21

  62

  1,580

  65

  1,601

  June

  1

  23

  65

  1,581

  66

  1,604

  July

  —

  27

  65

  1,688

  65

  1,715

  August

  2

  27

  78

  2,083

  80

  2,110

  September

  —

  24

  71

  1,539

  71

  1,563

  October

  1

  21

  58

  1,703

  59

  1,724

  November

  —

  22

  65

  1,502

  65

  1,524

  December

  —

  9

  49

  1,635

  49

  1,644

  Total

  8

  239

  690

  18,111

  698

  18,350

  1 Excluding restraint usage unknown.

  Rear seat passenger casualties by severity, use of restraint and month: Great Britain: 1983

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  —

  10

  49

  1,204

  49

  1,214

  February

  —

  13

  123

  1,034

  123

  1,047

  March

  1

  21

  92

  1,324

  93

  1,345

  April

  —

  27

  144

  1,677

  144

  1,704

  May

  —

  24

  131

  1,826

  131

  1,850

  June

  —

  19

  103

  1,544

  103

  1,563

  July

  1

  30

  140

  1,992

  141

  2,022

  August

  —

  20

  109

  1,910

  109

  1,930

  September

  —

  32

  129

  1,810

  129

  1,842

  October

  2

  29

  122

  1,946

  124

  1,975

  November

  5

  26

  85

  1,438

  90

  1,464

  December

  1

  26

  109

  1,666

  110

  1,692

  Total

  10

  277

  1,336

  19,371

  1,346

  19,648

  1Excluding restraint usage unknown.

  Rear seat passenger casualties by severity, use of restraint and month: Great Britain: 1984

  Killed

  Injured

  Totall

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  —

  21

  80

  1,367

  80

  1,388

  February

  —

  16

  85

  1,284

  85

  1,300

  March

  —

  17

  77

  1,469

  77

  1,486

  April

  1

  19

  116

  1,621

  117

  1,640

  May

  1

  20

  101

  1,851

  102

  1,871

  June

  2

  31

  137

  1,824

  139

  1,855

  July

  1

  28

  127

  2,069

  128

  2,097

  August

  1

  39

  125

  2,083

  126

  2,122

  September

  2

  33

  112

  1,831

  114

  1,864

  October

  —

  26

  114

  1,809

  114

  1,835

  November

  —

  19

  146

  2,003

  146

  2,022

  December

  2

  33

  154

  2,022

  156

  2,055

  Total

  10

  302

  1,374

  21,233

  1,384

  21,535

  1Excluding restraint usage unknown.

  606 607

  Rear seat passenger casualties by seventy, use of restraint and month: Great Britain: 1985

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  —

  13

  107

  1,308

  107

  1,321

  February

  —

  22

  85

  1,365

  85

  1,387

  March

  —

  22

  84

  1,629

  84

  1,651

  April

  1

  22

  111

  1,853

  112

  1,875

  May

  3

  27

  125

  1,822

  128

  1,849

  June

  1

  24

  126

  1,793

  127

  1,817

  July

  2

  30

  140

  2,255

  142

  2,285

  August

  1

  33

  162

  2,509

  163

  2,542

  September

  —

  26

  120

  1,,729

  120

  1,755

  October

  1

  12

  104

  1,693

  105

  1,705

  November

  —

  23

  128

  2,038

  128

  2,061

  December

  2

  14

  116

  1,893

  118

  1,907

  Total

  11

  268

  1,408

  21,887

  1,419

  22,155

  1Excluding restraint usage unknown.

  Rear seat passenger casualties by severity, use of restraint and month:

  Great Britain: 1986

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  —

  24

  131

  1,427

  131

  1,451

  February

  —

  12

  109

  1,154

  109

  1,166

  March

  3

  29

  125

  1,898

  128

  1,927

  April

  1

  16

  132

  1,507

  133

  1,523

  May

  3

  32

  188

  2,084

  191

  2,116

  June

  1

  25

  179

  1,643

  180

  1,668

  July

  1

  19

  199

  2,022

  200

  2,041

  August

  —

  26

  203

  2,435

  203

  2,461

  September

  3

  24

  156

  1,517

  159

  1,541

  October

  —

  25

  170

  1,964

  170

  1,989

  November

  2

  29

  178

  2,025

  180

  2,054

  December

  —

  17

  190

  1,897

  190

  1,914

  Total

  14

  278

  1,960

  21,573

  1,974

  21,851

  1Excluding restraint usage unknown

  Rear seat passenger casualties by severity, use of restraint and month:

  Great Britain: 1987

  Killed

  Injured

  Total1

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  Restrained

  Not restrained

  January

  2

  16

  106

  1,154

  108

  1,170

  February

  1

  14

  138

  1,216

  139

  1,230

  March

  —

  10

  154

  1,374

  154

  1,384

  April

  1

  26

  200

  1,544

  201

  1,570

  May

  —

  17

  189

  1,825

  189

  1,842

  June

  3

  20

  219

  1,664

  222

  1,684

  July

  3

  24

  233

  2,025

  236

  2,049

  August

  2

  26

  287

  2,226

  289

  2,252

  September

  1

  29

  240

  1,687

  241

  1,716

  October

  1

  19

  269

  1,869

  270

  1,888

  November

  1

  16

  183

  1,560

  184

  1,576

  December

  3

  25

  267

  1,668

  270

  1,693

  Total

  18

  242

  2,485

  19,812

  2,503

  20,054

  1Excluding restraint usage unknown

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proportion of rear seat passengers, who are killed on being thrown clear of their vehicles in an accident.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Provisional figures for 1987 show that of 164,396 casualties in cars and light vans, 26,810, or 16 per cent, were rear seat occupants. Of these, 2,486 were wearing a safety restraint.

  Information is not collected on a national basis on occupants thrown from the vehicle in which they were travelling. In-depth crash injury studies have been taking place in selected areas since January 1984 in which a
  608
  sample of accidents involving cars less than six years old is selected for investigation. Of a total of 6,201 cars in 2,342 accidents of all severities, there were 790 rear seat occupants, of which 593 were casualties. Of these, 37 (5 per cent.) died of their injuries, three of them being partially ejected and a further nine completely ejected.

  Cars (Child Safety Restraints)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government are considering any cash incentives for the purchase of car safety seats, with a view to encouraging their take-up; and if he will make a statement.
  609
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. People who can afford a car can afford either to buy the child restraints necessary to carry their children safely, or to take advantage of one of the many loan schemes now operating.

  More important is the question of information and publicity. The Child Accident Prevention Trust recently published an excellent report, "The Safety of Children in Cars". We are discussing with the CAPT how to take forward its recommendations on increasing the use of child restraints by voluntary means.

  Tolls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to announce the abolition of tolls on(a) the Severn bridge and (b)other estuarial crossings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Motorways
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new motorway were completed in each of the last five years; and at what cost.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  Length of new motorway completed (miles)

  Cost (£ million)

  1983–84

  49·4

  357·1

  1984–85

  14·1

  92·3

  1985–86

  54·3

  328·1

  1986–87

  29·5

  219·0

  No new motorway was completed in 1987–88; 43·6 miles are currently under construction at a cost of £237·9 million.

  Motorway (Accidents)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents occurred on each motorway for each of the last five years; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of the total number of road accidents for those years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information required is given in the following tables. The data for 1987 are provisional. They are not expected to change.

  Accidents on individual motorways: by severity: GB 1983–1987

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  1983

  M1

  30

  796

  826

  0·34

  M2

  2

  81

  83

  0·03

  M3

  4

  85

  89

  0·04

  M4

  25

  581

  606

  0·25

  M5

  14

  283

  297

  0·12

  M6

  30

  562

  592

  0·24

  M7

  0

  0

  0

  0·00

  M8

  8

  138

  146

  0·06

  M9

  0

  27

  27

  0·01

  M10

  1

  7

  8

  0·00

  M11

  4

  83

  87

  0·04

  M18

  0

  21

  21

  0·01

  M20

  3

  53

  56

  0·02

  M23

  0

  32

  32

  0·01

  610

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  M25

  3

  91

  94

  0·04

  M26

  2

  2

  4

  0·00

  M27

  1

  31

  32

  0·01

  M40

  0

  51

  51

  0·02

  M42

  0

  7

  7

  0·00

  M45

  0

  5

  5

  0·00

  M50

  0

  12

  12

  0·00

  M53

  2

  25

  27

  0·01

  M54

  1

  0

  1

  0·00

  M55

  0

  13

  13

  0·01

  M56

  3

  72

  75

  0·03

  M57

  1

  30

  31

  0·01

  M58

  0

  29

  29

  0·01

  M61

  1

  46

  47

  0·02

  M62

  10

  237

  247

  0·10

  M63

  0

  50

  50

  0·02

  M65

  0

  0

  0

  0·00

  M66

  0

  17

  17

  0·01

  M69

  0

  15

  15

  0·01

  M73

  0

  6

  6

  0·00

  M74

  1

  18

  19

  0·01

  M80

  2

  6

  8

  0·00

  M90

  0

  28

  28

  0·01

  M180

  0

  15

  15

  0·01

  M181

  0

  0

  0

  0·00

  M271

  0

  10

  10

  0·00

  M275

  0

  11

  11

  0·00

  M876

  1

  7

  8

  0·00

  Rest

  3

  122

  125

  0·05

  All

  152

  3,705

  3,857

  1·59

  Accidents on individual motorways: by severity: GB 1983–1987

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  1984

  M1

  33

  868

  901

  0·36

  M2

  9

  81

  90

  0·04

  M3

  2

  112

  114

  0·05

  M4

  17

  623

  640

  0·25

  M5

  14

  262

  276

  0·11

  M6

  37

  658

  695

  0·27

  M7

  0

  1

  1

  0·00

  M8

  7

  121

  128

  0·05

  M9

  0

  20

  20

  0·01

  M10

  0

  5

  5

  0·00

  M11

  5

  125

  130

  0·05

  M18

  0

  33

  33

  0·01

  M20

  2

  60

  62

  0·02

  M23

  0

  47

  47

  0·02

  M25

  5

  181

  186

  0·07

  M26

  0

  1

  1

  0·00

  M27

  4

  49

  53

  0·02

  M40

  4

  85

  89

  0·04

  M42

  0

  5

  5

  0·00

  M45

  0

  4

  4

  0·00

  M50

  1

  16

  17

  0·01

  M53

  1

  31

  32

  0·01

  M54

  1

  17

  18

  0·01

  M55

  0

  17

  17

  0·01

  M56

  3

  79

  82

  0·03

  M57

  0

  36

  36

  0·01

  M58

  1

  21

  22

  0·01

  M61

  2

  46

  48

  0·02

  M62

  7

  282

  289

  0·11

  M63

  1

  56

  57

  0·02

  M65

  0

  0

  0

  0·00

  M66

  0

  15

  15

  0·01

  M69

  0

  11

  11

  0·00

  M73

  0

  5

  5

  0·00

  M74

  4

  26

  30

  0·01

  M80

  1

  10

  11

  0·00

  M90

  4

  30

  34

  0·01

  611

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  M180

  1

  13

  14

  0·01

  M181

  0

  1

  1

  0·00

  M271

  0

  7

  7

  0·00

  M275

  0

  8

  8

  0·00

  M876

  0

  1

  1

  0·00

  Rest

  6

  171

  177

  0·07

  All

  172

  4,240

  4,412

  1·74

  Accidents on individual motorways: by severity: GB 1983·1987

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  1985

  M1

  50

  903

  953

  0·39

  M2

  1

  58

  59

  0·02

  M3

  9

  134

  143

  0·06

  M4

  20

  619

  639

  0·26

  M5

  18

  314

  332

  0·14

  M6

  28

  604

  632

  0·26

  M7

  0

  2

  2

  0·00

  M8

  4

  145

  149

  0·06

  M9

  2

  24

  26

  0·01

  M10

  0

  7

  7

  0·00

  M11

  3

  121

  124

  0·05

  M18

  1

  30

  31

  0·01

  M20

  3

  74

  77

  0·03

  M23

  3

  45

  48

  0·02

  M25

  15

  271

  286

  0·12

  M26

  0

  5

  5

  0·00

  M27

  2

  62

  64

  0·3

  M40

  2

  56

  58

  0·02

  M42

  0

  7

  7

  0·00

  M45

  0

  5

  5

  0·00

  M50

  0

  14

  14

  0·01

  M53

  0

  45

  45

  0·02

  M54

  1

  11

  12

  0·00

  M55

  1

  12

  13

  0·01

  M56

  2

  86

  88

  0·04

  M57

  0

  44

  44

  0·02

  M58

  0

  23

  23

  0·01

  M61

  3

  40

  43

  0·02

  M62

  12

  317

  329

  0·13

  M63

  1

  72

  73

  0·03

  M65

  0

  3

  3

  0·00

  M66

  0

  13

  13

  0·01

  M69

  1

  13

  14

  0·01

  M73

  0

  15

  15

  0·01

  M74

  1

  24

  25

  0·01

  M80

  1

  10

  11

  0·00

  M90

  3

  29

  32

  0·01

  M180

  1

  25

  26

  0·01

  M181

  0

  0

  0

  0·00

  M271

  0

  3

  3

  0·00

  M275

  0

  7

  7

  0·00

  M876

  0

  3

  3

  0·00

  Rest

  4

  164

  168

  0·07

  All

  192

  4,459

  4,651

  1·89

  Accidents on individual motorways: by severity: GB 1983·1987

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  1986

  M1

  42

  962

  1,004

  0·41

  M2

  4

  87

  91

  0·04

  M3

  4

  136

  140

  0·06

  M4

  24

  725

  749

  0·30

  M5

  17

  313

  330

  0·13

  M6

  35

  659

  694

  0·28

  M7

  0

  0

  0

  0·00

  M8

  6

  152

  158

  0·06

  612

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  M9

  3

  26

  29

  0·01

  M10

  0

  11

  11

  0·00

  M11

  4

  119

  123

  0·05

  M18

  2

  39

  41

  0·02

  M20

  2

  51

  53

  0·02

  M23

  2

  53

  55

  0·02

  M25

  15

  517

  532

  0·21

  M26

  0

  6

  6

  0·00

  M27

  0

  80

  80

  0·03

  M40

  2

  73

  75

  0·03

  M42

  0

  22

  22

  0·01

  M45

  0

  6

  6

  0·00

  M50

  0

  11

  11

  0·00

  M53

  0

  29

  29

  0·01

  M54

  0

  23

  23

  0·01

  M55

  1

  16

  17

  0·01

  M56

  4

  67

  71

  0·03

  M57

  1

  20

  21

  0·01

  M58

  0

  19

  19

  0·01

  M61

  4

  45

  49

  0·02

  M62

  11

  293

  304

  0·12

  M63

  2

  64

  66

  0·03

  M65

  0

  7

  7

  0·00

  M66

  1

  21

  22

  0·01

  M69

  2

  21

  23

  0·01

  M73

  2

  11

  13

  0·01

  M74

  0

  26

  26

  0·01

  M80

  2

  9

  11

  0·00

  M90

  4

  29

  33

  0·01

  M180

  2

  18

  20

  0·01

  M181

  0

  3

  3

  0·00

  M271

  0

  9

  9

  0·00

  M275

  1

  8

  9

  0·00

  M876

  0

  4

  4

  0·00

  Rest

  3

  170

  173

  0·07

  All

  202

  4,960

  5,162

  208

  Accidents on individual motorways: by severity: GB 1983–1987

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  1987

  M1

  43

  1,033

  1,076

  0·45

  M2

  2

  75

  77

  0·03

  M3

  5

  174

  179

  0·07

  M4

  27

  664

  691

  0·29

  M5

  16

  295

  311

  0·13

  M6

  41

  728

  769

  0·32

  M7

  0

  3

  3

  0·00

  M8

  8

  150

  158

  0·07

  M9

  0

  19

  19

  0·01

  M10

  0

  3

  3

  0·00

  M11

  7

  142

  149

  0·06

  M18

  1

  35

  36

  0·02

  M20

  5

  65

  70

  0·03

  M23

  2

  69

  71

  0·03

  M25

  15

  672

  687

  0·29

  M26

  0

  9

  9

  0·00

  M27

  3

  85

  88

  0·04

  M40

  4

  65

  69

  0·03

  M42

  1

  44

  45

  0·02

  M45

  0

  2

  2

  0·00

  M50

  0

  8

  8

  0·00

  M53

  1

  44

  45

  0·02

  M54

  0

  18

  18

  0·01

  M55

  3

  12

  15

  0·01

  M56

  0

  95

  95

  0·04

  M57

  1

  21

  22

  0·01

  M58

  0

  34

  34

  0·01

  M61

  6

  40

  46

  0·02

  M62

  9

  310

  319

  0·13

  M63

  0

  49

  49

  0·02

  M65

  0

  8

  8

  0·00

  613

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  All

  Percentage of all road accidents

  M66

  0

  23

  23

  0·01

  M69

  0

  18

  18

  0·01

  M73

  0

  6

  6

  0·00

  M74

  2

  31

  33

  0·01

  M80

  0

  2

  2

  0·00

  M90

  2

  27

  29

  0·01

  M180

  1

  20

  21

  0·01

  M181

  0

  2

  2

  0·00

  M271

  0

  8

  8

  0·00

  M275

  0

  6

  6

  0·00

  M876

  0

  8

  8

  0·00

  Rest

  7

  192

  199

  0·08

  All

  212

  5,314

  5,526

  2·31

  Motor Cyclists (Leg Protection)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take into account the comments on the draft specification for leg protection by Dynamic Research Inc. of California, a copy of which has been sent to him, in his current research into leg protectors for motor cyclists.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All useful contributions to developing effective leg protectors will be taken into account.

  I hope soon to be able to read a commentary on the Dynamic Research Inc. comments.

  Motorways (Repairs)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new motorway are proposed up to December 1989; what are the estimated costs involved; how many miles of motorway are expected to be repaired by December 1989; what is the cost involved; and if he will list the number of miles and cost per motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Sixteen miles of new motorway are under construction and expected to be open by December 1989, at a total cost of £96 million. They are:
  614

  Scheme

  Length

  Cost

  miles

  £ million

  M40 Oxford-Birmingham (Warwick section)

  11·0

  52·0

  M63/M66 Portwood-Denton

  5·0

  44·4

  The following new motoway is under construction:

  Scheme

  Length

  Cost

  miles

  £ million

  M40 Oxford-Birmingham (Banbury bypass)

  27·6

  141·9

  Seven motorway widening schemes are also expected to be completed by the end of December 1989, widening 24·6 miles at a cost of £103·6 million.

  Our plans have been to renew 80 miles of motorway in each of the years 1988–89 and 1989–90, at a cost of £102 million in 1988–89. We are considering the effect of the rephasing of capital maintenance works announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 20 June.

  The figures for individual motorways in the original programme of major renewal schemes for 1988–89 are set out in the table; minor schemes are not included. The programme for 1989–90 has not yet been drawn up.

  Motorway

  Length

  Cost

  (miles)

  (£ million)

  M1

  11·9

  18·4

  M2

  4·4

  7·6

  M3

  3·5

  3·0

  M4

  5·5

  5·3

  M5

  7·7

  6·6

  M6

  10·5

  10·7

  M11

  1·9

  2·1

  M25

  6·4

  10·8

  M40

  2·7

  1·0

  M42

  1·9

  3·4

  M50

  2·3

  3·5

  M56

  3·7

  3·5

  M62

  4·8

  3·2

  M63

  2·1

  1·5

  M69

  2·5

  3·5

  A1(M)

  5·8

  5·5

  77·6

  89·6

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Pollution Control and Power Stations
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the integrated approach to pollution control described by the Earl of Caithness in a recent speech to the Tidy Britain Group includes reducing the need for new power stations by promoting energy efficiency investments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government promote energy efficiency because of the wide benefits it brings. Nevertheless, however close we get to the maximum feasible level of energy efficiency, there will still be a great need for energy in general and electricity in particular. Existing power stations will continue to reach the end of their economic lives and will have to be replaced.
As to an integrated approach to pollution control, I should point out to the House that my noble friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Water will be making a statement later this afternoon in response to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Cullen.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Baroness on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box in her new position. From these Benches we congratulate her on her new appointment.
I am most grateful for the Answer and I take it that the Government's intention is to continue with an energy conservation programme. May I therefore ask how it will be carried forward in the event of privatisation? Will it become a responsibility of the regulatory body and, if so, how strong will the instruction be for that body to ensure that energy conservation is carried out in a way that we would wish?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome and her most kind remarks. I can assure the House that before too long I hope to be sparking on all plugs!
In response to the specific question raised, I think that I can do no better than reassure the noble Baroness on this front by quoting my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who recently said in another place:
"We intend that the regulators should be responsible for the promotion of the advantages of energy efficiency. We are not prepared to go quite as far as some critics would wish. We do not seek to impose on people the obligation to save electricity in their homes and to impose on companies an obligation to make energy-saving arrangements. We are in the business. as will be the regulator, of encouraging the efficient use of energy".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to give an assurance, even at this stage of her career in the department, that in building any new power stations it will follow the American example and not build any further nuclear power stations?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, at this stage I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance. However, I can say, on the whole question of environmental control in this area, that we put a high priority on pollution control emissions.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a fact that nuclear energy production is the cleanest and safest of all the methods available?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that to be the case.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether it will be possible, under the legislation which the Government now propose, after privatisation for a new power station, or indeed any other power station in this country, to be owned by a foreign company?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no, not without notice. However, perhaps I can investigate the matter and respond to the noble Lord's question in a little more detail at another stage.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness in a position to comment on some evidence given by the Council for the Protection of Rural England to the Energy Committee in another place on this very subject? The Council said:
"It is vital that environmental considerations should be reflected much more strongly in the fundamental corporate planning of a privatised industry".
It then added the really important point:
"with clear sanctions for failure to comply".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only answer the noble Lord's question by saying that the Government are fully aware that investment in energy efficiency can have a positive environmental impact and our promotions have always been undertaken on the basis that the investment should be both cost-effective and environmentally acceptable. I should add that obviously the Government are listening to remarks and advice on all fronts and from all places in relation to the proposals under discussion.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as well as taking into account all these environmental factors she should also take account of the needs of the next century, especially our successors, for a supply of electricity?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. As there are twin targets in this field, one of them being energy efficiency and the other being pollution emission controls, I think that we are taking all those factors into account.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the small amount of pollution by nuclear power stations compared with coal stations, can the Minister say to what extent NIREX is now able, or unable, to find somewhere to store the small amount of radioactive rubbish that it has?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret to have to say to my noble friend that I feel that is another question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, without ruling out the use of nuclear power, have the Government properly costed the expense of closing down nuclear power stations when they come to the end of their lives?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that too is another question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Question refers to tidying up.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her promotion to the Department of Energy comes as a great relief to many Members of this House who have been looking for a proper spokesman from that department? We wish her well and do not propose to bowl fast balls just now.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the Government have listened to the comments which have been made from this House, perhaps especially by my noble friend, in this respect.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the noble Baroness's statement that nuclear was the cleanest form of fuel, does that mean that the Government, or anyone else, have now solved the problem of the storage of long-term high-level radioactive waste?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are of course taking that fully into consideration. However, I believe that in my earlier statement I did not say that it was the cleanest form, or the only clean form, of energy. In fact, my departmental responsibilities will include renewables; namely, wind, water and other sources of fuel which are also clean.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that even if we were to go over 100 per cent. to nuclear energy, the lead time required to bring in the power stations that we need is so long that we need a most positive energy conservation programme now if we are to help to avoid the greenhouse effect which is already causing some damage throughout the world?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. I believe that we have a good energy efficiency and conservation programme at present. It is for that reason that the Government are tackling the matter in this way.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps it would hearten the noble Baroness to know that, should we
380
have one cold winter such as that of 1962–63, accompanied by power cuts, we shall not see the hedonistically-minded environmentalists for dust!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his contribution.

Falklands Fishery: Protection
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that they have established an effective control system for the protection of the Falkland Islands fisheries.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, yes, responsibility for the protection of the Falklands fishery rests with the Falkland Islands Government, who deploy two vessels and one aircraft to patrol the fishery. Monitoring of catches and fish stocks is undertaken by their scientific advisers, the Renewable Resources Assessment Group of Imperial College.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that this immensely important source of the islands' wealth and well-being, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has drawn attention, is safeguarded, and that if necessary the Royal Navy is present to help?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have explained, responsibility for policing the zone rests with the Falkland Islands Government. While I have no reason to believe that the present arrangements will not be entirely satisfactory, if the Falkland Islands Government wanted further assistance that could be considered.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although it is 10 years too late and we should have set it up many years ago, the zone has been a great success? Can he say something about the findings of the Imperial College study on the success of the conservation measures? Whereas he may not wish to refer to the backing of the Royal Navy, we all know that the Royal Navy is there.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Renewable Resources Assessment Group from Imperial College which is advising the Falkland Islands Government in this matter is advising also on the number of licences that it is appropriate to issue season by season, and has recommended that a slightly smaller number be issued this year as compared with last year. I am clear that that results from the groups' views on the conservation aspect of the matter, with which it is clearly satisfied.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate what other countries are fishing extensively in this area? Until recently the Soviets were very active with extensive fisheries and fishing. While it may have been just outside the restricted Falklands

381
fisheries area, in regard to the conservation principle and the preservation of future fishing it is surely important to get international agreement not only within the boundaries but just outside as well.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the main fishing grounds are inside the zone to which I have referred. As for the countries concerned, in the second season, the one which began earlier this year, 145 licences were issued—which is an increase on 1987 —to companies from the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Norway, Poland, Japan and South Korea.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the success of the zone to which he and my noble friend have referred is reflected in increased revenue for the Falkland Islands, which we all welcome? Can he tell the House the size of that increase and to what extent it may influence government aid, both military and non-military, to the islands?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the revenue to the Falkland Islands Government for 1987–88 is estimated at £1865 million. This does not include the joint venture premiums payable by the Stanley Fisheries Company Ltd. Against that must be set the estimated enforcement and scientific costs, which are of the region of £6 million for 1988–89. There is clearly a substantial new revenue for the Falkland islands Government which they did not have before. Our aid as such to the Falkland Islands is now at a comparatively low level. Indeed, I think it is zero for this year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord go a little further? Is he really saying that military and non-military aid to the Falklands from this country is zero? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. We do not have military aid as such, but as the noble Lord will be aware, we have a garrison down there which costs something of the order of £100 million.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those figures. Does he agree that this effectively triples the revenue that is open to the Falkland Islands? Does he not also agree that considerable congratulations are due both to his department and indeed to the Falkland Islands Government on putting in a very complex system and operating it apparently so wisely and successfully? In the light of that, will he now consider the other part of our recommendations and extend the limit to the generally internationally accepted level of 200 miles, which despite what some people say will not cost a great deal and will yield further revenue?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This has, roughly speaking, trebled the income of the Falkland Islands Government, which is clearly to be very much welcomed. As he may be aware, they have commissioned a study on how to take advantage of this new income. I understand that the report is to be with them shortly; in fact they may
382
already have just received it and they will no doubt he acting upon it in due course.
As for extending the zone as the noble Lord suggests, there is an undoubted entitlement to extend the zone to 200 miles, but the limit was established at 150 miles for conservation reasons. It is a conservation measure and not a political or military measure. That was the consideration which persuaded us that 150 miles was the right radius.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the last thing I wish to suggest to the noble Lord is that he is concealing the basic reasons, but does he not agree that political considerations are the main reason? Does he not also agree that the Government have made every effort to talk to the Argentines but that they have refused to talk and co-operate as everyone would desire? In the light of that, will he now give further consideration to extending the zone to the internationally accepted limit? We might also take in South Georgia on the way, which is being hoovered up by the Russians.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot agree that this was other than a conservation measure. The Falklands intermediate conservation zone was established for conservation reasons and for no other. That consideration persuaded us that 150 miles was the right limit. It encompassed the fishing grounds and had no other significance. That is the reason it will be left at that radius for the time being.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that, for the purposes of conservation, 150 miles is better than 200 miles? if so, can he explain how that is?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the conservation arguments suggested a limit of 150 miles for this zone. It was a conservation zone. It was not established for any other purpose. It was therefore right to set it at the limit which conservation considerations thought right.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although this is a very satisfactory position, as has been said on both sides of the House, it will not continue unless there is more scientific information about the fisheries in the area? Is he further aware that approaches are already being made to private enterprise interested in the fishing industry to subsidise the provision of more scientific information on why the fish are there and on how to keep them there so that we know what is happening?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend puts his finger on a very important point already touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. That is why the Renewable Resources Assessment Group has been asked to do its work. And as I mentioned earlier, some £6 million is being spent annually on that work.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, do I understand that South Georgia and Thule are not included in the fisheries protection?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, South Georgia is certainly not included in this zone. There is a convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources which covers South Georgia waters. We are concerned to hear that, as is the case, not all the conservation measure which that organisation has in mind are being fully met. We intend to raise this when the convention meets again in October.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not wish to press this subject indefinitely although I could go on for hours. However, will the noble Lord accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? We all agree that the measures were introduced for conservation purposes. We doubt whether reducing the area to be considered to 150 miles adds to the conservation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, equally I do not think extending the zone to 200 miles would add to conservation. That is why we decided upon the 150-mile limit.

Bathing Beach Standards
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell Lord Campbell of Croy asked her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made to bring bathing beaches in the United Kingdom up to the standards prescribed by the European Community.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we are making good progress in bringing our bathing waters up to EC standards. Results of the 1987 monitoring programme suggest that about 70 per cent. of UK waters now meet these standards, compared with 62 per cent. in 1986. This improvement will continue as water authorities replace unsatisfactory short sea outfalls. Water authorities are currently spending £70 million per year on bringing bathing waters up to standard. The Government are reviewing with them the scope for accelerating their programmes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, before noble Lords depart tomorrow for their favourite watering places, ready after the last few weeks for a much needed summer break, can my noble friend assure the House that the recognised beaches around this country are entirely wholesome and salubrious, even if they are not on the EC's approved list?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes. We are naturally advised on the health aspects by the DHSS. The environmental health officers have not recommended us to close any beaches. So, my Lords, I wish you good bathing!
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the worst cause of pollution has been the 19th
384
century practice of getting rid of urban sewage by driving it through pipes which are put along the sea bed for a distance of about 100 yards from the high water mark level? This practice should be discontinued. Can my noble friend say whether steps have been taken to achieve the end of that practice?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The short sea outfalls to which he refers have not proved satisactory. That is why the recommended solution which is approved environmentally is the long sea outfall.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether progress in this respect is as fast in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not without notice, I am afraid.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am conscious that the noble Earl's responsibilities in the Department of the Environment now include housing, of which we are very glad, but they do not include water. Will not the noble Earl have the responsibility of piloting the Bill attempting to privatise the water authorities through this House? Can the noble Earl assure the House that any Bill for which he takes responsibility will have adequate safeguards to ensure that the new water authorities do not in any way damage the environment of our beaches but help to make it better?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is looking forward to debating that Bill as much as I am. Doubtless we shall be looking at those clauses in particular.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, as a former chairman of the Sewage Working Party, may I ask the noble Earl whether he realises that if we put longer and longer pipes out into the Channel, the French will bring longer and longer pipes towards this country? When I was on that working party, we were told by the French, "The more rubbish you send to us, the more we will send to you!". Therefore the only answer surely is to deal with this problem at source. The effluent must not be allowed to go into the sea to begin with but must be dealt with at source.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is well versed in these matters. However, I can assure her that from an environmental point of view the sea is the most useful agent when a properly constructed long sea outfall is used. That is the environmentally beneficial way of dealing with the problem.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the critical point of the noble Baroness's question is that the industrial waste should be detoxified before it goes into the public sewer? As long as that is done, my noble friend is absolutely correct that the dilution and oxidation which will take place in the sea will safely dispose of the effluent.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I know that the water authorities have been at great pains to make sure that any industrial effluent is taken care of before it reaches that stage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in the meantime can the noble Earl arrange to see that the seawater on our beaches is a little warmer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a moment ago the noble and learned Lords' noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised a question relating to the greenhouse effect, which might alter the temperature of the seawater in due course!

Speech Therapy Services
3.26 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the respective duties of (a) education authorities in England and Wales and (b) health authorities to provide funds for speech therapy services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, speech therapy is one of the services which it is the duty of health authorities to provide under the National Health Services Act 1977. As a result of your Lordships' consideration of the Education Reform Bill, local education authorities in England and Wales will have a power to provide funds for speech therapy services.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many children in this country who need adequate speech therapy services but who do not receive them? Is this not partly due to the fact that it is nobody's particular responsibility? There is a dichotomy here between the duty of the health authority and the duty of the education authority. Is it not time that this matter was cleared up properly?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I fear that I must correct the noble Lord. As I said in my original Answer, there is a duty on the regional health authorities but merely a power under the Education Reform Bill for local education authorities to involve themselves in this area.
I also point out to the noble Lord that the number of vacancies in the National Health Service is broadly matched by the number of newly trained therapists seeking employment. The situation is improving, although we are not complacent in this matter. Since 1979 the number of speech therapists employed in the National Health Service has increased by 66 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that speech therapists can enable people to communicate who have lost or have never had that ability and that speech therapists can save public money when they make individuals independent and employable?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. There are other professions supplementary to medicine which also have this effect. But I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Enderby Report showed that there should be 23 speech therapists per 100,000 population? That means that there should be 12,000 speech therapists in post. In fact there are only 3,000. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have for dealing with this shortfall of 9,000 speech therapists? Does he agree that a large part of the problem is due to the pitifully low salaries which speech therapists are paid?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course I am aware of the figures that the noble Lord has mentioned to the House in his supplementary question. However, I repeat that, while the Government are not complacent, the regional health authorities, through their activities with the districts, have in recent years considerably increased the number of speech therapists within the resources available to them. I am sure that they will continue to do this.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the most distressing speech defects in children is stammering? I declare having had and still having an interest in the matter. Can my noble friend the Minister say what funds or other assistance are being diverted to that form of defect?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. I very much regret that I am unable to satisfy my noble friend in this respect. However, I understand that as part of the training of speech therapists training in correction of stammering is also given.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, will the Minister say when Section 7(2), the newly amended section, of the Education Act 1981 will come into force?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand that it will be shortly after Royal Assent. The normal procedure would be for it to be two months after Royal Assent. But I certainly anticipate that it will come into force by the end of the year.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister say that he had had his attention drawn to the study, which showed that we had only roughly a quarter of the number of speech therapists who were needed in the country. I am talking about the report referred to by my noble friend. Does he accept the conclusions of that authoritative study? Bearing in mind that 80 per cent. of local authorities are at present quite unable to meet the educational needs of speech therapists and that the provision of speech therapists in Britain is roughly half of that which is accepted by most EC countries, will the Government take determined action to increase the number available? Many of them are leaving the profession and taking up other work because of the salaries offered for speech therapy.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord's conclusions. The starting salary of a speech therapist is fractionally more than that of a teacher, an occupational therapist or indeed a physiotherapist. There are no accurate estimates available of the number of speech and language impaired people in the population. That is why we are currently sponsoring a research study in Oxford which should provide improved information. Of course not all those with communication problems necessarily need speech therapy. But I stress what I have said several times, which is that the Government are not complacent and are following all these matters up.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that Questions have lasted for 30 minutes. I hope that he will put his question and then allow me to make the business statement, if that is agreeable to the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The Minister seemed to think that salaries were satisfactory. We must bear in mind that in most cases trained speech therapists have received four years' training as compared with the two years' training for an occupational therapist. Therefore, does he really feel that £8,000 a year will encourage speech therapists to remain in this very demanding profession?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has again misinterpreted me. I said that the starting salaries of the four fairly comparable groups were much the same. I am sure that the House will agree with me that they are comparable groups. I do not see that as a reason for not attracting speech therapists into the profession.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Housing Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost Regulations 1988, the Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988 will be taken.

Petitions: Housing Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from 4,655 residents of Sheffield in the following terms:
"We the udersigned do humbly petition your Lordships and Ladyships to amend Part IV of the current Housing Bill so that more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote have to be in favour of the
388
proposition to choose a new landlord for it to proceed, and that the vote be conducted by an independent body and by secret ballot".
Petition presented.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the residents of Southwark which prays that this House will amend Part IV of the Housing Bill so that more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote have to be in favour of the proposition to choose a new landlord for it to proceed, and that the vote be conducted by an independent body and by secret ballot. The Petition bears 400 signatures.
Petition presented.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the residents of Greenwich in the following terms:
"we the undersigned do humbly petition your Lordships and Ladyships to amend Part IV of the current Housing Bill so that more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote have to be in favour of the proposition to choose a new landlord for it to proceed, and that the vote be conducted by an independent body and by secret ballot."
Petition presented.

Murder and Life Imprisonment: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Ackner, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Nathan, L. (Chairman)

Platt of Writtle, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Windlesham, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee do meet on Monday 17th October at half-past four o'clock. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to the order of 18th July last a Select Committee be appointed to consider the

389
matters complained of in the petition against the order and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Blease, L.

Brightman, L. (Chairman)

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hampton, L.

Hood, V.

That the proceedings of the Committee shall be conducted as if they were a Committee on an opposed private Bill;
That the order and the petition shall stand referred to the Committee;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 11th October at half-past ten o'clock.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Solicitors (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Housing Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 60 [Housing action trust areas]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116A:
Page 46, line 19, after ("order") insert (", and with the consent of the local housing authority,").
The noble Lord said: The Committee now comes to Part III of the Bill which is concerned with housing action trusts. The issue on which the Committee must take a decision first of all concerns the circumstances under which housing action trusts are to be declared.
Amendment No 116A provides that the declaration of a housing action trust area should not be made without the consent of a local housing authority. I want in moving this amendment to put to the Minister a very simple question. He has three alternatives. Will he agree to this amendment, which states that the local authority —I think he will admit that the local authority is in greater contact with the people of the area than the Department of the Environment —shall have the right to decide whether an order should be made? Alternatively, will the Minister decide that the tenants themselves should have the opportunity to say whether they wish a housing action trust to be declared? That is provided in the Opposition Amendments Nos. 116AB and 116C. Or will the Minister force a housing action
390
trust down the throats of the people and the authorities concerned? That is the stark choice which faces him. I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord knows, I listen to all the arguments before I decide what to do with each amendment. I look forward to discussing Amendment No. 116AB with him in due course.
The amendment we are now discussing is Amendment No. 116A. This would have the effect of introducing an extra requirement for consent by local housing authorities into the procedures laid down in the Bill for the designation of HAT areas. Naturally we hope to proceeed with the co-operation of the local housing authority wherever possible in seeking the designation of a particular area as a housing action trust area.
I fear that at this stage I shall have to use the acronym HAT. I am sure that the Committee will get used to that term by late this evening when we finish. It stands for housing action trust.
Clause 61 already clearly lays a duty on the Secretary of State to consult any local housing authority, any part of whose area is to be included in the designated area, before making a designation order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the leaders of all the councils in the areas where he is proposing to set up housing action trusts inviting them, with representatives of tenants, to meet Ministers to discuss his proposals. This invitation is the first step towards the formal consultation process required under Clause 61 of the Bill. My right honourable friend is also seeking to appoint consultants to examine the areas proposed for designation and he will consider their reports.
Final decisions on the areas to be designated will then be taken in the light of the consultants' studies and of local views. If we decide to go ahead with individual proposals for HATs, the designation orders will be subject to affirmative resolution proceedings; so there will be an opportunity for these matters to be debated in detail before both Houses.
Obviously we want to take account of local views. But we do not rule out seeking designation even if, when it is consulted, the local housing authority is opposed to the idea. Our primary concern must be to help tenants in areas where they need help. If we conclude that help is needed, we cannot accept that the Secretary of State's decision should be subject to a veto by the local housing authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that that is the answer I expected. It is clear that the Government are not prepared to take the step which seems to us to be entirely appropriate and give to the local authority, which is elected by the people in the housing action trust area, the opportunity to make a judgment on whether or not the designation is appropriate. We are forced to consider the second alternative, which is the consultation of tenants. As the noble Earl has said, that is a separate issue. In order to debate that matter without further delay, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116AB:
Page 46, line 19, after ("order") insert ("after the conduct of a ballot as specified in section 61(2) below, (and subject to the provisions of that subsection)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 116AB, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 116C, which is the meat of the argument as we see it. We have established the Government's position. The Government say that they wish to establish housing action trust areas. They are not prepared to consult local authorities in any meaningful way by giving them the opportunity to decide whether that is appropriate. They are not prepared, so far as we can tell from what the Minister said in response to the previous amendment, to provide a meaningful opportunity for tenants in the area concerned to express a view and for their views to be taken into account or followed.
I stress that the amendments we are proposing do not prevent the creation of housing action trusts. Indeed, we do not oppose them in principle. When we heard the list which the Minister proposed at Second Reading, we listened with some amazement because some of us know the areas concerned. However, we do not say that it is wrong in principle for central government to step in and help with the most difficult housing situations in our nation. Indeed the whole programme of Estate Action, which has been in existence for some time, is evidence of the value of co-operation between local authorities, local tenants and central government in seeking to solve some of those problems.
We are proposing that there should be a proper basis of consent established for taking over any particular estate in order that the long-term policy can be safeguarded. That is entirely in accordance with the Government's own wishes. Mr. William Waldegrave, at the press conference to launch the first housing action trust area, said that they could not work without the hearts and minds of the tenants behind them. That is the principle which we seek to establish in the amendments.
The Government have justified the Bill, if one takes the 1987 Conservative manifesto as evidence, in these terms:
"The next Conservative government will give people greater choice and responsibility over their own lives … They would take the decision as tenants rather than having it taken for them".
I believe that that principle has considerable force. It is a lesson to many authoritarian local authorities of both the Left and the Right who have neglected the principle. I applaud what the Conservative Party has said in that respect.
And yet, the Bill as we have it before us does not even pay lip service —let alone give any real effect—to that laudable principle. The ultimate choice should lie with tenants when it comes to deciding what will happen to their homes. It cannot be denied that the setting up of a housing action trust is of great significance to the tenants concerned, just as it is to all council tenants. As presently drafted the Bill does not give any choice to tenants in the matter. It says that the local authority must be consulted. That does not mean that its views must be taken into account. The
392
Bill says that tenants have to be informed that their home is to become part of a housing action trust. They are not even given the right to consultation, which is a weak enough proviso as it is.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that view in his letter to prospective tenants in housing action trust areas. The letter, written after the announcement of the proposal on 11th July, states:
"I am writing to tell you about our plans and how you can get more information about them … I will consult the Council and I will make sure that you are kept informed".
Therefore, no right to consultation and no ultimate choice lies with tenants when it comes to deciding what is to happen to their homes. That does not give tenants greater choice and responsibility; it takes decisions on their behalf rather than allowing them to take those themselves. It is seeking tenant acquiescence after the event. In other words, the Bill goes directly counter to the manifesto of the Conservative Party in 1987 and to everything that the Government have said in any previous statement about the establishment of housing action trusts.
Let us not be in any doubt that the establishment of housing action trusts is of great importance to the tenants concerned. Tenants whose homes are taken over by trusts lose the veto over transfer to another landlord when they leave the trust. They are virtually certain, when they leave the trust, to become assured rather than protected tenants: that is, they become private tenants rather than local authority tenants. They lose the ability to elect and remove their landlords which is provided for in Part IV of the Bill. We shall come to that matter after the Summer Recess. But it is notable that a different regime is proposed for the housing action trust areas than that which is proposed for other public sector tenants in another part of the Bill. They lose the ability to enforce the provisions of the Access to Information Act to find out exactly what a landlord is doing.
Tenants will have their scope to transfer to another part of a local authority area heavily restricted. Local authorities have been able to operate transfer schemes which have perhaps not led to the degree of flexibility that noble Lords would wish to see. However, to a considerable extent tenants have been able to transfer from one part of the country to another by mutual agreement when that has been necessary and desirable. Tenants will lose almost entirely the prospect of setting up any tenant management co-operative, which is an increasing feature of local authority housing. They will find themselves with a different person setting their rent and deciding on the quality of management and maintenance and the allocation and letting policy on the estate as well as the scope of matters such as harassment and rent arrears and the approachability and responsiveness of estate staff. Those are all the things that make the quality of life for tenants on estates either bearable or unbearable.
In the past, tenants have been able to complain to their landlords. I have served as a local councillor in London. I know that tenants complain forcefully about the quality of management on estates. They have been able to complain to elected members whom they could dismiss at a subsequent local election. It is now proposed that they should lose all of those

393
rights. The housing action trusts will not be responsible in any way to tenants. The trusts will have no democratic responsibilities and their policies and programmes as regards the rents they charge and the degree of security they offer will be totally unknown to tenants. Is it any wonder that those tenants who are aware of these provisions have already registered the most ringing protest against them? I can assure the Committee that the three petitions that have been presented this afternoon are only the first of many petitions which will come from virtually every single estate which has already been nominated as a housing action trust area.
On 25th July the tenants of estates in Lambeth—in particular the Angell Town estate—went to see the Secretary of State for the Environment. They asked the question: would the Minister be prepared to have a joint meeting of all the local authorities in whose areas it was proposed to place a housing action trust? The Minister replied that he would be unwilling to do so because he thought that the individual consultation was adequate. They asked secondly: would the Minister be prepared to ballot all the tenants on the proposed housing action trust estates as to whether or not they wanted a HAT? The Minister clearly stated that he would not be prepared to hold a ballot.
Finally, they asked whether the Minister would be prepared to take account of the tenants' views at all. The Minister replied that he would be prepared to take into account the views of both tenants' associations and local authorities which wished to improve or alter the HAT scheme. However, the question of whether or not the estate was to have a housing action trust was not negotiable.
I put it to the Committee that a housing action trust area—and in this I agree with Mr. Waldegrave
—cannot succeed unless the tenants have the opportunity to make a decision at the outset as to whether or not it should take place. That is not just a proposal to meet the requirements of common sense and common justice; it is essential if the HATs are to work. It is common ground that they cannot succeed without the support and co-operation of the tenants.
The Government consultation paper says in paragraph 18:
"A HAT will only be able to do its job properly with the involvement and co-operation of the people who live in the area".
How can a housing action trust area start its life in an atmosphere of uncertainty, acrimony and controversy? It is no good saying that tenants will be involved right from the beginning if they are able to say, "We asked if we could have a say in this matter and we were told very clearly that we cannot". How can the Secretary of State place credible appointees on any particular housing action trust if the immediate response they will receive from tenants is to be, "This was imposed upon us; we were not given an opportunity to say what the housing action trust should be and whether we should be included in it, and we were not given an opportunity to have a say in who should be members of the housing action trust"?
I think it would be common ground among noble Lords that we want to give someone real power to improve our worst housing conditions. Our worst housing conditions are of course in the private sector but many of the bad housing conditions are in the public sector. If we want to give the Secretary of State that power, then surely we have to be able to say that we know that problems exist but that with the tenants' co-operation and with the co-operation of the local authorities which have been running the estates and know the estates we can see it through together. If the Secretary of State was able to say that it was done with co-operation and with consent and that the people had voted for it together, then I can well imagine how a housing action trust could bring a breath of fresh air into the housing mangement of some of our difficult areas.
It is not as though there were not an adequate precedent. The transfer of the former Greater London Council estate at Thamesmead, which had to have a new home when the GLC was abolished, is a very good example. The Government developed the idea of passing the estate to a trust, rather like the housing action trusts. What they did on that occasion was to hold a vote as to whether the tenants and other residents wanted a transfer to a trust. A fair ballot was organised in a way which was acceptable to all sides and the government-supported option won the ballot.
What are the Government afraid of here? Why are they denying this ballot? Are they afraid that all of the areas concerned will refuse to be part of a housing action trust? The evidence of Thamesmead shows that that fear is not justified. There may indeed be tenants, as there were at Thamesmead, who want to transfer to a housing action trust and who may be disillusioned by the defects of the housing management of the local authorities. In those circumstances the tenants can say that a vote was held, people supported the trust and therefore they have to live with it for better or for worse. In that way, although one may not get wholehearted co-operation, at least one would get an understanding that it is a worthwhile venture supported by a majority of people.
Holding a ballot was a good thing to do. When the Government did it at Thamesmead in 1985 it was the right thing to do. Why should they not agree to it now and why should they not agree to this amendment? It was because a vote was held and tenants were involved from the very beginning that there was the prospect of a housing action trust with some clout, some meaning and some possibility of co-operation from the people concerned.
This is a very simple amendment. It says that people should have the right to say what happens in their own homes. That is what the Government say. Now let the Government give some meaning to that statement. Is there anyone in this Chamber who would not be concerned if the Secretary of State suddenly said that he was taking over our homes without consultation and without giving us the right to say anything about it? That is precisely how tenants feel now. The petitions from three areas are evidence of that. I promise the Committee that the

395
feeling is the same all over the proposed housing trust areas. The Secretary of State knows that because he has met some of the tenants. The Committee will know it because the tenants concerned will certainly make it their business to ensure that we know it.
It would be very easy for this Chamber to agree to these amendments without in any way damaging the principle of the housing action trusts. That would allay the fears of the tenants and establish housing action trusts in a way in which trust between tenant, government and local authorities actually means something. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I very often agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh has to say. However, on this occasion he referred to the local housing authority as being the elected body. I should like to point out to him that the Secretary of State has also been elected. I doubt whether any high-handed action such as he fears is any worse coming from the Secretary of State than it would be if it came from the local housing authority. Such things can happen, as I well know from local organisations.
Incidentally, what he complains about is already provided for in the next section of the Bill. I can see the force of his argument but I do not believe that the action he proposes is called for in this part of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Newport: I very much support the amendment. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the Secretary of State lives in Cirencester and not in the next street, which is probably the situation in most areas which have been designated housing action trust areas. Councillors usually live locally and the tenants of those estates are able to see their local representatives. Some may even live in the next street, possibly even next door to them. Tenants can go to the council chamber; they can see the housing officer, their complaints can be dealt with. If their councillors are not satisfactory they can kick them out. I note that the other day the Secretary of State refused to meet a delegation of people from Berkshire who had gone to Cirencester: he sent his agent to see them. They were concerned about a different matter.
I am an avid watcher of gardening programmes on television; my wife is a good gardener. Some noble Lords may have seen a gardening programme the other day about a street in Peckham. It was quite magnificent; all the gardens were so well tended. That could not have come about without co-operation between the occupiers of those houses, whether they were owner-occupiers or tenants, and the local authority. It did not need a housing action area to bring that about.
I admire the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Marvels have been done by successive governments who have put money into Northern Ireland's housing situation which has been transformed since responsibility was taken away from the local authorities. It was taken away for very different reasons, about which we all know. Here in London and in other cities, surely before such draconian measures are taken and people are
396
brought in to take over whole housing estates the tenants should not only be informed but won over and certainly given a chance to vote on the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave the example of Thamesmead. I cannot understand why the Government are so worried that they might lose out. Surely it is up to the Department of the Environment and its representatives to sell to the tenants the idea that if there is to be a housing action area and £125 million or whatever sum put into such schemes—with improvements being made and architects being brought in to see how the properties can be improved —it is essential to have the goodwill of the local authority for it to have any chance of succeeding. However, when the Government deal with these matters in the arbitrary way in which they have done—and I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that it is typical of the present Secretary of State —then such schemes are doomed to failure. This amendment is a vote for democracy. I beg the Committee to support it.
4 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I hate to intrude on an amendment moved by my noble friend and colleague, Lord McIntosh, but I am sure that he will understand. This section of the Bill and the question of HATs was introduced into this Chamber and another place at a very late stage. The Minister will recall that only a couple of weeks ago I questioned him on the procedure that had been adopted in the proposed removal of 450 families in Tower Hamlets in order to make way for a roadway into Canary Wharf. I made the point then to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that when conducting negotiations, finding out the views of the local authority is not necessarily commensurate with finding out the views of the tenants. The noble Lord said that the world was not perfect and he hoped that I would remember that at the Committee stage of the forthcoming Housing Bill. That is the point we have now reached.
I should like to remind him that we are concerned about the tenants and their right to determine their own future. This Government are of a party which continually talks of the individual. Surely people who have entered into a contract with a local authority and who have taken up residence in a local authority property are entitled to cast their votes when changes are proposed.
I should like to draw attention to one matter following discussion with a wide-ranging delegation that a cross-section of noble Lords met at lunchtime. To some of the group who were representing large blocks of flats in the London area —a HATs area —I put the question: what is in fact involved? I was told that there were four blocks which housed 300 family units. When I asked about the object of the exercise and whether it would mean that improvements that were being carried out could be undertaken with the people in situ, they replied that that was not the case and tint it would mean decanting the four blocks of flats.
Fifteen years ago I was chairman of housing in a local authority that started a large-scale modernisation programme on pre-war houses—not

397
flats. Decanting those people from their houses was a task of immense proportions. To return to my essential point, if one says to any London authority, "We shall put a HATs organisation in charge of your area and it means decanting 400,000 families", to where in London will they be decanted? There are no surplus houses available to local authorities in London.
Are the Government accepting that those people can just be decanted and form part of the ever-growing queue of homeless people whose number is rising quite dramatically in London week by week? I do not for one moment believe that this exercise, sprung so late in the Bill, has been even remotely thought through to its ultimate conclusion. There is no—I repeat, no—local authority in the United Kingdom that is also a housing authority, so far as I am aware, which has a surplus of houses to which it could decant people while a HATs organisation is undertaking improvements.
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh represents a minimum demand in asking for tenants to be given the right to determine their future. I do not know whether the question of decanting was covered in another place, but if the Minister thinks that this exercise of HATs can proceed on the basis of not taking into account that very important facet of house improvement, then obviously he has never dealt with housing problems in the past. In my opinion the scheme is doomed to failure when it is introduced over the heads of local authority tenants who overwhelmingly do not want it. I believe the Minister would do well to take very seriously this amendment moved by my noble friend and colleague alongside me on the Front Bench.
Lord Moyne: I was inclined to support this amendment. especially in the light of the recent statement by the Minister of Housing about the need to have the support of the people if the schemes are to work. However, when speaking today to a group of council tenants who were bringing the petitions which we know have been handed in, I found that some of them thought that their rents would increase under a Housing Action Trust and that therefore they were opposed to it.
As the true position, I learned, can only be explained individually and thoroughly after the establishment of a Housing Action Trust for an area, I feel that I cannot support the amendment. There is a chicken and egg situation here. Housing action trusts cannot present themselves until they are established. And they cannot be established until they have been agreed by a ballot. It is a difficult situation.
I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply, will give his attention to that aspect of consultation. I hope that he can at least give an assurance that "fair rents" will still apply under a HATs regime. That seems to me to be fundamental. I should wish that HATs would be established first experimentally in areas of the greatest need where local authorities for one reason or another have failed to pull up their socks, but not imposed in areas where local authorities may already be beginning to do so. In fact, if I may make a stupid pun: hats off to high socks.
Lord Somers: I am sorry to rise again, but even though a great number of noble Lords on this side of the Committee have said it is true —and I am sure that it is —is this not already provided for in Clause 61(1) in which it is stated:
"Before making a designation order, the Secretary of State shall consult every local housing authority any part of whose district is to be included in the proposed designated area".
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord makes the mistake of saying "local housing authority". We have tried to differentiate between the local housing authority and the tenants. Our main priority is the tenant, not the local authority. Very often the differences between the tenants and their local authority are quite profound. I submit that that factor is not covered in the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not been following the Bill, but I have been listening very carefully to this debate. If the Labour Party's point is that it is the tenants who should be consulted and not the local authority, why did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, move Amendment No. 116A first? If that was their intention, they would not have done so. The Committee might have accepted Amendment No. 116A. The local authority would then have been consulted and not the tenant. We all know what that would have implied.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I may turn to Clause 60 which defines the way in which one has to designate an area. In Clause 60(5)(b), (c) and (d) we see quite clearly the physical considerations: the way in which the local authority manage the housing, and the living conditions of those who live in the area. I do not know very much about London local authorities, or many local authorities, apart from the West Midlands. I know a lot about the Sandwell local authority because it is adjacent to the city of Birmingham. I hope that the Minister knows that part of the Sandwell local authority is in the Black Country re-development scheme. It is an area that has suffered a great deal through the closure of the steel and iron works in the Black Country. However, in spite of that, it has a well run local authority and one that is very well thought of by the residents in that area.
I was in the area about five hours after residents had received a letter from the Secretary of State. Having seen a newsflash on the television and heard it on the radio, and 10 minutes later to have a letter of that description pushed through one's letterbox, was the cause of a great deal of heartache and anxiety. The tenants were so concerned that the next day the Sandwell local authority had to hire a portable mobile office in one of the action areas to cope with literally hundreds of people who were coming to ask what was going to happen to their properties. If that is what the Government mean by consultation, there is no hope in this respect.
Sandwell is a very moderate local authority. All along it has been working with the inner city partnerships, with urban grant aid, and with civil servants. It was using the money that the Government were giving them—because it was a deprived area —usually to the satisfaction of the civil

399
servants. It is an authority which has a large ethnic minority in its midst. It is interesting that of the three local authorities —Leeds, Sunderland and Sandwell—in those areas that have come under the HATs, the leader of the council represents one of the wards inside the HAT. Of course they are all Labour-controlled. I do not draw any strong conclusions from that, although there are some conclusions that one ought to draw.
I have visited Sandwell. I know that it does not come within the category of the "physical state and design" of the dwellings, nor with the definition of the way in which the local authority is managing it. Nor does it come under the definition of the living conditions. I cannot show pictures of the local authority houses very easily but this is the comment about them:
"Most of the chosen housing action trust areas consist of good quality, well maintained properties which are amongst the most popular in the horough".
I do not know whether the Minister can see these pictures. They are housing action areas, with green trees and grass. It is good local authority housing.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Will the noble Baroness give way? I am not sure that she is in order in showing pictures in the Chamber. Perhaps she can leave them in the Library so that we can see them easily.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am sure that if I ask Sandwell local authority, it will send copies. Perhaps I may send a copy to the noble Lord himself. if I have done wrong in showing the pictures—
Noble Lords: No, no.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I think that the Minister looked at them with interest. In this action area there is a part II sheltered accommodation for the elderly which contains three well-designed warden service flats. It also has another 94 bungalows for the elderly. In the autumn a hostel is being erected which is funded by MENCAP. Further warden service housing is being carried out by a housing association. It completely refurbished a large block of 90 flats for homeless young people which will have a full-time warden and a closed entry. That is being tenanted at the present moment. The whole of the ground floor is being given over to services for advice which the young people will require.
The development is under the probation service, the social services and the local authority. It would have been finished and fully tenanted at the present time except that the homeless people unfortunately were unable to obtain their grants from the DHSS for essential furnishings. They are homeless. The Government have stopped that grant since April. The furniture that is to be provided now has to be found from another source.
For those Members of the Committee who are interested in the disabled, this hostel for young people who are homeless has a special ramp for those with handicaps. This is a scheme in an area that I know well—Sandwell—which should never have
400
been included. I know that the Minister will say that there is not a variety of mix. However, there is a variety of mix because they are six multi-storey blocks of flats. They are all empty now. It has taken two years for the local authority to rehouse all the. people who were in these flats. At the moment they are on offer to private builders, and the large contractors will demolish them and build houses for sale. One has therefore a complete mix in the area beside the houses that have been sold by the local authority. The only thing that is delaying those blocks of flats is that the Government are not paying out the city action money to the private developer, otherwise those schemes would have been started at least six months ago. It is therefore important for us to ask this question: how did the Secretary of State decide upon these housing action areas? I quote from a letter from the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to the Secretary of State:
"When Housing Act Trusts were first being canvassed, the Council made it quite clear to your Department that they would not welcome the scheme in our area, and they wish to place on record their total opposition to the proposed creation of a Housing Action Trust in Sandwell".
Why have they, when the local authority made that quite clear to the Minister in February this year when it was being canvassed, sprung a HAT on Sandwell without any notification? The tenants, the radio and the television had notice of it being declared a HAT area before the local authority received the correspondence.
When the Minister receives the delegations I believe it is important for him to make quite sure that not only the local authority's wishes are taken seriously into consideration —especially as I know the Sandwell area —because the elected council is representing the tenants and the tenants are backing the local authority.
Lord Trafford: I am afraid that I cannot follow the noble Baroness with her detailed knowledge of Sandwell, but if she gives her attention to Clause 61 she will discover that a resolution of the House has to be taken on this matter, and that would be the appropriate occasion to hear in detail about the interesting area to which she referred and described verbally. I understand she will leave pictures of that area in the Library and elsewhere.
There is a significant problem which in one way or another we have to face. That is that there are estates and areas dotted about the country in various places, but obviously more concentrated in larger cities than elsewhere, where the housing is definitely substandard and the estate gives the impression of being in great difficulty. Unfortunately, for years this has been under the control of local authorities and nothing much has been done.
It may not be the fault of the local authority. In many areas a great deal has been done, but in others it has not for various reasons. It perhaps has not been able to be done because either they cannot, they will not and have not for one reason or another achieved the objectives of improving the quality of the housing stock. It is monumental in its implications as far as concerns the inner cities. I do not believe that on either side of the Chamber there is any great

401
argument about particular areas. There is a need for action.
We have just heard from the noble Baroness that one area has just been designated where she argues that there is no need for action. This would seem to me to be a case for further argument and possibly for the procedures under Clause 61.
I wish to put one or two points to the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, who introduced the amendment. If there is this need for action and it has not happened, it is occasionally necessary that governments should step in. Governments are elected; Secretaries of State are elected; the other House is elected. There are resolutions of the House on the HATs proposals before they can come into effect and there is also, under Clause 64, a considerable amount of consultation to be undertaken on the proposal put forward by the HATs, before they take effect or before the Secretary of State can agree.
It seems to me that there are considerable protections. There is also the problem about enough publicity having been carried out. Under both clauses there are certain protections. The noble Lord asks how we would like our homes to be suddenly acquired. Our homes are nowadays suddenly acquired by the use of a somewhat arbitrary power under issues such as CPOs, which we may or may not like. We heard an example of how a road opening programme resulted in a large number of people being moved.
I am not arguing that here we are in the same kind of situation, but there are difficulties that arise in areas where something should be done, has not been done, and ought to be done in the interests of the city. That includes the tenants who live there as well. Something can and should be done. Although the noble Lord, Lord Ross, supported the amendment, he also pointed out that the intervention of central government in Northern Ireland has made a significant difference to the housing situation. I believe that to be true. That is a further example of where such selective interventions can be of great assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a great deal of this problem of tenants. If one tells tenants in the first place that a HATs proposal will inevitably result in their being rendered either homeless or forced to pay vastly increased rents it is obvious that any tenant would be inclined to vote against such a proposal. I understand that that is part of the argument (I shall not use the term "propaganda") that has been put across. If this was shown not to be true when the HATs proposal comes out or if there were improvements for the tenants in the HATs proposal, many may then say that perhaps they were wrong in trying to oppose the proposals in the first instance. They perhaps should have waited to see what would be achieved because a great many of the people in these places would say the same thing over and over again; that is: "This is not a very nice place to live. I do wish somebody would do something about it". When somebody does, of course, there are inevitably anxieties. Everybody understands that, but perhaps the action that is needed can in this way be achieved.
Lord Ross of Newport: May I draw the noble Lord's memory back to the early 1960s? Why does he think that we have all the high rise flats and high density housing that we have in the inner city areas? It was forced upon the local authorities by the Department of the Environment. I remember going to a seminar addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. It was an RICS seminar in Cambridge at which we were asked to support this very kind of design.
It is not the older type of housing that is now in distress; it is this stuff; and it was put upon the local authorities by this Government. Does the Minister believe now that a government setting up housing action trusts will be any better? I doubt it. All we are asking for in the amendments is that the tenants should at least have the case put to them and explained to them thoroughly and then be given a chance to vote on it. We have been given examples of road schemes and matters such as that. There are planning appeals, appeals to the Minister appeals to this House. They go through infinite matters. One concerning Lyndhurst was thrown out only last week by this House. So people do have their rights. In this case they will have issues imposed upon them with very little chance for them to say anything against it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trafford: On the noble Lords' last point, there is an appeal both to the Secretary of State and to this House on the establishment of HATs, as there is on the establishment of the proposal. To take his first point, I believe that there is much in what he said about high rise flats causing many of the problems. I presume that the argument at that time would have gone something like this: "We do not have enough land to invade the green belt and we shall go upwards instead of' outwards". I always felt that that was a daft argument.
I do not believe that any of us is in the business of defending a government of whatever complexion—I believe it was Tory then, though I am not sure —over what happened in 1960. I have never been able to understand why people could not admit that they were wrong, and I believe they were wrong. Local authorities, private landlords, the developers and new towns have all been right and should he congratulated on the outcome—but sometimes they have been wrong. In the example that the noble Lord gave —and as he supports the amendment it would be the example that he gives —I could not agree with him more.
Lord Stallard: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I am always very interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. We have listened to each other for a number of years now and he always puts some interesting points. When he reads what he has just said and his comparison of a compulsory purchase order with HATs, I think he will find that on reflection it is one of the most interesting ideas yet in the field of housing. I imagine it will create a great deal of interest among those who are about to be involved in these circumstances. The fact that HATs being compared with compulsory purchase orders might raise another few questions.

403
The noble Lord also said that there was a need for action. I could not agree more. The Government have laid great stress on this. Indeed one of the planks of their arguments for all the measures that they are putting through is this question of accountability. We have had that right from the beginning of the Session in one order or another. It was to get rid of the so-called Left-wing councils or the ultra Left-wing councils. Councils had to be made more accountable. They then became the guardians of accountability and had to be accountable to the people. The HATs argument appears to turn that completely on its head.
If one reads some of the representations which were made in the consultative document one can see that all the local authority associations, including the ADC and AMA, had grave doubts about the question of accountability. They said that the HAT procedure would not work because it was not accountable to the local people; that HATs would not be accountable to the electorate in the same way as local authorities. Therefore there was a need for action to provide the resources for local authorities to do what we are saying ought to be done, if it has to be done. The need was to give local authorities adequate resources to do the job which we are discussing and which HATs may conceivably do in some selected areas.
A great deal of scepticism is involved, particularly when one notes that all the activity emerges from the few remarks made by the Prime Minister on the steps of Downing Street after the result of the general election when she pledged to obtain the support of the inner cities. She was after the inner cities and she was determined to obtain their support. This links up with that and it is a weapon which the Government intend to use. They will smash any opposition if it gets in the way of' their desire, attempt and need to obtain the support of the inner cities. That is what the Housing Bill is all about and it is what the HATs are all about. They are not about accountability; they are about the opposite. The Government take away the body which is accountable to local authorities. They take away the representatives of local citizens and erect the structure of' HATs which we are now discussing.
In its response to the White Paper and since, the ADC considers that it is vital for HATs to be set up only with the agreement of the local authority. It is with agreement and not merely after consultation. I must confess that when I listen to the Minister and other Members of the Front Bench speaking about consultation I am reminded of my time as a trade union representative many years ago. Joint consultation and consultation always meant, and in many cases still mean—and that is certainly so in this case—that management came forward with a set of proposals. It presented them to the trade union representatives and said, "Take them away and come back when you have them agreed". There was no consultation; they were informed about what was to be done and they opposed the proposals at their peril.
The same has been said in this respect. This is not consultation. My noble friend said that tenants will be told what will happen in their area. They will not
404
be asked whether they think it is right or whether they have any ideas about it. What is being said is, "We are telling you what will happen in your area on the setting up of a HAT". That is not consultation; that is information. We are seeking real consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, pointed to some of the tenants' concerns about rents. Of course they are concerned about rents, which will increase. I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. He pointed out that tenants included in the HAT area will have a different person setting their rents. It is obvious that a completely different group will set the rent, decide on the quality of management and the maintenance of the estates. That will be different from the present situation. The allocation and lettings policy on the estate will be different. The quality of policy on harassment and rent arrears will be different, as will the approachability and responsiveness of staff. All those differences must have an effect on rents. When the HAT disappears and the tenants are handed over to a private landlord, they will become assured tenants and their rents will increase in any event. Therefore they are bound to be worried about the effect of the HAT proposal. The tenants will be worried about their rents in the immediate future and for some time beyond that.
Lord Moyne: I hope that the Minister will be able to set the noble Lord's mind at rest on these matters. As I understand it, the "fair rent" regime will apply for all time to sitting tenants. However, if I am wrong about that the Minister will correct me.
Lord Stallard: It can apply only for a limited time. No doubt we shall have this argument later when dealing with the alleged tenants' choice procedures. The tenants who will live in the area of a HAT will have real fears of becoming assured tenants. When the HAT disappears they will become tenants of other landlords, as I understand the Bill. They will then lose the security of tenancy which they had with the local authority. That automatically means increased rents, and there is no doubt about that. The Minister may say that that is not true and tell me that I am wrong, but I know that I am right. Someone once told me that he had a notice in his office which stated, "I know that I am always right"—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If my noble friend will permit me, it is, "I have many faults but being wrong is not one of them".
Lord Stallard: I accept that.
Lord Broxbourne: In this year of the tercentenary, does not the noble Lord recall the Cromwellian injunction to the Rump Parliament? It was:
"By the bowels of Christ, gentlemen, I beseech ye, conceive it possible ye may be wrong".
Lord Stallard: I do not want to go into the tercentenary because we may well have differences of opinion about what we are celebrating and whether we should celebrate the tercentenary from where I stand. I do not want to be drawn into that argument yet. Perhaps one day I may be. I was concerned

405
mainly with the tenants in HATs and with more mundane issues connected with life as it is today.
It is not consultation, but it is information. As regards consultation I should like to refer to Clause 61(2), which provides that:
"Before making a designation order, the Secretary of State shall take such steps as appear to him best designed to secure that the proposal…is brought to the notice of persons appearing to him to be likely to be affected by the proposal-.
I do not know what the Minister has in mind, but I have yet to hear what is meant by "persons likely to be affected".
Everyone talks about local authorities, and that is quite right. Some people mention tenants—we do so —and that is even more right. However, many more people are affected by such a change in any area, as I know from my local authority experience. One must consult local authority employers who have a voice and will be affected. The local enterprise agency, where one exists, will be affected and should be consulted. The health and social services in the area must be consulted, more so because of the care in the community provisions about which we have spoken. They must be a part, and people will certainly be affected.
The police must be consulted because they are affected by every major change in any local authority area. Before making any changes most of us usually consult the police, either personally or in a group. There is no mention that the police will be involved in the consultative process. The statutory undertakers, such as water, are involved in the major changes. One cannot merely say that they are on the edge and nothing to do with the huge chunk of 3,000 or 4,000 houses which it is intended to take over and put into HATs. The voluntary organisations must be consulted because they, probably more than some arms of local authorities, are affected by changes in any district. I should like to hear the Minister say that, if the Government mean all the people who are affected, that is the list and that others can probably be added. I should like him to confirm that all those people are on his list to be consulted and that their opinions will he taken into consideration.
We know what we are talking about: we are talking about rushing through a Bill which will make it easier for the Government to do all kinds of things. However, here we are concerned to improve the Bill rather than merely watch the Minister digging his heels in. We say that the simple housing centred approach—this approach of the Minister and his noble and right honourable friends —based upon changing tenures, which is what this Bill is about, means that regeneration will not happen because the population will simply be moved from one part of the area into another.
I believe that that has been recognised in other areas where experiments like this have taken place based only on housing. The scheme has to be based on much more than that; It has to be based on all the services that I have mentioned. Unless they are consulted and their opinions and views noted in the way in which my noble friend outlined in his opening remarks, I believe that the whole scheme is doomed to failure.
406
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments as a genuine attempt to improve the situation rather than simply to accept the status quo.
The Earl of Caithness; We are discussing Amendments Nos. 116AB and 116C but many of my remarks in response to our most useful and interesting debate will cover Amendment No. 117 which I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will move shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, refers to the flowering beauty of North Peckham. Perhaps I may suggest that he pays a visit to the North Peckham and Gloucester Grove estates. Perhaps I may also suggest that he sees for himself the appalling physical and environmental conditions—the rubbish, the graffiti, the empty flats and the boarded-up ground-floor housing where people live terrified behind the boarding because of the high rates of crime and vandalism. That is what HATs are being set up to change.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the booklet which my department has issued which is called Housing Action Trusts. It sets out very simply what HATs will be and how they affect those in the locality. I shall deal with some of the specific points in answer to the debate. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I have listened with great care and interest to the debate, and perhaps with more care and interest than I might have done had I not taken on my new responsibilities. As I shall be taking a more active role in this area, it has been very useful to hear what Members of the Committee have to say.
I well understand the concerns which lie behind these amendments. The introduction of housing action trusts are a new approach to the renovation and improvement of major concentrations of local authority housing. It is inevitable that people feel uncertain and a little confused about what this might mean for them. But I do not think that the way to deal with these concerns is by arranging ballots to decide whether HATs should be designated.
However much information the Government might provide in advance of the establishment of a HAT, the changes of a balanced and informative local campaign taking place are negligible. HATs will not exist and will not therefore show tenants what they could expect, the very point made by my noble friend Lord Moyne. Meanwhile those opposed to HATs will simply play on the concerns of people living in poor housing conditions and frighten them into believing that HATs will make their lives worse. There is plenty of evidence now of misleading information being generated in this way and it simply misrepresents the facts. Some parts of the speeches we have heard this afternoon are misrepresenting the situation and I shall come on in detail to that. Our objective is to set up short-life organisations which can channel resources into an area in a way which will make people's lives much better, not worse.
I therefore think it is more sensible to go through the consultative and parliamentary procedures for which the Bill provides; let tenants see what benefits HATs will bring; and then let them make informed choices about their futures.

407
Let us look at what the Government are doing to achieve these objectives. First, we said that we would ensure that all those likely to be affected by a proposal to set up a HAT would be informed about what this might mean for them. We have fulfilled that commitment. My right honourable friend wrote to every occupier in the six potential HAT areas on 11th July, the date of the announcement about the HAT areas. Attached to that letter was a sheet of paper asking those affected if they would like more information. That was set out in English, Urdu, Gujarati, Vietnamese, Punjabi and Bengali. That is a sign of the effort that we are prepared to make to ensure that everybody understands what we are trying to do.
Secondly, we said that we would consult local councils about our proposals. That commitment is being honoured too. My right honourable friend wrote to the six leaders of the councils concerned on 11th July inviting them, with tenants' representatives, to discuss the HATs' proposals with Ministers. Some of these meetings have already been held; I hope that the remaining ones will be held very soon.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I was interested to hear the Minister give a list of the languages which were made available. How did the people who were distributing them know which language the people would want?
The Earl of Caithness: Because the part to which I referred is all on one page in the six different languages so that only one sheet of paper was needed.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With due respect to the noble Earl, the copy which I have is the English copy and there is nothing on the back of it in any other language.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry about that. The last sentence of the letter says:
"In the meantime, if you would like more information about how Housing Action Trusts will work, please send off the slip enclosed and contact my department's regional office".
Attached to that is the further information and in order to understand that, it is set out in the six languages to which I have referred.
Thirdly, we have said that final decisions on the areas to be designated as HATs will be taken in the light of consultants' studies and of local views. This means, as the letters to all local people said, that if we still think later this year that the six authorities named would benefit from a HAT, my right honourable friend will consult them further and make sure that local people know what is entailed. If we then decide to go ahead with the proposed HATs, Parliament will consider them under affirmative resolution order procedures.
This all happens before a HAT can be set up. The noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Stallard, reminded the Committee of the importance of tenants in this. Once it has been established, there would be tenant representation on HAT boards; there would be tenants' advisory fora to provide a
408
way of channelling local peoples' views to HATs beyond representation on the Boards.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is the Minister aware that the tenants' representatives who met the Secretary of State yesterday indicated quite clearly that they wanted nothing whatever to do with the exercise? What is the alternative, if that is the outcome?
The Earl of Caithness: I want to write down exactly what the noble Lord said as I shall return to that matter later.
Full consultation will take place with tenants HATs about their plans for the area. HATs will have to report on this consultation exercise to the Secretary of State. It will be clear to noble Lords that the Government believe that HAT will only be able to do its job properly with the involvement and cooperation of people living in the ara. That is why we have repeatedly said that HATs will put great stress on consulting tenants, asking them for their own ideas and keeping them informed about plans and progress.
But many tenants will say that this is all very well. What they are particularly concerned about is their long-term future when HATs have completed their work and come to dispose of property. And it is right that they should have a clear reassurance about that.
HATs are temporary bodies. Their aim is to give tenants decent housing, good management and maintenance services and more choice. That choice will become a reality when HATs have finished their improvement work. We hope that many tenants will want to buy their own homes but for those who prefer to continue to rent the Bill requires that HATs will only be able to transfer secure tenants and their properties to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. These might be housing associations, tenants' co-operatives or private sector landlords. In all cases, this will mean transfers can only take place to responsible, financially stable landlords whose interests lie in maintaining stock acquired from HATs for letting at rents affordable by those in low paid employment. The tenants' guarantees we have already discussed in Part 11 will, of course, apply here.
Some tenants may not like any of these options. That was one point where the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, perhaps unintentionally, seemed to indicate that the only choice for tenants after the HAT ceases is to go to a private landlord. What they may really want is to remain as council tenants. I can give the committee an absolute guarantee that that choice will be available to tenants when HATs have finished their improvement work. The Bill requires HATs to give tenants an opportunity to say whether they want to return to the council. If the council is willing, the tenants' wishes will be honoured.
I hope the Committee will agree that this represents an excellent deal for tenants. They will have their housing improved at government expense and a real choice in their futures. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was slightly scaremongering, if I may say so, about decanting in London. He spoke about housing to deal with 400,000 families.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I did not say 400,000. I said 300 families in four blocks of flats.
The Earl of Caithness: If the noble Lord reads the Official Report he will find that he referred to 400,000 people or families.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I want to correct that. I am talking about 300 families in four blocks. I want to get the record right.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dean of Beswick: The figures I gave were 300 families in four blocks of flats. We should get the record right.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. We will look at the Official Report and I hereby totally apologise to the noble Lord if I have misheard him at any stage. However, my recollection is that he referred to 400,000 and that is what I have written down in front of me.
The noble Lord is nevertheless right to raise the principle of decanting. However, we are talking about three HATs in London. We are proposing to transfer altogether some 7,000 dwellings in those three HATs. Most importantly, the vacant local authority outstanding stock in the three London authorities, which has been standing empty for more than six months, as at 1st April 1987 stood at 4,000 units. I think that that puts what the noble Lord said —it was a genuine concern—into its proper perspective.
My noble friend Lord Moyne referred to concerns about rents. The truth is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's letter makes clear to tenants that their rents will not increase before the HATs have carried our improvements. Even after the improvements, their rents would not rise out of line with council rents. Tenants will therefore be in a very much more secure and stable position than my noble friend was led to believe at a meeting earlier today or, indeed, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, raised an important point. Of course, we are at a consultation stage. I will study with interest the information that the noble Baroness has on Sandwell. The consultation process that we are having, and hope to continue not only with the local authorities but, more importantly, also with the tenants will, I hope, solve some of the problems raised.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the recent meeting between the Secretary of State and Lambeth councillors and tenants' representatives. Following my right honourable friend's letter inviting the leader and tenants' representatives to discuss the proposals for a Lambeth HAT with him, a meeting was arranged in the department's offices yesterday morning. The object of the meeting was to explain our proposals and to begin the process of hearing what tenants had to say about them. However, the tenants' representatives were not prepared to have
410
any kind of dialogue. Regrettably, they did not want to know, nor did they seem to care, about whether proposals designed to improve conditions in some very poor parts of Lambeth were worth talking about. Their primary concern was that there should be a ballot. Without that, they wanted nothing further to do with HATs. They therefore walked out of the meeting after 15 minutes.
Discussion is a two-way process. For the Government, that means making our best efforts to explain our proposals and hearing what people have to say before making final decisions. We are committed to doing precisely that. It also means that tenants' representatives must be willing to examine our proposals, to listen to what we have to say about them and pass that information fairly and squarely back to those they represent. If they are not prepared to act in that responsible manner (as the Lambeth tenants' representatives showed they were not) how can the people who live in the poor housing conditions that we want to put right make informed judgments?
The answer is that they cannot. They will be fed more and more misleading information about rents doubling, evictions, yuppies taking over their housing, and so on. In those circumstances, I repeat that the chances of a balanced and informative local campaign taking place before a ballot are nil. We intend to continue with our efforts to explain to the local people what HATs mean for them, but we remain of the view that ballots arc not the way to deal with decisions on whether or not HATs should he established in particular areas.
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that he did not object to HATs in principle. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, objected in principle because he saw no need for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, said Sandwell was clearly against the principle. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was also not convinced that HATs were needed. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said that the tenants he had spoken to wanted nothing whatever to do with the exercise. Obviously the information that has been given to some of the tenants is misleading. I have in front of me a leaflet sent out by the Angell Labour Party. Much of that information is misleading. That is the real point of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh is seeking —not a better deal for the tenants but to prevent having HATs at all.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he clarify a point concerning the letter that he has which was sent to the tenants and the letter I have which was sent to the tenants? The letter I have has on the top of it the address,
"2 Marsham Street, London, July 1988".
It has the Department of the Environment stamp and at the bottom of the letter is an illegible signature, but it also has the name of Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment. Is that the same letter as the noble Earl has in front of him?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed it is.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: There is nothing in my copy of the letter, which was delivered to all the people in Sandwell, about any other language. I could not raise this matter when the noble Earl replied to me earlier because I had given my copy of the letter to Hansard. There is nothing in the letter about any other language.
The Earl of Caithness: I am concerned to hear what the noble Baroness said. I should like to discuss that with her. Attached to the copy of the letter in my possession is something different.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response has a certain bland plausibility. Unfortunately, it bears very little relationship to the situation as seen by the tenants in these estates. This arises not so much from the distorted publicity which the Minister alleges has come from other groups but from the publicity from which he himself proudly quotes. The noble Earl cannot deny that the Government's case has been put to the tenants because he has himself quoted it.
Only this morning I met tenants from five of the six local authorities concerned. I shall tell the Committee a little of what they said as regards the nature of the designation and what is felt about it. There are 300 dwellings on the Ocean estate, Tower Hamlets, comprising four different blocks. I am told that many of the tenants receive housing benefit. There is one good block upon which a great deal of money has been spent and there are three bad blocks for which the GLC, when it existed, had allocated £14 million for radical improvements to be made. The tenants told me that that proposal was stopped by the Government and that the improvement could have taken place before the GLC was abolished, but for government intervention. They now say that the blocks should be demolished. I should like to see what a housing action trust will do in those circumstances.
The Boundary estate is also in Tower Hamlets and the tenants are ecstatic about their housing. It is one of the earliest LCC estates and it was renovated by that body after the war in such a way that two flats were made into one flat of a decent size. The tenants say that apart from the condition of the brickwork on the outside, which should be cleaned, they love living there and do not want the estate changed. They have central heating and other modern amenities—everything they want. They believe that they are in a housing action trust area because they live right on the edge of the City and within easy walking distance of the City and the Barbican. The tenants believe that the intention is for the estate to be sold off for yuppie housing. The Minister used the words.The tenants believe that is what will happen because they cannot think of any conceivable reason, from the condition of their properties, why they should be included in this scheme.
The Minister quoted north Peckham. There is already joint action between the Department of the Environment and the local Southwark council. There is an estate action programme which has already started work, but in anticipation of the housing
412
action trust proposal the government money for the improvements has been frozen and work is not going ahead. The work that could have been done by agreement between the tenants, the council and central government is no longer taking place. These tenants feel very aggrieved—I am putting it mildly—now that they have learnt that they are to be handed over to a housing action trust instead of having the improvements continued which have already been agreed.
I now deal with Angell town and the Loughborough estates in Lambeth. The noble Earl referred to publicity from the Angell town Labour Party. The tenants of Angell town and Loughborough estates met the Secretary of State yesterday morning. as we were told. The Secretary of State turned his back on the leader of the Lambeth Council, saying "I do not want to hear from you; I only wish to hear from the tenants. The tenants are important". When the tenants asked, as an opening question, whether they were to have any say in being transferred, the Secretary of State brushed them off and he would not listen. He would not have anything to do with them. It was at that stage that they walked out of the meeting because their first question was treated with contempt by the Secretary of State and their elected representative, who was with them and who is, according to the Bill, supposed to be consulted was ignored by the Secretary of State.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Disgraceful!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They too have had an estate action programme but it has been frozen because of the proposal for the housing action trust.
As regards the Windmill Lane estate in Sandwell, it has had £2 million spent on it for improvements by the local authority. The sum of £125 million is proposed for the whole programme, which may be in the region of £3,000 to £4,000 for each property. That is what is proposed for the housing action trust area, but that sum will not put some of these estates to rights. The amount of money allocated by local authorities, the Greater London Council, the estate action programme and the various other programmes that exist is far more than this token gesture of central government money which is supposed to make everyone grateful.
In all these matters the Minister is speaking against the facts and against proposals which have already been implemented and which are being frozen because of the housing action trusts. I presented a petition from 4,655 tenants in Sheffield who protest against the Housing Bill. Is the Minister telling me that none of those tenants has read the elegant little leaflet produced by the department and the letter from the Secretary of State? I simply do not believe it. Is the Minister telling me that the department's publicity is so ineffective that it turns everyone in the opposite direction?
The Earl of Caithness: Can the noble Lord clarify that? I thought that when he read out the petition it concerned only the voting structure in Part IV of the Bill
Lord McIntosh of
Haringey: It did indeed, and it included tenants from estates which are affected by the housing action trusts. These are people who do not make the distinction between Part IV and Part III of the Bill and I believe they can be excused for that. The truth of the matter is that the Government are determined to go ahead with these housing action trusts regardless of the past history of the estates and of any action which is being taken by local authorities—often in conjunction with central government—to improve these estates. They are doing so for a political reason and in order to diminish and humiliate local government. That is the purpose behind these measures. The amount of money proposed for the housing action trusts is derisory compared with the amount of money provided for housing improvement programmes and which has been taken away from local authorities all over the country and not simply from the six local authorities mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who was not long in her place, accused me of wanting local authority control. I raised that matter only in order to ask the Minister the question which he has not answered but to which the answer is only too obvious. I asked the Minister whether he was prepared to impose housing action trust areas and to thrust them down the throats of local people regardless of the views of the local authorities and the tenants. The answer is all too clear. That is exactly the intention of the Government. For that reason, and if only for that reason (there are many more that I could give that reflect the views of the tenants in those areas) it is necessary to take the opinion of the Committee.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116AB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Airedale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Galpern, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Chitnis, L

Henniker, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hooson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hunt, L.

Diamond, L.

Ingleby, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Jeger, B.

Ennals, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ezra, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Falkender, B.

Kagan, L.

414

Kennet, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rathcreecdan, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rea, L

Kirkhill, L.

Reilly, L.

Listowel, E.

Rochester, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rugby, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seebohm, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McNair, L.

Shannon, E.

Mayhew, L.

Somers, L.

Meston, L.

Stallard, L.

Milford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mulley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nathan, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Vernon, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Whaddon, L

Peston, L.

White, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NON-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Ampthill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead,L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blyth, L.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moyne, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Newall, L.

Colnbrook, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

De Freyne, L.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L.[Teller]

Renton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dundley, E.

St. Davids, V.

Dundee, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eccles, V.

Sharples, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L

Elles, B.

Strathspey, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sudeley, L.

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Teviot, L.

Fisher, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Fortescue, E.

Trafford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gainford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Wise, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 116B:
Page 46, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) The functions referred to in subsection (1) above shall include functions with respect to the housing of homeless people as specified in sections 65(2A) and 65(2B) below").
The noble Lord said: May I commence by offering an apology to the Minister. I understand that by a slip of the tongue during the debate on the last amendment I used the word "thousands". I unreservedly withdraw what I said. It was a complete slip of the tongue. If there has been any offence caused I naturally withdraw the word because that was the least of my intentions towards the Minister.
While one could talk for a long time on this amendment it is not the time of the year, nor I think within the mood of the Committee, to spend a particularly long time on it. The purpose of the amendment is to indicate that housing action trusts will take their share of responsibility regarding the question of homelessness in local authority areas where they are being formed by the Secretary of State.
Housing action trusts are obviously being formed in the main pressure areas, although I can think of some worse areas which have not been selected. I think it is fair to say that in some cases there are parts of the same local authority area where homelessness is perhaps the most profound problem. When the housing action trust is formed it is only fair to ask that it takes its fair share, and in conjunction with the local authority in whose area it is, accepts its responsibility on an agreed basis for a proportion of the homeless registered there. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I support the amendment as the progenitor in the other place of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act as it now is. If housing action trusts do not accept their share of responsibility for housing homeless people, then that Act will be in even more disarray than it is already. As has been repeated many times in this House there are now over 100,000 homeless people in London alone, and the numbers are growing. The amendment would create a legal right for local authorities to nominate new tenants to vacancies occurring in property they formerly owned which has been taken over by a housing action trust.
I congratulate the Minister on his increased role, although I am sorry to hear that he has not received an increase in salary. I hope that the Minister will take this on board, and that he will be able to give us an assurance. If we are to have housing action trusts—and let me make this clear because of a slight misquotation —and if there is no co-operation from local authorities and the situation has become disastrous, I accept that there are some areas in the country where the Government may have to intercede. However, I think that every effort should be made first to bring the tenants onside. I fully support the amendment that has just been carried: they should at least be given the chance to vote and have the case put properly to them. There are certain rundown areas in this country, and if some local
416
authorities are so bloody-minded that they are not prepared to co-operate, then I accept that in that situation the Government have a right to intercede. I just want to put that on record, if I may.
I hope at the same time that we shall get this point over about the homeless. We are now down to a derisory 20,000-plus starts of local authority housing in housing associations. One looks forward to an increasing role for them in the future, but we have the third lowest number of starts in housing associations since 1974; it is only the late 20,000s. There is an awful lot to he done. If we are serious about trying to tackle homelessness, everybody must accept their fair share. That is why I support this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, have said about how HATs should work alongside local authorities in helping to deal with the homeless. A very similar debate took place in another place where we responded to Opposition concerns by bringing forward Clause 70. Amendments Nos. 116B and 121A now seek to impose a further statutory requirement on HATs which we do not believe to be necessary.
The key contribution that we can make to alleviate homelessness with HATs in Part III of this Bill will be to bring back into use stock which is lying void at present. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, intimated, perhaps we would intervene if local authorities are too bloody-minded. On several of the estates where the Secretary of State may decide to seek parliamentary approval to designate HAT areas, there are a large number of empty properties.
Local authorities will retain their overall responsibilities under Part III of the 1985 Act towards homeless people. In most cases HATs will be taking over a comparatively small proportion of a local authority's stock. However, because they will become landlords of stock, HATs should be well placed to help local authorities to find accommodation for the homeless.
Under Clause 70, we have imposed a duty on HATs which is exactly the same as that which applies under Section 72 of the 1985 Act to local housing authorities, new town corporations, the Commission for the New Towns, registered housing associations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. This is a duty which requires that where a local housing authority requests assistance in the discharge of various of its functions under Part III of the 1985 Act, the other bodies specified in Section 72 are required to co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of these functions as is reasonable in the circumstances.
We know that it is common for local authorities to agree nomination arrangements with, for example, housing associations —even where the authorities are not directly involved in grant-aiding schemes funded by Housing Association grant—without any further specific statutory requirement beyond Section 72. We see no reason why there should not be a similar cooperation between HATs and local authorities, with Clause 70 as the back-up.

417
However, there are further safeguards. First, we shall make clear to HATs in the management guidance which the Secretary of State will issue to them, and which will be published, that they will be expected to enter into agreement with local authorities —possibly by means of formal contracts —giving local authorities access to stock held by HATs. Secondly, the Secretary of State could use his direction-making power if he considered that HATs were not co-operating with local authorities sensibly. Against this background I believe that the Government's response to the concerns of the Opposition is helpful and reasonable.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. During the vote on the last amendment, I checked with the officials that the piece of paper to which I referred was sent out with letters. That is confirmed by a number of points that have been raised on the form that I mentioned. The West Midlands regional office has received the tear-off slips attached to the Secretary of State's letters requesting leaflets in Bengali, Urdu and Punjabi. This proves that the attachment was enclosed with the letter sent to the Sandwell residents.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I entirely accept what the Minister has said. There is a note at the bottom of the Secretary of State's letter which tells them where to apply for further information. The letter is not, as the noble Earl said, distributed in the various languages. The letter says at the bottom that if you want further information, you should write to the address given. They then send you the little leaflet. I wrote myself and said that I wanted the leaflet, which they sent me. However, that is not distributed unless it is asked for. The letter that the occupier has is only in English. It says in the Notes on Clauses that the Secretary of State will, as a first step, send "Dear Occupier" letters to all those living in the area. This letter offers a leaflet explaining the proposals, which will be in the five languages.
The Earl of Caithness: I am glad that the noble Baroness received the letter. There was nothing between us. I never said that the letter was in any language other than English. I was referring to the form attached to it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I appreciate the very detailed reply that the Minister has given on the basis that he thinks that the Government have gone far enough. I and my colleagues on this side of the Chamber do not think that he has gone far enough. The Minister seemed to be making great play of the fact that there was a reservoir of empty houses in the local authority pools in the area that could cater for homeless people. If those houses are unlettable now, I do not see why people who have had the misfortune to be made homeless should be expected to populate these houses without improvements taking place. On that basis, I think I ought to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kagan, L.

Airedale, L

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L

Blease, L

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Milford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milverton, L.

Diamond, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkender, B.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Flampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rugby, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Henniker, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L

White, B.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

De Freyne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Beloff, L.

Dudley, E.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Blyth, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Elles, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Erne, E.

Butterworth, L.

Erroll of Hale, L

Caithness, E.

Fisher, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fortescue, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Carnock, L.

Gainford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gisborough, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Coleraine, L.

Goschen, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

Colwyn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

419

Joseph, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Layton, L.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Marley, L.

Sharples, B.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathspey, L.

Morris, L.

Sudeley, L.

Moyne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Torrington, V.

Newall, L.

Trafford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wise, L.

Pender, L.

Yarborough, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
Clause 60, as amended agreed to
Clause 61 [Consultation and publicity]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116C:
Page 47, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State shall, in each estate in any area in respect of which he proposes to make a designation order, make arrangements for the conduct of a ballot of tenants in the estate, and no order may be made under section 60(1) above in respect of that estate unless a majority of tenants eligible to vote have approved the proposal.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State may make regulations to provide for the definition of `tenant' ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Housing action trusts: constitution]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 117, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 44 and insert ("The majority of members of a trust shall be persons who live in the designated area and before appointing any such person as a member the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to amend Schedule 7 to ensure that local residents form the majority of the board members of a housing action trust appointed by the Secretary of State. When the first draft of the Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State was required to have regard in making such appointments to the desirability of appointing people with special knowledge of the HAT area. However, in the Standing Committee in another place, and following many respresentations from people outside Parliament, the Government responded by amending the constitution on Report in another place by adding the current requirement about the desirability of appointing people who live in a designated HAT area as well as those with special knowledge of it.
At that point the Minister also agreed to consult local authorities about board appointments and announced that the Government intended to ask HATs to organise consultation with local people by creating a non-statutory tenants' advisory forum to provide a focus for generating tenants' views beyond representation on the HATs boards, and to make other consultative arrangements.
As I said before, the whole issue of local control, or tenants' control, is a crucial one because the Government's main attempt to sell the Housing Bill, especially this part of it, relies on a set of measures to encourage and promote tenants' choice. In my view many aspects of the HAT proposals are inconsistent with that approach, especially the lack of a tenants' veto on the establishment of a trust in the first place and the lack of a guaranteed voice for tenants on the hoard which this amendment seeks to redress.
The proposals also run counter to recent thinking on tenant involvement and participation in the estates which the Deparment of the Environment and most local authorites promote. Decisions made by HATs will have a major impact on residents' lives. They will manage rented property on a day-to-day basis; they will plan and implement improvement work and undertake repairs; they will fix rents and effectively decide on the future ownership of the property and deal with a whole list of other matters which I have already mentioned. In effect they replace local elected councillors to whom residents can now complain. Do the Government really expect us to believe that that is what they are now saying, after what they have been saying in parts of recent legislation? Are they prepared to defend the lack of representation, the lack of local democracy or accountability in the running of these HATs?
Having said that, the concessions that the Government made are most welcome. The Government clearly recognise that this is an important issue. They have publicly stressed the desirability of securing the services on HAT boards of people who know the areas in question. However, the concessions do not meet the basic concern that HATs should be run by, and for, local people. They allow the Minister to appoint one or two local people, but leave the control of the organisation in the hands of specialists or local dignitaries who will undoubtedly favour the Government's line. I should like to ask the Government what effective power a minority of local tenants will have as part of an 11-member board, the majority of whom are likely to be, in the Minister's words, people with management skills, housing expertise and experience.
The amendment is a compromise. We seek to compromise because the Minister has suggested that a majority of local residents on the board would be too restrictive. He also said that HATs will be under pressure to succeed in the shortest possible time and that the Secretary of State will need to find the best people with the most relevant expertise. However, this amendment recognises his concern by proposing that only the majority, not necessarily all members of the board, should be local residents. This leaves scope for the appointment of specialists if they are necessary, although it is difficult to believe that
421
outsiders know better than local residents about the needs and long-term development of their area.
The board will, after all, appoint the officers with the necessary skills and experience to run the area under its guidance. The lack of majority resident representation will undermine the credibility of HATs even before they are formally created. Local people will naturally be more suspicious of the proposal if their representatives are not to be given a guaranteed voice. A board which comprises people who share little of the day-to-day experience of living in the area is unlikely to command respect, and establishing the right structures at the start is again important if good relations are to be developed with the community in the future.
As a non-statutory advisory body the forum that has been suggested by the Minister will have no power to overturn HAT decisions. It will have no access to written information and it will have no guarantee of having its questions answered. We do not have that kind of guarantee even in this Chamber. Such a forum cannot be seen as a realistic alternative to proper tenant representation. The only way to ensure that proper representation is available is by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to expand on one or two of the points made by my noble friend Lord Stallard. Schedule 7 outlines the constitution of the housing action trusts. These will be like mini local authorities but without democracy built into them. They will have a chairman and a deputy chairman and those who serve on them will be paid. They will be almost like new town development corporations. They will be able to act without consulting the tenants, as the constitution of the trusts does not say that they must consult.
In the past, groups of tenants who had complaints or worries had direct contact with their local representatives. Local tenants' associations are quite common on local authority housing estates. They have been trying to set up tenants' co-operatives in an effort to keep some local control. They want to ensure that their voice will be heard as representative bodies of tenants. It is important that the tenants should be able to advise the trusts on the pitfalls that may arise. Some tenants will be on lower incomes, which sometimes leads to difficulties on how one arranges the buildings. It is sometimes difficult for people who live in small properties to understand how the people who live in larger properties work out the designs. It is therefore important to have a relationship between the tenants and the trust.
This amendment seeks a partnership. One can only solve the problems of the tenants in the community itself. This means talking to tenants who know the social reasons why changes should take place and who understand the physical designs of the area in which they live. It is the tenants who will recreate in the housing action areas the community spirit, which I think even the noble Lord will agree is an important factor.
We do not seek total tenants' control of the housing action trusts. We realise that the trusts must have competent officers, although I am not so sure
422
that one always needs high-powered business tycoons. I should like to feel that the Secretary of State will cast his net a little further than he normally does and will recognise, as the Housing Corporation recognises, that there is a need for equality. Equality in a trust of this description would encompass the Race Relations Act and equal opportunities for women.
Lord Somers: I should like to support the amendment. I do so perhaps for a very personal reason and therefore I shall declare an interest. I happen to live in a part of Epsom where an opportunist builder has put forward plans to build very near to where I live. It will change the whole nature of that part of Epsom. It seems to me that the people who should be consulted are the people who live in the area and who will be affected by any change. The efforts to have our case considered by the local council have, I regret to say, been met with a very half-hearted response. Something of this kind would be very opportune, and I shall therefore support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: In seeking to provide that the majority of members of HATs' boards must be residents, Amendment No. 118 is too restrictive. HATs will be temporary bodies charged with carrying out difficult tasks in a short space of time. The Secretary of State must he able to appoint to the board the best people he can find.
We intend that there should be tenant representation on HAT boards. Indeed my right honourable friend brought forward an amendment at Report stage in another place laying a requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of securing the services of people who live in the housing action trust area as well as those who have a special knowledge of it. However, we cannot require the Secretary of State to appoint in every case a majority of residents. Other qualities such as management skills and housing expertise will be relevant.
Moreover, there will be other ways in which residents will be involved in HATs. For example, we intend to ask HATs to create, in consultation with local people, non-statutory tenants' advisory fora. This will provide a focus for channelling tenants' views beyond representation on the HAT board and beyond other consultative arrangements. The forum would have a remit to advise the board on any issue of concern to tenants. We also hope that some tenants will take over the running of their property through the establishment of tenant co-operatives. HATs will of course be under a statutory duty to consult local people about their proposals for the area.
The variety of arrangements I have described demonstrates our genuine commitment to involving tenants fully in the running of HATs. I hope therefore that noble Lords will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the noble Lord's speech was written before the Committee took the decision to ensure that there

423
should be a ballot of tenants before a HAT was established. The brief that the noble Lord has read is surely quite irrelevant. Now that the Committee has decided that we shall have a ballot of residents before a HAT is declared, it is surely entirely appropriate that the majority opinion should be given effect by the tenants taking an active and effective part in the administration of the housing action trust.
Lord Hesketh: The point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes is, I believe, not in any way relevant, for a very simple reason. In the light of the decision taken earlier by the Committee, a ballot would take place on the basis of what will be in existence at that time. As a result, what I have just said is relevant, whether it was written before or after the decision. There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shaking his head; it is a fact. This will be part of the decision-making process. People will look at it and decide whether they like it or not in the light of the previous decision.
Lord Stallard: I shall not come between the two Front Bench spokesmen, except to say that I support my noble friend. He said exactly what I would have suggested in reply to the noble Lord's original remarks.
The noble Lord says that the amendment is too restrictive. I should think that exactly the opposite is the truth. What we are trying to do is broaden the activity, to take it away from the so-called specialist. We have had a surfeit of specialists in local authority areas; we dread specialists coming into any local authority area with their specialist knowledge. That is why we have these awful estates with their hidey-holes, cubby-holes and alleyways built for criminals and crooks, and designed to harbour all sorts of people—because specialists were responsible. We need people who understand the area, the needs, what ordinary people want and what would suit them. That is what we are trying to do—to broaden it to include those kinds of people, in order to make their voice a majority voice. Then the specialist can
advise them.
Of course, there are officers on HATs. The noble Lord mentioned the forum. I dealt with that. The forum will not have any statutory powers. It cannot overturn any HAT decisions. It will not be directly involved or have access to the paperwork. It is a non-event, paying lip service to local representation. I am not satisfied with the replies which I have received and I think the only thing left for me is to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 118) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Aylestone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

424

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Diamond, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Vernon, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Borthwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Joseph, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marley, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Moyne, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rugby, L.

Erne, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fisher, L.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Goschen, V.

Torrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Trafford, L.

425

Trumpington, B.

Wise, L.

Westbury, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby Viscount Ingleby moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 117, line 45, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall ensure that at least one member of the trust has experience of the special needs of chronically sick or disabled persons and shall have regard to the desirability of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 119 and, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 at the same time.
Logically, Amendment No. 121 comes first. That amendment puts a duty on a housing action trust and states that it shall:
"have regard to the special needs of chronically sick or disabled persons and shall ensure that its activities do not discriminate against such persons.".
The first part of the amendment is taken from Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That section places a similar duty on local authorities. As housing action trusts will have greater powers than local authorities, it is even more important that they should have regard to the needs of the chronically sick and disabled, particularly because there is a great shortage of suitable accommodation for such people. Therefore, it is important that housing action trusts should not discriminate against the chronically sick and disabled by failing to provide accommodation for them. As regards cost, I wonder whether some of the vast sums arising from the sale of council houses, which local authorities are not allowed to use, could not be allowed to be spent for this particular purpose.
I turn to Amendment No. 119 which provides:
"that at least one member of the trust has experience of the special needs of chronically sick or disabled persons and shall have regard to the desirability of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons.".
It is very difficult for an able bodied person to understand the problems that a disabled person has to face. It was for that reason that in the International Year for the Disabled I asked the Government whether they would encourage all Ministers to spend one day in a wheelchair. There was not a very great response to that suggestion. As far as I know only one Minister, the then Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, Sir Hugh Rossi, accepted my invitation. I only mention that because I think it is difficult for people to know just what the problems of a disabled person are unless they are disabled or have worked closely with disabled people.
I now turn to Amendment No. 120. This amendment requires a housing action trust in its annual report to include a statement of what it has done:
"to improve the living conditions of chronically sick or disabled persons within its area"
The housing action trust must also state in its annual report:
"its policy in relation to the employment of such persons.".
This would give an opportunity for a housing action trust to say what it has been able to do to improve the housing conditions of disabled people. I think that that would be a valuable consequence if the first amendment I mentioned were accepted. I beg to move Amendment No. 119.
Lord Carter: I was very pleased to put my name to this group of amendments. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has said, they are intended to ensure that the special housing needs of the chronically sick and disabled are properly looked after by housing action trusts. HATs are being given wide powers to improve the housing and social conditions in their areas. They will fail if they do not succeed in doing that. As the noble Viscount said, Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 concern respectively the appointment of a disabled member to a housing action trust and the need for a housing action trust to look after the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. Those amendments have exactly the same wording as the relevant sections in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The amendments repeat the wording of the duty as regards special housing need which was placed on local authorities by the 1970 Act. We cannot imagine that the Government intend to place any lesser duty on HATs, which will exercise most of the functions of a housing authority and the planning control and public health functions of a local authority.
Amendment No. 119 will ensure that each housing action trust will include one member with knowledge of special housing needs. Preferably that person will have such knowledge through being a disabled person. On the subject of membership of housing action trusts, it would be relevant, although we do not have an amendment down about it, to refer to Schedule 7, page 118, line 17. That concerns the disqualification of members of housing action trusts. It includes the words:
"incapacitated by physical or mental illness".
The same words occur in Schedule 5—the Housing for Wales schedule. We feel that that is careless and offensive wording. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsmen have a standard form of words for which they reach when they are drafting these schedules. We put down amendments on the Education Reform Bill to remove those words from the schedules to that Bill. The Government accepted those amendments. When the Minister replies to the amendment, I hope that he can tell us that the Government will do the same thing on Report to the schedules in this Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I welcome the HATs—
Lord Carter: I had not quite finished.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am so sorry.
Lord Carter: Amendment No. 121 states that HATs must have regard to special housing need. We believe that it is extremely important that that is stated on the face of the Bill so that representations can be made and HATs can be kept up to the mark as regards special housing need.

427
Amendment No. 120 ensures that a HAT's annual report, as required by Schedule 8, will include a statement of its action —that is the things actually done:
"to improve the living conditions of chronically sick or disabled persons within its area".
That report must also state the policy of the housing action trust as regards the employment of disabled people.
All these amendments have the common theme of a duty not to discriminate against people with disabilities and to adopt a positive policy regarding access for the disabled, the conversion of buildings and the consideration of proper adaptations to that end.
On the question of access for disabled people, I shall give an example of the practical problems that they face. I was recently involved in arranging access for wheelchairs to a building. The Committee may know that the maximum height that a lip may be and still allow access for a wheelchair is a quarter of an inch. I discovered that the builder had left a quarter of an inch lip at one end of the building and a lip of three inches at the other. I telephoned the local authority. Staff of the local authority arrived extremely quickly in order to put the matter right. As a result the building was left with a standard lip of three inches all the way round. Consequently wheelchairs could not get in at all. That is an example of a failure to understand the problems of people in wheelchairs which was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby.
I shall give an indication of the size of the problem. In the late 1970s the Department of the Environment estimated that at that time 61,420 homes needed to be adapted for wheelchairs. It further estimated that 460,650 homes needed to be adapted to make them suitable for people with other disabilities. Since the time that that estimate was issued, only 8,519 homes have been adapted for wheelchairs and 44,125 homes have been adapted for people with other mobility problems. Those adaptations were carried out by local authorities and housing associations. That means that only 14 per cent. of the homes that needed to be adapted for wheelchairs, as stated by the Department of the Environment, were adapted. Only 10 per cent. of the estimated number of homes that needed to be adapted for people with other mobility problems were adapted.
The excellent study by Shelter called Freedom to Lose, from which those figures were taken, also reveals that homelessness has risen much faster among the disabled than in the general population. This means that the special housing needs of people with disabilities are not being met. The amendments are designed to ensure that the housing action trusts take those needs fully into account.
Lord Swinfen: I support the group of amendments. I had intended to put my name to them but I was too slow. The most important amendment of the group is Amendment No. 121. That amendment would ensure that housing action trusts keep constantly in mind the work they are doing as regards people with
428
disabilities. We must remember that an increasing number of people in this country have disabilities. Medical science is improving all the time. People with disabilities who would have died in the past are now living. They need help and proper housing. The disabled include people who have suffered accidents, people who have had illnesses and children born with congenital disabilities who, some years ago, would have died in infancy or childhood. Many of those children are now living to become adults and to marry and move into their own housing units.
I can see no reason for my noble friend not to accept Amendment No. 121, and there are definite advantages to the other amendments. Amendment No. 119 provides for a representative on the trust who has experience of disability—not necessarily someone who is disabled, but someone who has experience in the way disabled people get around and the kind of equipment they need.
Amendment No. 120 would produce an annual reminder to housing action trusts of their responsibilities to physically and mentally disabled people. I consider that to be a fallback position. I would rather see a provision which made such considerations a general duty to be borne in mind on a daily basis. My noble friend Lord Hesketh, replying to Amendment No. 118, gave the impression that the housing action trust boards would be temporary and that the housing action trusts would be in place for a short time and disappear when they had done their job. It is therefore essential to agree Amendment No. 121 or a similar amendment. Once a HAT has gone, it is too late. The time for the provision is while the work is being done. The needs of disabled people must be borne in mind.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I warmly welcome the idea of HATs. As we all know from visits to various cities, there are far too many rundown areas which need to be made habitable. They are an eyesore, often unhygienic and dirty, and lead to unhappiness. I ask my noble friend to take note of what those of us who have knowledge of people with disabilities have to say about the amendments.
Perhaps I may menton a recent experience. I was asked to put up two people for two days and nights in connection with a family wedding. They are psychiatrists who are highly thought of. Both said when they left that if they had had any idea of the problems that disabled people have in looking after themselves, their homes and other people, they would have treated disabled people in a different way. They thanked me for giving them hospitality and also because they had learned so much from what I had managed to do for them. I support the amendments and I hope that the Secretary of State, although he does not like representatives on any trust, will take note of the fact that disabled people need special representation in such cases.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I also support the amendments. My experience is not as great as that of noble Lords who have already spoken. However, I have had the experience of starting a day centre for the disabled in my home town and also a college for

429
handicapped people in Birmingham. They have been a tremendous success. There should be a mixture of handicapped and non-handicapped people running organisations and serving on boards. As my noble friend Lady Macleod has said, many people do not understand how difficult life can be for the disabled. Anything which brings the disabled into the general community is to be welcomed. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: I support the amendments strongly. I declare an interest as a trustee of Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled Development Trust. I have not been a trustee for very long and my knowledge is only recently acquired. However, as a result of that experience I have a reasonable amount of knowledge of the subject. I therefore strongly support the amendments.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendments which offer very necessary protection for people with disabilities in view of the wide-ranging powers which HATs will have. The practical problems have been discussed; therefore, I shall ask only two questions. First, as regards Amendment No. 119, which I strongly support, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on finding a reference relating to the removal of a board member on grounds of incapacitation by reason of physical or mental illness. As the noble Lord said, we removed four such references from the Education Reform Bill, two of which were discovered by the Government. Perhaps we can track down the source of that objectionable and confusing wording. is it in an earlier Act? Can it be found and eradicated at source so that we shall not have to keep on deleting it every time it crops up in a new Bill?
My second question relates mainly to Amendment No. 121. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said, it is the most important amendment in the group. It seeks to protect disabled people not only by accentuating the positive but also by eliminating the negative aspect. That is sadly necessary in the absence of anti-discriminatory legislation. If the Government cannot respond positively to the amendments by accepting them or by coming back at Report stage with an amendment which meets our points, will the Minister say what safeguards are contained in the Bill to protect disabled people in relation to HATs? The trusts have wide powers. Will they have the same duties as local authorities as regards people with disabilities?
Lord Milverton: I wish to support the amendments. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel able to accept them. I feel sure that they are deserving amendments and that it is right and proper that they should be accepted. I say that as a result of attending meetings of the All-Party Disablement Group and being able to hear and absorb information from many others who know far more about this subject than I do. As one learns about the needs of the disabled one realises how important it is for those with expertise to do all, they can to see that those needs are catered for. I sincerely hope that Her
430
Majesty's Government will be able to lend a hand and support these amendments.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I could deal, first, with literary matters. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew the Committee's attention to certain imperfections in the drafting of the Bill. In the light of the noble Lord's comments I can assure him that we shall reconsider the wording.
I fully appreciate that the reason for moving these amendments is genuine concern for chronically sick and disabled people. Of course we share that concern. A major point is raised by the noble Lords' Amendment No. 121, which seeks to apply a provision similar to Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which applies to local housing authorities. Local housing authorities are required, under Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to have regard to the special needs of the chronically sick and disabled in discharging their duty under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985.
Section 8 requires local housing authorities to consider housing conditions in their district and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation. Like the rest of Part II of the 1985 Act, it may be applied to HATs by order of the Secretary of State under Clause 65. As it may be that the Secretary of State would wish to apply Section 8, I agree with Members of the Committee that there is a good case for considering Amendment No. 121. Members of the Committee will also, I hope, welcome other steps we are taking.
Clause 63 includes as one of HATs' objects improving accommodation, and that will obviously also apply to any accommodation occupied by the sick or disabled. In the management guidance issued to HATs we shall be drawing their attention to the publications on housing for the elderly and disabled, including the recent departmental publication House adaptations for people with physical disabilities.
The management guidance will also lay down guidelines on their conduct in matters such as employing staff. They will be encouraged to adopt recruitment and personnel management practices which meet the standards expected of public service employees and in particular we shall be drawing HATs' attention to the Cabinet Office Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People. HATs will be expected to recruit staff through fair and open competition (subject to the assurance that Ministers have given that local authority staff currently employed in connection with the housing taken on by HATs will be given first consideration). As NDPBs, HATs will not be subject to the regulations under the Companies Act 1980 which requires companies to detail in their annual reports the steps taken to promote the employment of disabled people. However, I am willing and indeed happy to agree that we should ask HATs to adopt a similar procedure in their annual report.
On the question of appointment of board members, as I have already said in relation to Amendment No. 118, it is not considered appropriate to place any further constraints on the Secretary of

431
State. It is important that he is able to appoint to HAT board members with the most appropriate range of skills. It may well be that one or more members may have the expertise that the noble Lord is seeking in this amendment. But even if that does not happen, the other provisions which we propose to make should ensure that the needs of disabled and chronically sick people are fully recognised: and I have no doubt that the tenants' advisory fora which we propose HATs should establish will make these needs clear to HAT boards.
I hope that, in the light of my undertaking to consider applying Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and my explanation of our intention to guide HATs on these matters, the noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw these amendments.
Viscount Ingleby: I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for his encouraging words. In the light of his remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Housing action trusts: finance etc.]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Objects and general powers of housing action trusts]:
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 48, line 14, at end insert—
("(bb) to encourage landlords to make their properties available for short-term renting to homeless families, in particular properties which are empty at certain regular times of the year because the tenants occupying them have contracted with the landlord to occupy the property only at fixed periods during the year,-).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a follow-up to an idea which I floated in this Chamber on 20th January when we had a substantial debate on homelessness which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. On that occasion I drew attention to the very high proportion of students in higher education who leave their parental or marital home to study. I said that if only some 50 per cent. of those took a course near to their home and lived at home we could solve the problem of homelessness in three years.
I understand that that is a fairly far-reaching proposal. I do not intend to pursue it here tonight except to say that the Minister in his winding up speech in that debate was kind enough to say that it was a very radical proposal. Radical proposals such as this take a long time to become accepted.
The purpose of the amendment I am putting to the Committee tonight is simply to encourage people with properties which are empty at regular times during the year to let out those properties to homeless people and to ask the housing action trusts to coordinate and encourage that work.
Obviously the principal source of such accommodation is the halls of residence of universities and polytechnics, and also university housing which stands empty for two or three months during the summer vacation. It is true that as a fund-raising exercise over the years universities have begun a drive to let that accommodation for conferences seminars and even for holidays. Therefore much of it is already being used. However, I know that the take-up is by no means 100 per cent. and there must be substantial amounts of accommodation which is free during that period.
That accommodation would be available for only a short period of time and obviously the homeless could not stay there when students are due to return. However, for at least six weeks or two months those families who are living in appalling conditions could have the comfort of civilised surroundings and a regular regime. The universities and higher education generally would be making a contribution to the problem we face.
Those in higher education have received a great deal of attention during the course of the education debate. Indeed, I think that this Chamber might well have dwelt rather more on the large majority of children who never get a chance to go into higher education. Here is an opportunity for universities to make a contribution. I believe that it would be a very good thing if the housing action trusts were to coordinate and encourage such work which would also initiate a very useful cross-fertilisation between some of the ablest people in society and some of the most deprived. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe is certainly deserving of examination. I recall some years ago paying a visit to Denmark on a 10-day housing trust study. We were based at the University of Copenhagen during the vacation. The buildings were put into use during that period to house a variety of people and their scheme was successful.
I believe that there are difficulties but, as my noble friend has said, the scheme is worthy of consideration as a means of alleviating one of the worst features of our present housing problem at certain times of the year.
Lord Trafford: I take the point and support the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. He has a point. I remember his floating the idea earlier in the year, and there is much to be said for it. My difficulty would be the position that he has chosen to try to move this amendment; namely, in terms of Clause 63, at line 14 on page 48.
First of all it seems to me that the term "landlord" may be incorrect. In the circumstances of this Bill the landlord would be the HAT and not a specific person. If the noble Lord meant tenants letting rooms that were previously let to students, I think perhaps that would have been appropriate. In other words, I am not sure that the drafting fits this point. However, I think that the objective which he has put forward is certainly most interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, is known as a fount of radical

433
and new ideas with which he occasionally delights this Chamber. I am delighted to say that it is a splendid idea, but it seems to me that the amendment is drafted in a way that would make the clause as it stands somewhat unintelligible.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I find this an interesting amendment and I am happy to support it in the form in which it is drafted. There is an opportunity with this amendment which could be used. It is possible that one or two words of caution may be worth uttering also.
I think that there is some advantage in university students going away from home to complete their education. That in itself is an educational benefit. I must say that I feel that as strongly as a parent as I once felt it as a child.
Another point which one needs to bear in mind is that university students are not always absent from university during vacation. At the moment a number of my own pupils have to read a series of set texts during the long vacation and some of them absolutely must be in London because those texts are not available anywhere else. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this is a proposal which would need a little room for flexibility in drafting.
However, with that proviso, universities are aware of their social responsibilities in the world and care considerably about them. I believe that this is an opportunity and I hope something will be done with it.
Lord Swinfen: I too think that this is an interesting suggestion. However, I wonder whether residential buildings for higher education should not be used during the holiday period of current students for residential courses for other students, so that the buildings are used throughout the year for purposes of education.
My main problem with this amendment is that the people whom it is proposed to house in this accommodation during the vacations are by definition homeless. They have nowhere to go when the students are due to return. I think that many universities and polytechnics, as well as housing action trusts, would have the greatest difficulty in obtaining the accommodation again so that it would be available for the students when term started.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I should like to say a few brief words. I too support the spirit of the amendment. I apologise to my noble friend because I was not able to be in the Chamber for the beginning of his speech. However, the use of university buildings for courses of one kind or another has been mentioned, and as one who has benefited greatly from summer courses at universities I believe that that is something that should be borne in mind.
Universities in general have now become conference centres which are widely used for assemblies of various kinds: commercial conferences and not just educational meetings in the narrow sense of the words. Yet a third aspect of this subject relates
434
to the fact that university campuses—some of which are very beautiful—are now used as holiday centres.
When the Minister replies perhaps he would like to say something about the financial arrangements. Obviously many noble Lords would like to see homeless families housed in such accommodation, which by definition would be for a limited period, but it seems to me that since universities are well established on the conference circuit and for holidays there might be some rather complicated financial arrangements to be made should my noble friend's amendment be accepted by the Committee.
Lord Trafford: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may suggest that he is speaking on a slightly different point from that of this amendment, which does not necessarily apply to university accommodation. Only approximately one-third of students at a university are accommodated on campus and that is the part that is used for conferences, and so on.
As I understand it, when moving the amendment his noble friend referred to people who would use accommodation which housed students and not just the outlying buildings off campus, so to speak. I doubt very much whether a university would be subject to a HAT.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The question was put to me, and I apologised for not being able to hear the beginning of my noble friend's speech where perhaps he dealt with that matter. Having said that, it is not the first time that this idea has been suggested. As I interpret the amendment, the proposal is that the on-campus accommodation of the university be used for this and similar purposes.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may raise another practical point with regard to this problem of housing homeless people. At the moment a large number are housed in hotel accommodation which specialises in letting to homeless people. Some of the hotels make a large profit. If homeless people are to be housed during the vacations in accommodation that was used by students, it means that those hotels will probably go bust and go out of business. Therefore there will not be hotel accommodation available for the homeless to use during term time. I think that this proposal could exacerbate the situation.
Lord Hesketh: While I sympathise with the noble Lord's concern about the problems of homeless people, I do not feel that the particular vehicle that he has chosen in his amendment to try to help them is a very good idea. The main purpose of HATs is to deal with areas of rundown local authority housing of which they will temporarily be taking over the ownership. It is unlikely that there is much if any property of the sort he describes in the areas so far announced as potential HAT areas, though it is theoretically possible that there may be some in the future. However, we feel that to place the encouragement of landlords to make student accommodation available to homeless families among the HAT's primary objects in Clause 63 rather unbalances what we have set out for them to do.

435
I am not quite sure how we managed to get on to universities because the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, does not make any mention of universities in his amendment. So far as we are aware, there is no university accommodation in any of the proposed HATs areas.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I am grateful for the response there has been to my modest little effort, which I may say has been much warmer than the response I had from Bristol University in the early 1970s when I first began to promulgate this idea. In addition to being a fount of radical proposals as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said, I am also fairly obsessional when I get a bee in my bonnet. That is why I thought that the HATs might be a peg on which to hang it.
I apologise for the infelicities in the drafting, but I am encouraged by the response that this little kite has received. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Housing action trust as housing authority etc.]:
[Amendment No. 121A not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Transfer of land and other property to housing action trusts]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 121B:
Page 55, line 36, after ("area") insert (", except dwelling-houses excluded from the provisions of Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (Right to Buy),").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 125A. These are amendments on a comparable theme with the immediately preceding debates. In effect, this amendment would exclude from the property taken over by a HAT any special needs housing already excluded from the right to buy.
It has been done for a very good purpose. The genesis of this amendment arose in this Chamber. At present there are certain exemptions to the right to buy. The main ones are homes provided or adapted for use by people with physical disabilities or for people who have or have had mental disorders or who are elderly. Those homes shall not be subject to the right to buy.
Such exemptions exist largely due to the insistence of this Chamber in earlier legislation. I remind noble Lords who took part in the debate of the reason why this Chamber accepted the position. The local authority has a primary role in providing special needs housing. It was unacceptable that it should be lost to the public rented sector. The Government have shown that they still accept that argument by
436
excluding those properties from the provisions of Part IV of the Bill. The amendment seeks to exclude the provision from Part III of the Bill.
The major government argument may be that since HATs will take over whole estates it could be very difficult in management terms to isolate small numbers of special needs homes. Nothing is impossible: where there is a will there is a way. The Government reconciled to being sympathetic on this point, have also to be consistent.
We have always contended that it is the "pepper-pot" argument that the Government have been rejecting on Part IV of the Bill in another place. The properties about which we are talking are usually grouped. It is a large hole in the pepper-pot that we are considering. They are not isolated properties but very often a small group, conveniently placed together to share common services, with a warden service of some kind. They are not usually isolated in that sense.
In the vicinity of HATs areas will be many properties which have not been transferred and which the local authority will still be managing. In other words, we think that there is a reasonable case for taking properties for people who already have great difficulties and whom we think should remain as undisturbed as possible out of the ambit of a HAT. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I cannot agree with the noble Lord, although, like him, I am interested in and concerned about, proper housing for disabled people. I can see no reason why housing action trusts should not improve accommodation that has been especially adapted for disabled people as well as for those who are not disabled. A number of specially adapted flats are in blocks of flats. It is impractical for a block of flats to be acquired by a housing action trust with one or two flats excluded.
The noble Lord also said that this special accommodation was normally grouped. It may be normally grouped; it is not always grouped. People who become disabled through accident or through illness can have their accommodation specially adapted for their needs. These properties are very often one-off. They may not necessarily be bungalows. They may not be flats. They may be a house of one kind or another with adaptations. It may be one in a complete road. Therefore, from the practical point of view, I disagree with the noble Lord.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I understand and sympathise with the reasoning behind the noble Lord's amendments Nos. 121B and 125A. However, I hope to be able to convince him that they are unnecessary.
HATs will be concerned to deal with all the rundown housing within a designated area. We recognise that these areas might include specialised housing of the type excluded from the right to buy and tenants' choice provisions including those occupied by tenants with particular needs. However, the wellbeing of tenants is central to the HATs policy and while we believe that tenants would benefit from

437
the presence of a single-minded body devoted to improving the area and its housing, particular care will he taken in reaching decisions on boundaries and the transfer of properties to consider what the best option is for tenants in housing specially designed for the old and disabled. We shall listen carefully to the views of local authorities about whether it is a good idea to transfer particular dwellings to a HAT.
If there are cases where such housing is transferred to HATs we shall make sure that they follow the best practice in managing it. I have explained in response I o earlier amendments to Schedule 7 the duty we are considering imposing on HATs to consider the needs of chronically sick and disabled persons and other arrangements we are making to promote their interests. In issuing guidance to HATs we shall draw to their attention the literature produced by the department on housing for the disabled and elderly including the recent publication House adaptations for people with physical disabilities. Where accommodation is let in connection with employment it may well be appropriate to transfer it if, for example, a caretaker is going to transfer to employment within the HAT.
In cases where the transfer of specialised elderly and disabled accommodation has been approved to the HAT, great care will be taken over its subsequent disposal and there will be full consultation with tenants. Some accommodation may be returned to the local authority. Another possibility would be transfer to a specialised housing association with experience in dealing with the specialised needs of such tenants. In 1987 nearly a third of all new lettings were to elderly tenants. Over a quarter of all housing association homes are for the elderly or wheelchair units for the elderly. It is hardly likely that a housing association will change the use of such stock. The tenants' guarantee requires registered housing associations approved by the Housing Corporation to pay special attention to specific housing difficulties experienced by particular groups, including the disabled. Any other post-HAT landlord would have to conform to similar requirements.
In the case of accommodation let in connection with employment it is possible that there is more chance of a change of use being deemed appropriate—if, for example, the redesign of a building meant that it was necessary to move a caretaker into different accommodation, or if the redesign of a block of flats meant that it was no longer necessary to employ such a person.
It is because these sorts of eventualities are possible that I am resisting Amendment No. 125A although I assure the noble Lords that I understand their concerns. As I have said in relation to Amendment No. 121B, at the first stage we shall give extremely careful consideration to whether transfer of such property to a HAT is appropriate and we shall also take extreme care in considering who is an appropriate future landlord for this type of property —someone who, we can be sure, will do the utmost to ensure that the needs of the tenants are met. We also intend to make subsequent disposals by post-HAT landlords subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. This will act as a further check to
438
ensure that this type of accommodation is put to best possible use in meeting needs.
In the light of these assurances I hope the noble Lord will agree that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I say at once that I do not intend to press the amendments in the light of what the Minister has said. We would have wished to have on the face of the Bill words giving, if not an absolute guarantee, then much greater security and peace of mind to the people affected. I am satisfied in two respects with what the noble Lord said. First, at an appropriate stage the local authorities in whose areas HATs are situated will be provided with the opportunity for consultation and discussion on whether these kinds of properties should be included or excluded. The Minister was not able to say that they could be excluded. He was saying that they might very well be excluded if, after discussion, the local authority was of the view that they ought to be excluded for very good social reasons. I am satisfied with the bona fides of what the Minister has said in that regard.
I am heartened by the measuring rods and yardsticks to which the Minister referred—I and others will read tomorrow what he has said with—regard to the intentions and aspirations of those who will be in charge of a HAT. We on this side of the Chamber have little confidence on this aspect. When commercial viability enters into the considerations, altruism towards the disabled, the elderly and the diadvantaged does not normally form a major part of the imperative of those primarly concerned with making money from whatever they are involved in. Although local authorities feel wretched about trying to carry their burden, they are still better placed than many others to try to make provisions of the kind we are discussing. The Minister has gone some way towards reassuring me that it is all up for grabs.
When the Minister's colleagues sit round with local authorities, produce further evidence and put flesh on the bones of an idea, we want to make sure that the elderly and the disabled—two groups, incidentally, that do not figure very largely in tenants' choice and in the scheme of things by the Minister—have a fair crack of the whip.
The Minister has gone some way to satisfy me that he intends to see that that will happen. Whether is happens remains to be seen. I am grateful for the comfort that the Minister has given and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 121C:
Page, 56, line 6, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) above, where the financial terms referred to in that subsection include a reference to a sum equal to the market value of the local authority housing or other land or property transferred under this section payable by the housing action trust or by the Secretary of State to the local authority, the said sum shall be paid to the local authority on the date on which the said local authority housing or other land or property is transferred to the housing action trust under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Amendment No. 121C relates to the general theme of caring for special categories in this matter. Clause 74 allows the Secretary of State to transfer housing and other property from the local authority to the HAT on any terms, that he thinks fit, including financial terms. In another place ministerial colleagues of the Minister who is to reply to the debate said that the transfers would be at market value. The amendment proposes that where the terms of the sale refer to market value the amount should be paid in full in a lump sum on the date of the transfer.
The amendment requires that the local authority be paid a lump sum as a capital receipt on the date of transfer. We are worried that having taken property away from the local authority, possibly without its consent, the Government will not pay proper compensation for the property. We are worried that the Government will create a mechanism whereby the local authority receives payment for the property only in dribs and drabs.
It would be useful to have the Committee consider what the Minister in another place said when the discussion on Thamesmead in South-East London was taking place. In Committee the Minister said:
"this is relevant… in the sense that we have said there might be circumstances where there was no single payment on the transfer, because the position might arise where negotiations with the local authority, the district valuer and so on means that the safest way of valuing future receipts into the HAT through sales, or whatever, is to say that the local authorities should have a share of those future sales. That might be to the advantage of the local authority. For example, if the HAT is very successful, brings in considerable money, raises the value of the property, tenants buy —with a discount—and so on, it may be more valuable than it is easy to predict. Therefore, it may be sensible for the local authority to say that it will hedge its bets and take a share of any future sales because it will then receive a share of the benefit of the capital that the HAT is spending. That may be a route that local authorities may wish to explore, which is why we have kept open the possibility of no single, one-off payment. I assure the honourable Gentlemean that where a single, one-off payment is agreed, there is no (intention) to refuse to pay a local authority properly for whatever has been contracted". —[Official Report, Commons, 18/2/1988: col. 963]
We have, as often in these situations, something to look at. We do not need to look into a crystal ball, because there is a page of the book and it is called the Thamesmead precedent. We are worried by what happened in the Thamesmead example because it is central here.
After the GLC was abolished the estate was taken over by the London Residuary Body. The task of the LRB was to sell the property to Thamesmead Town Limited, which is now the owner. LRB was acting on behalf of London ratepayers and wanted to get the best price for the estate, particularly as the ratepayers would be left having to pay off a debt of £130 million. Naturally enough the company wanted to pay as little as possible. The Secretary of State had to give his consent before the sale could go through. In other words it was the Secretary of State, in essence, who controlled the financial terms of the transfer. He had to balance the interests of the buyer with the seller. In other words he was in exactly the same position then as he will be when it comes to setting the terms of the
440
transfer from the local authority to the housing action trust.
What happened at Thamesmead? The district valuer was called in and valued the estate at £25 million, but there was a problem. The company could not afford to pay £25 million. Instead the Secretary of State imposed a transfer for just £2.5 million; a tenth of the market value—just £400 per house.
The Government will say —and this is quite true —that that may not be the end of the payments. Additional payments will be made according to the rate at which the company sold off its property. That is the precedent for the Minister's recent statement. Until 1999 the company will pay nothing more if sales of houses are less than 150 a year, but it will pay 85 per cent. of receipts from sales between 150 and 200 per year and 75 per cent. of receipts over that level.
It is all very well for the Government to say that the agreement between the two sides might state that and that the Government want to leave themselves some flexibility. That might be all right if we were operating in a free market as buyers and sellers or were in a situation where the local authority could freely decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. But we on this side of the Committee are asking simply—we are taking advice, of course, from outside the Committee —for the Minister to agree that, in circumstances against their will, if properties are taken out of local authorities' ownership and influence, the price which is agreed should be paid over to them in one fell swoop. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether the Minister can help me? What is the position of purchasers of stock on the open market offered for sale by a local authority secured on housing that might be taken for housing action trusts?
The Earl of Caithness: I shall deal with that last point first. I should need to look into the details, but as my noble friend is aware we are talking about a very small percentage of the housing stock of a local authority in whose area there might be a HAT. From the very definition of HAT and the type of property that the HAT is designed to try to look after, or improve, for the benefit of the tenants, I know that my noble friend as a valuer will soon spot that that will not be the highest valuation of local authority property.
I repeat our firm intention that transfers of property from local authorities to HATs should take place at market value subject to tenancy. This market value would be determined by the Secretary of State on the advance of the district valuer. Amendment No. 121C would bind the HAT to pay to a local authority the full market value of the property on the day of the transfer. It would prevent the transfer going ahead before the terms of transfer had been settled and would prevent there being any flexibility in the arrangements. I must point out that such flexibility might be to the local authority's advantage. If there are likely to be substantial right-to-buy sales on properties transferred to a HAT, the Secretary of State might agree that the local housing authority should elect to receive the proceeds of such sales, or a proportion of them, in a series of staggered

441
payments —the point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, just made.
Theoretically there should be no difference between the two methods of payment in terms of the total sums received. However, it might be more convenient for the local authority to receive the money over a period of time rather than all at once.
Market value subject to tenancy will give local authorities what their properties are worth; no more, no less. We intend that market value transfer payments to local authorities from HATs be treated as capital receipts for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We shall shortly be discussing an amendment which we wish to introduce to the Bill to clarify this.
Obviously I should like to read in detail what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. From my experience of negotiating with local authorities I can say that some of the best deals which I did with them were in respect of staggered payments. Local authorities soon saw the benefits of them.
I must say that I should be reluctant to close the door to the noble Lord because the advantage of flexiblility exists. However, I should like to read what he said between now and another stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I intend to withdraw the amendment. I was interested to hear him argue for flexibility. Is that flexibility a two-way street? Or is that flexibility for the Minister of State when he wishes to vary an understanding by saying that he will exercise flexibility and change it? If flexibility is part of an understanding, does that mean that, whatever the Secretary of State has agreed, the local authority has the right to say that it will exercise its flexibility in a different way?
I believe the Minister knows that, at the end of the day, if the local authority wish to do something that he does not wish them to do, he will be the master. To that extent we are in the same position. If the Minister is saying that he is in the ball game of trying to persuade local authorities that it is in their interests to accept their payment, which is fixed at the market value on the date of the transfer, not in a lump sum, I can understand the attitude of the local authorities.
I had a doom-laden feeling when the Minister said that the payments would be treated as capital receipts. In other words, a council sells a house to a private individual and receives £20,000 but is able to use only part of it, which is varied flexibly —in other words, when the Minister says what he wants to do. We are saying that, if a house is transferred at a value of £20,000, that will occur in exactly the same way. I do not make a point of it but the Minister knows that every local authority of every political persuasion intensely dislikes the burden on its back of improving the housing stock. It will have the money yet the Minister and his colleagues, for their macroeconomic reasons, will not allow it to use it.
I am grateful. The Minister will know that during the long Recess those outside will read what has been said. It may be that at a later stage he and I can come back with an amendment which is acceptable to both
442
of us. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: I should like to suggest that this is a suitable moment to break for dinner. With the agreement of the Committee, I propose to resume the House and return to Committee when the dinner business is complete. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1988
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the two sets of draft regulations before us are concerned with increasing the cost limit on work which a solicitor may provide under the Advice and Assistance scheme (which incorporates ABWOR) without prior approval of the board, and with extending the availability of assistance by way of representation.
The Advice and Assistance (Prospective Cost) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 will increase from £50 to £60 the cost of legal advice and assistance (including assistance by way of representation) which a solicitor may grant without the prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. While this proposed increase has the agreement of the Law Society, we also have in mind to lay a further regulation in the autumn to provide in future for a two-tier limit This would allow a solicitor to grant, without the prior approval of the board, a further £90 of expenditure in certain specified circumstances. But that will depend on whether the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 is amended to provide the necessary vires, as we have proposed in the Legal Aid Bill, which now awaits Royal Assent.
The Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 would extend the availability of this form of assistance (known for short as ABWOR). The extension would cover summary appeals to the Sheriff, against detention in hospital under various provisions of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, and against guardianship orders; circumstances where an accused has pleaded guilty without legal representation and is required to attend subsequently in court; and circumstances where the court orders a proof in mitigation. In addition, to allow an early change of plea, ABWOR would remain available until 14 days after a plea of not guilty had been entered. These changes would simplify and clarify the application of legal aid cover and the availability of the ABWOR arrangements, and have been proposed to deal with problems experienced in the accessiblity and administration of legal aid.
The improvements which these amendments to the present Legal Aid Regulations would achieve, while significant within themselves, are part of an important package of improvements which will apply from 1st August. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on llth July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as regards the first regulation, we do not dissent from the inflation-proofing of the legal aid limits. We shall be interested to see the two-tier limit when it is introduced and have no objection to it—that is, if it is introduced, and if the Legal Aid Bill receives Royal Assent, as I assume it will.
As regards the second regulation, again we have no objection. It appears to be appropriate. It is one of a number of changes which are necessary as the Government discover the difficulties of running legal aid. No doubt there will be many more changes as they continue to discover the difficulties which we forecast in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill as it went through this House. We have no objection to the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on llth July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988
7.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, 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, be approved. The Order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
We are debating today a code of practice which will govern the procedures by which police officers tape record interviews with suspects in police stations. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to
444
issue this code, which will be the fifth and final code to be issued under the Act.
The four existing codes came into force on 1st January 1986. They deal with the stopping and searching of persons; the searching of premises and the seizure of property; the detention, treatment and questioning of persons; and the identification of people. These existing codes are not affected by the code which we are debating today and which will provide additional safeguards for the rights of suspects.
The purpose of tape recording is that, in the event of a dispute about what was said in an interview at a police station, there should be recourse to an accurate and reliable record. I feel confident that your Lordships will join me in welcoming tape recording as an important development in our criminal justice system.
I should like first to say something about the purpose and the effect of the code. The effect of the order which we are now debating will be, subject of course to approval by this House and in another place, to bring the code of practice into operation in the sense that it will then be available for use. But the tape recording of interviews itself, which will be in accordance with the code, will not be mandatory until a further order to this effect is made (under Section 60(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in relation to a particular defined area.
It is our intention to make these orders under Section 60(1)(b) requiring tape recording to be carried out in accordance with the code only when tape recording is being carried out satisfactorily on a voluntary basis in the area concerned.
Once an order has been made requiring the tape recording of interviews in respect of specified offences at police stations, the provisions of this code of practice will be binding on all police officers who conduct such interviews in the area in question. Failure to follow the provisions of the code may constitute a disciplinary offence.
An abuse of the code could also become a matter for consideration by the courts. Section 67 of the Act specifically declares the provisions of the new and existing codes admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings. If the code has been breached during an investigation in a way which reflects upon the reliability of the evidence which has been obtained, then the court is obliged to consider that fact. That is an important further sanction.
Perhaps I may now explain how we arrived at the code of practice on tape recording. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure recommended the gradual introduction of tape recording to be used in indictable cases for the making and reading back of a summary at the end of the interview. The Royal Commission's recommendations were based on the correct assumption that producing transcripts of the whole of each interview would be prohibitively expensive. The Government wished to go further, and we proposed a scheme in which the whole of the interview would be tape recorded.
In order to avoid the difficulties which were foreseen by the Royal Commission, we proposed that, subsequent to the interview, the police officer

445
should provide a written summary which would, in most cases, meet the needs of the defence and prosecution. Where there was disagreement on the summary, the tape could be played in court. By these means the need to produce a transcript could be avoided in the great majority of cases.
These procedures were tested in field trials in six areas over a period of two years. The field trials were overseen by a national steering committee, chaired by the Home Office and with a wide membership, which included representatives from all parts of the criminal justice system. The national steering committee drew up procedural guidance for the field trials which formed the basis for the present code of practice.
The field trials went well. They suggested that tape recording offered a number of benefits. For example, suspects were brought to police stations more quickly; interviews were shorter, more natural and more effective; there was an increase in the number of admissions and confessions; there were fewer challenges to police evidence in court. The Government therefore decided that tape recording should become standard practice in police stations in England and Wales. They decided on a five-year programme, with completion in 1991.
Phasing is important for two reasons. It gives those affected throughout the ctriminal justice system time to adapt. And it enables the costs to be spread. A first draft of a code of practice was published for consultation in September 1986. Subsequent consultations have taken longer than we had hoped. But discussions have centred on procedural matters, notably the purpose and content of the written record produced by the police officers. There has throughout been full agreement on the desirability of tape recording.
As I said earlier, the procedures set out in the code require the taping of the whole of the interview. The written record which the police officer produces subsequently is in effect the cornerstone of the system. If it is to be relied upon by the prosecution and the defence in the majority of cases, it must be produced to a high standard. Detailed information about the content and the preparation of the record of interview will be set out in a circular to police forces which will accompany the code.
I must also pay tribute to the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has arranged for the production of a training video which is now being widely distributed.
The arrangements to provide reassurance to suspects that the tape has not been tampered with are simple and, we believe, effective. They involve the production of two tapes with one being sealed immediately in the presence of the suspect. This seal cannot be broken except, normally, on the order of the court. This procedure naturally favours the use of a twin-deck tape recorder although the code has been drafted in a way which does not rule out the use of single-deck machines.
These essentially simple procedures are set out in the code of practice. But any of your Lordships who may be familiar with the procedural guidance
446
which are not dealt with in the code. This is for the simple reason that they will be outside the code.
I can assure your Lordships that these comparatively detailed, but nevertheless essential, matters will be fully covered in the Home Office circular which will go out with the code. This circular has also been the subject of consultation and will be widely distributed.
Before concluding, there are one or two further points which I should like to make. There is no requirement in the code for the taping of interviews with a person who is being questioned in respect of terrorist offences or in respect of offences under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. The field trials of tape recording did not extend to terrorist interviews and, in the absence of any practical experience, we believe that it would be unwise to introduce tape recording on a general basis for thee cases. There is a real fear that these suspects, if taped, would be unlikely to talk during police interviews, but there is also the risk that taping could compromise intelligence and put lives in danger.
We intend therefore, in England and Wales, to conduct trials of tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. When these trials have been assessed we shall be in a better position to see whether a sensible and effective code of practice can be devised for these cases.
When I laid the draft code before the House on 13th June, I undertook that we would take account of any further representations which might be received by 11th July. As a result, we have made a change to one of the guidance notes, which are not part of the code itself. This is a largely technical matter concerning the procedures to be followed if a tape should break. I announced this amendment to the House on 14th July and an amended guidance note has been placed in the Library.
We are encouraged by the good progress which is being made and by the commitment which is being shown by those involved, not least the police themselves. I commend the code to the House and ask the House to approve it.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee.] —(Earl Ferrers. )
7.17 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, your Lordships will be indebted to the Minister for the very clear way in which he has explained the provisions of the order. I believe that this is an occasion when the House should congratulate the Government on the progress which at long last is being made to ensure that there is a general tape recording of statements being made by an accused.
It was also good to hear that the date by which all this will be mandatory throughout the kingdom is 1991. In fact it will be some 20 years since this very procedure, or rather experiments in regard to it, were recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee whose report appeared in 1972. However, I repeat that it is a good thing, as many of us in all parts of your Lordships' House have been

447
recommending the mandatory provision of tape recording over a very long period.
I can remember some turgid speeches which I made on the subject and I can remember other speeches much more notable than mine when we were going through the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I also remember that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was dealing with the matter at the time and dealt very sympathetically with the approaches which were made for the expedition of this procedure; we are glad to see him in his seat tonight even though his responsibilities are now somewhat different.
It is right to point out, as did the noble Earl, that the codes of practice will not be mandatory and will not have a statutory form in that way until a further order is placed before the House under Section 60(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I hope that the Minister can give some firm indication of when he hopes to present that order to Parliament.
Having given a general blessing to this order from these Benches, I now concentrate on a few matters where I have some apprehensions. I turn immediately to that part of the code to which the Minister referred as being an exception to the general rule where tape recording was required. I quote from paragraph 3.2.a of the code of practice. A tape recording is not required in respect of:
"an interview with a person arrested under Section 12(I)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 or an interview with a person being questioned in respect of an offence where there arc reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is connected to terrorism or was committed in furtherance of the objectives of an organisation engaged in terrorism."
This sub-paragraph—I am now paraphrasing—applies only where the terrorism is connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or is terrorism of any other description; but the exception to that is where terrorism relates to matters connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland.
When the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act comes before this House and another place, questions are always asked about one of the offences in that Act. That offence, which is definitely connected with terrorism, is that where a person has knowledge of matters connected with threatened terrorism, or terrorism generally, and fails to reveal that knowledge a criminal offence has been committed. Often have speeches been made in your Lordships' House, from these and from other Benches, that this offence should not be in the Act. Indeed, various reports have been compiled, as your Lordships will remember, by eminent Members of this House, which advocate that that offence, which is of a dubious nature and where there have been very few prosecutions, should no longer be an offence.
The delicacy of an inquiry as to whether somebody actually knew about an act of terrorism will be obvious to your Lordships. If ever I could think of a case where a recording would be necessary I should have thought it was that one. Yet we are told by the Government —unless I have made an error and if I have I know that the noble Earl will be good enough,
448
in gentle language, to point that out to me—that it will mean that the dubious offence is one of the exceptions to the rule.
Having dealt with the particular, I now deal with the general. One of the main factors which has stopped proceedings in the past from being successful in the few cases—but there have been cases —where the accused has been acquitted and one of the factors which is prevalent after a case has been heard is where a confession has been extorted from the accused in connection with a terrorist offence by means which are grossly improper. I should have thought that without any doubt at all it is absolutely wrong to make an exception not for terrorism generally but for terrorism in Northern Ireland.
First, we are driving another wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in addition to those which already exist in the laws of justice and of criminal procedure. I should have thought that was a grave mistake. Secondly, the Government's reason for doing this is totally wrong. I cannot see the justification for dealing with this matter of terrorism in Northern Ireland and tape recording differently from any other criminal case; nor can I see the justice of saying that this does not apply to terrorism in other parts of the United Kingdom but only in regard to Northern Ireland.
Would not a suspect in regard to terrorism in England, Wales or Scotland be subject, as the Minister mentioned, to the same inhibitions in talking frankly and freely about terrorist acts? Is the IRA, hideous though that organisation is, more terrible than terrorists in the United Kingdom, whether inspired by Libya or any other country which appears to take an interest in causing damage to civilian life and property in this country? Is it not possible to ensure that the summary, which the noble Earl said will be the normal procedure after the tape recording has been made, of necessity leaves out matters which have nothing to do with the probative evidence in regard to a criminal act of terrorism but which have made useful disclosures to the police in areas of terrorism about which they may not otherwise have known?
I repeat, I cannot see any justification whatever, only harm, for that exclusion. Furthermore, I can see that once again there will be allegations about torture, confessions wrongly obtained, and so on, in terrorist cases in Northern Ireland which will lead, as they do, to hatred and contempt for our authorities who do not deserve it. We believe that such cases, if they do occur, are extremely rare and are to be abhorred, but why walk into that accusation when a tape recording would show the mood of the whole interview and exactly what had occurred?
I move to another matter under the code. Paragraphs 3.3 states:
"The custody officer may authorise the interviewing officer not to tape record the interview: (b) where it is clear from the outset that no prosecution will ensue".
The custody officer is not a trained lawyer. One hopes that he is a person of some experience. He does not necessarily have a very high rank in the police force. It may be his genuine view that no prosecution will ensue and as a result of that there will be no tape recording. Are we to understand that, if the custody

449
officer has decided from the outset that no prosecution will ensue, and if the interview throws up matters which a subsequent prosecuting authority believes should lead to a prosecution, such a prosecution will automatically be barred because the accused, even after a tape recording becomes mandatory, was robbed of the opportunity of having the tape recording because it was decided at the outset of the interview that no prosecution would ensue? I repeat my question, is the accused free from prosecution if that decision is made by the custody officer?
My last point relates to the summary. The notes for guidance use these very proper words:
"The record shall, therefore, comprise a balanced account of the Interview including points in mitigation and/or defence made by the suspect".
I appreciate as well as any of your Lordships that it will be open to the defence to hear the whole of the recording and possibly to see a transcript. The defence will decide whether the summary is a fair one. Most of your Lordships may be more fortunate than I in recollecting précis exercises at school and the success or otherwise of your efforts. It was one of the most difficult things to teach. Other matters of grammar and composition were looked upon as being very much easier than the art of being able to make a proper précis.
I merely hope that the status and the capabilities of the officers who will be dealing with this matter—namely, the officers who prepare the précis—will be of the ability required to deal with this very sensitive matter. I ask the Minister whether steps are already being taken in police colleges throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that as from now précis writing is part of the course in which police officers will be trained.
If it is found that time after time the defence complain that they have not been presented with a correct or fair summary and they therefore demand that a transcript of the whole of the recording be produced in court, that is bound to lead to an excess of both expenditure and time.
Having made these qualifications, I repeat that the Government are to be congratulated on getting a move on with this exercise which was suggested in 1971 by the committee to which I referred. Otherwise, from my point of view, I welcome the code that we are asked to approve tonight.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I thank the noble Earl for having explained the contents of this order. Like the noble Lord, I support it, and my support for it is slightly more unreserved. There are a number of issues arising from it that we should discuss this evening. First, I take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt with at the end of his speech. I do not believe that either the present Government or their predecessor can be accused of having moved with undue haste to introduce the tape recording of interviews with suspected persons.
To some extent I believe that the delays were perfectly understandable and, to some degree,
450
inevitable. At first there was undoubtedly scepticism in the police service about it and that was shared by some lawyers. There was doubt about whether tape recording would be of as much benefit to our criminal justice system as the proponents suggested. Well over 10 years ago—indeed, I believe it was 13 years ago—there was a Home Office committee presided over by Mr. Wilfred Hyde which studied the issues involved and produced a most valuable report. Since then there has been a number of significant developments, not least the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. As a result of these developments I believe it is fair to say that the suspicion that existed that tapes could easily be tampered with—a belief which was inevitable following upon some of the disclosures in the Watergate case—has been put at rest.
It is right to say that the pilot projects to which the noble Earl referred undoubtedly went well. As a result of these developments a number of sceptics became enthusiasts for taping. I have little doubt that the introduction of tape recording throughout England and Wales will prove to be of immense benefit to our criminal justice system. It should certainly shorten many trials, guarantee high standards of conduct by police officers involved in interviewing suspects and lessen the likelihood of dishonest defendants being able to persuade juries that the statement they made to the police was either invented by the police or made as the result of harassment.
That being so, how can the Government justify delaying the introduction of tape recording throughout England and Wales until 1991? If he will forgive me for saying so, the noble Earl passed over that matter rather speedily in his speech this evening. I believe that some explanation is called for. It seems very surprising that we have to wait up to five years before we can be sure that taping will be extended to every area of the United Kingdom. I am well aware that in this period (a point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon) a major training exercise will be involved in the police service. However, that cannot constitute a reason for a delay for five years.
I fear that the explanation is likely to be the second reason given by the noble Earl in his speech; that is, that the Government are not prepared to make the resources available in order to introduce the scheme earlier. I believe that is a great misfortune. It will impose an entirely unjustifiable burden on our courts, which as we all know are under the heaviest pressure at the moment.
I very much hope that, as a result of the criticisms made in another place last night and in this House this evening, the Government will think again about this. Certainly there is no great body of support in the police service for a delay of this character; and of that I can assure the noble Earl. I am quite sure that he will confirm that that is so.
I would now like to ask the noble Earl a question of which I gave him a few minutes' notice; that is, whether the Government are now preparing to move towards the next step, which is video-recorded interviews. As the noble Earl will be aware, these are now commonplace in many areas of the United States. A number of heads of American police

451
departments have told me that they represent a major improvement on tape-recorded interviews. Quite apart from any other consideration, it gives the opportunity of dealing with any suggestion that there has been some subtle form of harassment during the interview, because one is able clearly to study the features of those concerned.
I am told that the introduction of video-recorded interviews in the United States has led to a significant increase in the number of guilty pleas in the courts, and thus to a reduction of the pressure on their court system. Again, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether the Home Office is studying this at the moment, and whether it will be indicating its general attitude towards it.
Lastly, I should like to come to the question—which is a difficult one—dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That is the issue raised in paragraph 3.2 of the code: the exclusion for the present of interviews with people arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I can understand the concern of entirely reasonable people that cases relating to Northern Ireland are to be excluded in this fashion.
However, I must make it clear that on the basis of my own experience I believe that the Government are right to move with considerable caution.
If a suspected terrorist sees that his interview is being tape recorded, he may become so fearful that the content of the tape will fall into the hands of his colleagues that he may decline to give any further information. On many occasions material of this kind is vital. It can give police information about the IRA that will save lives, and in other cases it will pinpoint other suspects and provide extremely important criminal intelligence information.
If tape recordings were to be required in all such cases, there is a risk that some of that information could end up by being leaked to the IRA. I do not consider that it is right for us to take such a risk, and accordingly I consider that for the moment it is right to exclude Northern Ireland cases from the provisions of the order.
Having made those various points, I think I have said enough to indicate our wholehearted support for the general approach set out in the order we are debating this evening. It represents, as I have indicated, a major improvement in our system of criminal justice for the defendant and the police alike. Our major concern is that the Government will speed up the introduction of this system throughout the country well before 1991. I hope that the noble Earl will deal directly with this point when he replies to the debate.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks that both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, have made. This is quite an innovation. The whole principle of tape recording is new. It covers sensitive ground, and I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is possibly a little hesitant in his
452
welcome, though he said that he welcomed it on the whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked why we are slow in doing this. I think the basic answer is that we want to proceed carefully and cautiously. As I explained, we set up a trial, and we wanted to see how it worked out. The trials went on for a period of about two years. Now that we think we have got it right, it is proposed to introduce it. When the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says that this has taken a great deal of time, he will remember that some £9 million is being spent on it.
It is a considerable physical upheaval in various police stations. It is not all that easy to do that kind of thing overnight. If one thinks of the Metropolitan Police area alone, an enormous number of stations will have to be modified and altered. Although the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would like to see this done quicker—I can understand his impatience, if I may use that word without any discourtesy—I think it would be unreasonable to expect that we would be able to do it immediately.
We propose to make orders—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked specifically about this—under Section 60(1)(b) when the tape recording is operating satisfactorily on a voluntary basis throughout a force area. We are likely to make orders in respect of a number of forces at a time. The first of these orders is likely to be laid during the next Session.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, questioned the assumption of the code of interviews with terrorist suspects. He took the view that these recorded interviews should be done before terrorist suspects, and he thought it was wrong for those to be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to that too. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put his finger on the point. If a suspect believes that there is the slightest chance of a tape falling into the wrong hands, he will be loath to speak. There is a real fear that the suspects would be unlikely to talk during these interviews, and there is a real fear that the taping could compromise intelligence and put lives in danger.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, takes a different view. I hope he will respect our view and the fact that if we feel lives and intelligence are likely to be put at risk we are right, so far, not to include those sorts of interviews for those sorts of people. We shall of course consider what to do as more knowledge and experience become available, but at the moment we feel that, for those reasons of acute sensitivity that the noble Lord will understand, it would be better not to use this system for terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also asked specifically about the exemption under paragraph 3.2 of the code. This applies to an interview with a person being questioned in respect of an offence where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is connected with terrorism. This could include an offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which deals with withholding information about acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord will understand the reasons we take the view that we have.

453
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred back to his schooldays. That was a touching recollection with which I had much sympathy, because I found the art of making a precis extremely difficult as well. I can assure the noble Lord that the police are fully seized of the need for training in the preparation of the written records of interviews. Most training will be given in police forces, and force training itself will be assisted by the orders produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The noble Lord is correct that if the precis is done wrong, then of course the whole validity of the exercise gets endangered. However, great trouble will be taken to ensure that so far as possible all precis are reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also asked what would happen if a person had not been interviewed using a tape and it was then decided to prosecute. In other words, what happens if there is no taping? Does that mean no prosecution? I do not think that this is likely to occur very often, but in the unlikely event that it is decided to prosecute a person, we believe that the proper course would be to carry out a further interview, which would be fully recorded.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred specifically to the next step forward, which would be the video recording of interviews. If this were to take place, police forces would have to prepare special interview rooms. There are no plans at the moment to introduce video recordings in evidence. The Government are considering the possibility of introducing video recordings of evidence given by children in sex abuse cases. A working party has been set up under the chairmanship of Judge Pigot to consider the implications of that. The use of video recordings in all cases would be exceedingly expensive. At the moment it is not under consideration.
I am grateful for the welcome that the two noble Lords have given to this order. I think that it is an important step forward, and one which we will watch with interest to see how it proceeds. I am grateful for the encouragement that we have been given. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 74.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 56, line 13, at end insert—
("() Where an order is made under this section, —

(a) payments made by a local authority as mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be prescribed expenditure for the purposes of Part VII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (capital expenditure of local authorities); and

(b) unless the order otherwise provides, payments made to a local authority as mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be regarded for the purposes of that Part as sums received by the authority in respect of a disposal falling within section 75(2) of that Act.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 122. We have made clear our intention that transfers to HATs should take place at tenanted market value. Clause 75 provides for the Secretary of
454
State to consult the local authority about the terms of the proposed transfer before he makes a transfer order.
The government Amendment No. 122 is simply designed to bring transfers to HATs within the normal workings of the capital control system and, in particular, to ensure that moneys received by local authorities will be capital receipts and give rise to spending power. Such receipts will be treated in exactly the same way as housing receipts are now. For the future, my right honourable friend has recently issued a consultation paper about capital expenditure and finance which, among other things, makes proposals for the use of capital receipts from 1990/91 onwards. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has fairly and clearly described what happens when there is a positive value placed on the property. He has said that it will be treated as a capital receipt, subject to any restrictions on the use of such receipts.
However, is it not the case that there could be a negative valuation placed on the property as a result of which the local authority would be required to pay a dowry? In that case, what will be the position about local authority expenditure? This is going to be an additional cost to the local authority. The levels of permissible expenditure for the next financial year are usually set in November of each year. Therefore, how is the Department of the Environment to assess the financial impact of negative valuations on individual authorities? Is any sum earmarked in the public expenditure Estimates and the public expenditure White Paper for this purpose? If it is to be a purely additional item, so be it; but if it is not to be an additional item, what is to be deducted from the budget of the Department of the Environment in order to pay this additional amount?
The Earl of Caithness: Clearly, the noble Lord has raised an important issue. As he knows, this is a very new policy area for me and I should like to look at it. As the noble Lord also knows, the amount that local authorities will be given will be considered. We do not know where the HATs are going to be or indeed their value. It is possible in some cases that there might be a deficit value. That is something that I should like to look at in a little more detail. Then I shall write to the noble Lord about this matter. However, we hope that they will be positive values.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause No. 79 [Disposal of land by housing action trusts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 59, line 10, leave out ("either under this section or").
The noble Lord said: This can best be described as a probing amendment because there seems to be some conflict of evidence between Ministerial statement and the way in which the Bill is expressed. The Secretary of State in another place on 27th June said:
"In all cases the basis for approval will be the same as our tenants' choice proposals".
I am of course talking of approval for disposal of HAT property to a landlord on the conclusion of the HAT's work.
Under Clause 93 of the Bill there is a very clear commitment by the Government, which we welcome, that when the tenants' choice procedures take place, the prospective landlord will have to abide by rules laid down by the Housing Corporation. Clause 93 is very precise about that condition. Indeed, I understand that the Housing Corporation is already drawing up a guidance on housing management practice for registered housing associations which could well be used for assessing whether an applicant landlord is an appropriate landlord. The draft guidelines include questions of meeting the housing demand, allocating tenancies, the terms of tenancies, the principles of determining rents and charges, maintenance and repair, tenant relations, race relations, etc.
We welcome the fact that the Housing Corporation appears to be taking very seriously the problem of how to judge whether an applicant is an appropriate landlord for public sector housing.
Unfortunately, Clause 79 is not anything like as precise as Clause 93. Although the Secretary of State has said in the statement that I have just quoted that he wants the conditions to be the same as in the tenants' choice proposals, that does not appear to be reflected in the Bill. For that reason we are suggesting that the disposal should be to a person approved under Clause 93 rather than under this clause, which is less precise. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Clause 93 conditions take priority and that the rather vaguer wording in Clause 79 is a hangover from an earlier regime before the Secretary of State made his commitments to a stricter regime. If the noble Earl can give that assurance, I shall be delighted to withdraw the amendment, unless the amendment is, in its own words, acceptable.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I was somewhat confused when I first saw this amendment, so I spent some time with officials this morning trying to work out exactly what the the noble Lord was driving at. However, I think I can say to him that we have got it right. We want to be able to involve as post-HAT landlords any landlord who is deemed to meet the Housing Corporation's approval criteria which will carry with it the tenants' guarantees we have already discussed whether or not they have previously been involved as tenants' choice landlords. The clause therefore allows the corporation also to approve landlords specifically for the purpose of being post-HAT landlords.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will agree with me that the Housing
456
Corporation should be able to approve any landlords to take on property from HATs who can satisfy them and not restrict themselves to those already involved with Part IV of the Bill. As I understand it, this clause ensures not only that those landlords who have come forward under Part IV of the Bill are vetted, but also that if another landlord, who is not a tenants' choice landlord, comes forward the Housing Corporation has to vet that landlord in exactly the same way. That is the point of the clause. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can see that the Minister and I have the same aim, but I am not convinced that the Bill achieves it. Will he confirm, or otherwise, that the conditions laid down in Clause 93 are stricter than those laid down in Clause 79? They are certainly different. There is no doubt about that, because the flexibility given to the corporation and the Secretary of State in Clause 79 is much greater. In other words, the assurances which are given in Clause 93 are more satisfactory to us. Will he confirm that the more secure regime in Clause 93 is the dominant one? If he does, then we can think about it between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that we are seeking to achieve the same object. As I understand it, that is how one interprets the Bill. Obviously I should like to look at the legal point raised by the noble Lord between now and another stage but, nevertheless, I think we are on common ground.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the basis that it is not the Government's intention to introduce a new and less rigid approval procedure for the disposal of securely tenanted HAT households—that is what I am really seeking to ensure—I think it is proper that I should withdraw the amendment. Perhaps the Minister and I can have a word about it before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 60, line 11, at end insert:
("(aa) an approval under this section shall not be given except to a person making an application accompanied by such fee as the Corporation, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may specify; and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 and 125. These amendments are essentially technical and bring Clause 79 in line with Clause 93. Since it is right that landlords approved for the purposes of Part III should be subject to the same approval criteria as for tenants' choice, I invite the Committee to accept the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are talking here about the possibility in the end of landlords being "struck off' the register, are we not? Will the list of landlords who have been struck off in that way be available? Further, will the reasons for such action be available, so that existing tenants unable to get away from those landlords can at least be informed of what has gone wrong and the extent to which the landlords

457
were in error or guilty of wrongdoing which led to their being struck off?
Lord Hesketh: I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord in answer to that question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry; that is not satisfactory. It is clear from the wording of the amendment that that is what will happen. We shall let the amendment go through but I cannot say that I am satisfied with the degree of briefing which has been given to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125.
Page 60, line 20, at end insert ("and different fees may be specified under paragraph (aa) above for different descriptions of cases.").
Page 60, line 20, at end insert—
("() The Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales shall each maintain a register of persons for the time being approved by it under this section; and each register so maintained shall be open to inspection at the head office of the Corporation by which it is maintained at all reasonable times.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 125A:
Page 60, line 20, at end insert—
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (9)(a) above, an approval under this section may be conditional upon the person or persons concerned entering into an undertaking that the use of any dwelling-house, excluded from the provisions of Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (Right to Buy), continue to be commensurate with the purpose for which they were provided by the local authority.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment involves a very important principle and one which was brought very forcibly to our attention this morning by the tenants in the housing action trust areas who came to see us in this place. The point they made most forcibly to us is that they want the right, when the housing action trust has run its course and has made the improvements which everyone desires, to go back to the local authority as local authority tenants. Therefore the first part of the amendment provides that if,
"a secure tenant in receipt of a notice under subsection (4)"
tells the housing action trust that he wishes the local authority to acquire the house, then that shall take place and he will go back to the local authority. I imagine that the Minister and the Government will have no particular difficulty with that. Certainly, one of the options which they have always envisaged for properties under housing action trusts is that they should go back to the control of the local authority afterwards. Of course they envisage other options, but that one has not been ruled out.
The problem arises when the local authority, having disposed of the property to the HAT and its value presumably having increased because there is after all £125 million available for the housing action trust programme, is offered the property back because the tenant so wishes. How will the local authority be able to pay for it? What we wish to secure by the second part of the amendment is that the Secretary of State shall adjust the capital expenditure
458
allocation of the local authority under Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by a sum equal to the amount for which the house is purchased by the authority from the HAT.
I give notice to the Government that this will be a most important element when they seek to persuade—by ballot, as the Committee has decided—housing action trust area tenants to agree to, and co-operate with, the housing action trust. If they feel that they do not have the power to go back to the local authority as landlords, and there is any risk that the local authority may not be able to afford to take them back at the price charged by the housing action trust, then the possibility of co-operation by the tenants in the housing action trust will be that much reduced and the possibility of a "no" vote in a ballot will be that much greater.
It is a matter upon which concern was expressed to us most forcibly by the tenants whom we met. I believe that as the Secretary of State continues his meetings with tenants in the HAT areas, he will find—and no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be present at those meetings in his new capacity as housing Minister—that this is what he will be told. They will want to come back, and they will want to be assured that the local authority can take them back.
I am not certain that the wording of these amendments actually achieves what we want to do; there may be problems about that. However, I have no doubt whatever that this is a most important issue. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am slightly confused. I thought that Amendment No. 125A had already been spoken to when Amendment No. 121B was dealt with, and that it had already been answered.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was speaking to Amendment No. 125B.
The Earl of Caithness: That is the amendment that I thought the noble Lord was speaking to; but the Deputy Chairman of Committees called Amendment No. 125A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I did indeed call Amendment No. 125A. I realise of course that it is linked to Amendment No. 121B, but that is nothing to do with me. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, wishes to make another speech on Amendment No. 125B he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, at the moment we are dealing with Amendment No. 125A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise to the Committee and to the Deputy Chairman. I did not realise that I should have said "not moved" to Amendment No. 125A. My speech related to Amendment No. 125B. I hope that, in the relatively clublike atmosphere in which the Committee is being conducted at this hour of the night, it will be possible for me to withdraw Amendment No. 125A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Provisions applicable to disposals of dwelling-houses subject to secure tenancies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 125B:
Page 64, line 22, at end insert—
("() If, in making representations under this section, a secure tenant in receipt of a notice under subsection (4) above informs a housing action trust that he wishes the local authority to acquire the house, the housing action trust shall dispose of the house to the local authority, where the Secretary of State gives his consent to any other disposal from the trust to any other person.
() Where a disposal is made to a local authority under this section. the Secretary of State shall increase the amount of expenditure prescribed under Part VIII (Capital Expenditure of Local Authorities Etc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the said authority by an amount equal to the sum for which the house was purchased by the said authority from the housing action trust.").
The noble Lord said: I have, in error, already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: We have already made it clear that we want to see HATs offering tenants a wide range of options and have strengthened the provisions for consultation with them on disposals. When the housing action trust has finished its improvment work it will offer its tenants a new landlord. This could be a housing association, a tenants' co-operative or a private landlord. If they wish, and the council agrees, the council may again become their landlord. Apart from transfers back to local authorities, HATs will be able to transfer secure tenants and their properties only to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. All the options will be fully discussed with tenants before any decisions are made.
I find it difficult to agree that to go beyond this, to give tenants an absolute right to return to the council, is reasonable. It cannot be right to compel a local authority, many years ahead of a potential HAT disposal, to take back any tenant who asks. The authority may by then have a different perception of its housing responsibilities. However, it is open to local authorities to consider their policy on this now.
Neither can I agree that the local authority's prescribed expenditure should be increased. It will have gained a receipt from a HAT at the time of the transfer to the HAT which it will have been able to spend over time, subject to the prescribed proportion rules. Additionally, local authorities will be able to discuss their need for expenditure in the normal way during the discussion which takes place annually with the department on housing investment programme bids.
I should like to comment further on the noble Lord's argument on a firm commitment. He said that such a commitment cannot be made by authorities in the absence of guarantees that their prescribed expenditure will be automaticaly adjusted to reflect the cost of acquiring stock from a HAT. I should like to make four points on this. First, local authorities will be able to discuss their need for expenditure in the normal way. Secondly, the authorities may have
460
already received that capital receipt, which will add to their spending power over time.
I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to take that point into account. He will be aware that there is no automatic correlation between the cost of repair and improvement work and the value of properties. We cannot foresee the impact that the work of HATs will have on the value of stock they acquire from local authorities. We cannot even consider what the prices of the properties might be. I became a junior surveyor in the middle of the housing boom of the early 1970s. Within a year prices were falling and it was difficult to assess prices either going up or coming down. Indeed it was difficult as a valuer to assess them when they were on the level.
Finally, HATs will not be waiting until they are dissolved to dispose of the property. They will be doing so throughout their lifetime as improvement work is completed and as sensible disposal options can be considered. When local authorities consider whether they wish to buy back property from HATs they are likely to be doing so against the background of rather smaller packages than the overall quantity of the stock originally transferred. The views of the tenants might well have changed in the interim. We shall offer them a choice. If the local authority is willing, arrangements can be made at the time.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may take that last point first. The Minister certainly convinced me that the drafting of my amendment is defective in that it says that the full cost to the authority of buying a property should be added to the expenditure prescribed under Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. He quite rightly pointed out that the local authority will already have had a capital receipt from the disposal of the property to the housing action trust. Therefore I feel that I should withdraw the amendment in order to find a way to reflect the net cost to a local authority rather than the gross cost.
I shall certainly withdraw the amendment on that basis. However, I must warn the Minister that the Government will make life extraordinarily difficult for themselves if they deny the right for a HAT area tenant to return to a local authority. As I know from my experience this morning, tenants feel very strongly on this point. The Minister will learn about this when he comes to meet the tenants and when the ballot procedure which has been agreed this afternoon has been implemented. He will find great difficulty in persuading tenants of the virtues of HATs unless he can give the kind of assurance which I was seeking in the amendment. I shall return to the matter in a different form at a later stage. However, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, wihdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 125C:
Page 64, line 23, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("() For the purposes of section 106A and Schedule 3A of the Housing Act 1985 a housing action trust shall be considered to be a local authority").
The noble Lord said: I hope to make the right speech to the right amendment. I want the Minister to realise that tenants will feel like shuttlecocks. Regardless of the fact that they are happy living where they are and are content with their present landlord they may find themselves in HATs where for a period they will be subject to the management and to the direction and control of what will be for them an alien body. When the HAT has completed its work and carried out its remit and, we hope, has brightened the environs of the properties, who will become the new landlords of the enlarged, enriched and enlivened HAT area?
This amendment seeks to allow tenants of a HAT to veto disposals to landlords they do not want if a majority of the tenants express such opposition. The amendment does this in quite an ingenous way. The Minister's advisers will no doubt have guided him on the thinking behind the amendment. The deletion of Section 5(8) of the Housing Act 1985 would apply to HATs and therefore disposals would fall under its provisions. Section 105 does not provide for a right of veto. However, the Housing and Planning Act 1986 added a new Section 106A which includes the right of veto, whereby the Secretary of State is prohibited from giving consent to the disposal of property if it appears to him that the majority of tenants are opposed to it. Section 106A replaces the provisions of Section 105 in relation to consultation on disposals. As Section 106A and the accompanying Schedule 3A only apply to local authorities, the latter part of this amendment defines HATs as local authorities.
We understand that a comparable amendment was moved and debated in another place. That gave guidance not only to myself but to the Minister who is advised by a group of advisers here similar to those in another place. While there was some give on the issue of consultation, there was very little give on the meat of the amendment which is the right to veto. The Minister was not prepared to give any concession at all. His argument was that it would give the HAT an indefinite lifespan, with tenants throwing out proposals from approved landlord after approved landlord. We need to examine that argument a little more closely.
Although it is early days in the Minister's responsibilities, from his general background he will be well aware that in the original document on HATs the following statement appears:
"The HAT as a landlord of the properties it takes over from the local authority will also be subject to the same duties as authorities to consult its tenants about management and maintenance issues".
Perhaps the most important issue of management on 'which consultation is necessary is a change of management. Secure tenants have rights under the Housing Act 1985 not only to consultation but to an effective right of veto if a majority are opposed to a disposal to a particular new landlord. If the pledge in the consultation document is to be honoured, it would follow that the tenants of HATs should have the same rights. We take the view that this is a litmus paper in the test of the Government's true intentions regarding the whole raison d'être for the HAT scenario.
The Government have told us that their prime concern is nothing other than to improve the
462
environment, to improve the quality of housing, and to improve the quality of life of the people who live in the estates. The Government are doing this through the vehicles and mechanism of HATs. We are not arguing about HATs; we are arguing about the rights of tenants of a local authority who for a period of time are under the sovereignty of a HAT and what happens to them at the end of the HAT period.
If there is anything more than rhetoric in the Government's phrase "tenants' choice", we are asking, what is wrong with the tenants of properties under a HAT having tenants' choice? If a HAT cannot find a suitable landlord when it comes to the end of its life, why should it not continue until it finds one? We have no particular concept; we do not very much like the concept of a HAT, but we shall certainly not say that there is nothing worse than a HAT from the point of view of looking after the interests of tenants. We have a very long short list of dubious characters and dubious arrangements under private landlordism which would be infinitely more detrimental to the interests of tenants than what we understand is the Government's intention in respect of HATs. We are saying that the unpalatable aspects of HATs could be made a little more palatable if HAT tenants were given the same rights as other tenants. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: HATs will be short-life bodies charged with carrying out a programme of improvement and repair. Once they have completed this work they will be wound up. It is in the tenants' own long-term interests that HATs be wound up as soon as their job is done. It therefore cannot be right to give tenants a right to frustrate this objective by being able to veto all disposal options put before them.
However, as Members of the Committee know, we consider that tenants are central to the policy. We have therefore already amended the Bill to strengthen the consultation arrangements along the lines of Section 106A and Schedule 3A of the Housing Act 1985 so that there is full consultation with tenants about options for disposal. They will be given the option of return to the local authority if the local authority is willing. For those secure tenants not returning to the local authority, HATs will only be able to dispose of their property to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. These might be housing associations, tenants' co-operatives or private sector landlords. In all cases, this will mean transfers can only take place to responsible, financially stable landlords whose interest lies in maintaining stock acquired from HATs for letting at rents—
I hope that Members of the Committee will accept the Government's commitment, already reflected in Clause 83, to provide tenants with genuine consultation and real choice about their futures. I re-emphasise the amendments which have already been made to this clause in another place.
The more this debate progresses about HATs, the more interesting it is to see the attitudes of noble Lords opposite towards them. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, "Well, we have these

463
beastly, horrible HATs coming in where all the tenants are happy". Quite clearly, after my short experience, but having talked to my honourable friend the former Minister for Housing and Planning. I believe that the tenants are not happy in some of these situations. The houses are appalling; they have been so badly maintained; so unimproved. The crime, the vandalism and graffiti are there for all to see. The old ladies do not even dare to go out the moment the sun starts to set. These are not happy people.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, went on to say, "Their lives will be enriched and enlivened. Perhaps there is a bit of good in the FIAT there". Then he said, "Well, we like the HATs so much as landlords that tenants can reject all alternatives". It is not a question of the HAT finding an alternative suitable landlord; those landlords will be approved by the Housing Corporation. The noble Lord said, "We are not quite sure about the Housing Corporation being allowed to approve them". I really think that the noble Lord is beginning to like HATs quite a lot after all.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the HAT fits, the noble Lord can wear it! I cannot recall either the spirit or the words which the Minister has put into my mouth. I start from the premise that we want a democratic right for people who live in council accommodation to have a meaningful say as to who their landlord should be. We are not saying that everyone should, in an anarchistic way, be able to frustrate the will of the Government, a HAT, the council or a majority. We are saying that a majority of tenants might find themselves in this situation—I was careful not to say "unfortunate situation".
We have had other arguments about the concept of a HAT. When the Minister gives illustrations of some areas that have been designated as HATs, he may well be right. My noble friends and I listened to the words from the horse's mouth this morning—from the tenants who came from estates. My noble friend Lord McIntosh in a very restrained way described the estate in Tower Hamlets on the edge of the City. The quality which shone through to me was the pride of those tenants in their community. They were proud of it. The Minister and I may very well find that, in comparison with the houses in which he and I live, these were not salubrious surroundings. They may not have the same facilities as we have, but the lady who spoke, and others around her, live in a community and they are suspicious and fearful. Of course they complain that what they have could be improved, but it is their own. They have something which even the Minister and I may not have in the communities in which we live. They have a pride in the continuity of their families and that of their neighbours.
I am not saying that housing action trusts will not be managed efficiently or fairly. I am saying that they will not be managed democratically. That is our big argument. If the Minister has any faith in the value and the merit of what he is doing, we fail to see why he is not prepared to test it. The Minister is entitled to believe that local councils are not the best agents to improve properties which need to be improved.
464
But the Minister is going down a very dangerous road in that belief. He is in effect saying to a local authority that it has an area in which, by all the measuring rods, £5 million of public money properly spent will improve the lives of the 200 to 300 people who live there.
He is also saying that the Government believe that local authorities are bad managers of money. He is saying that the Government believe there is a better way of improving properties and that that will be achieved by appointing an unelected group of place men and place women. Those people will be appointed by the Secretary of State for no other reason than their skill in managing houses.
But those people cannot relate to the people on whose behalf they are managing the houses. The Government have revealed that there are other areas of public life where they believe that the man or the woman in Marsham Street knows best. The Bill is yet another erosion of the powers of local authorities to look after local people. The Minister knows well that local authorities have been starved of the proper resources with which to do that.
The reply of the Minister has been most unsatisfactory but very revealing. It has shown that he cannot understand what the tenants want. They want what the Minister says they have—tenants' choice. That is a sham and the Minister should know it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 86 [Agency agreements]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 125D:
Page 65, line 25, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall not give his approval under subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that the housing action trust has complied with the provisions of section 27A of the Housing Act 1985.".
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It is interesting to reflect for a few moments on the discussion that took place on the previous amendment between my noble friend Lord Graham and the Minister. We have been told quite clearly that the money on the table at this time to finance the exercise of housing action trusts is £125 million.
I do not know whether that sum represents a down payment or the total financing of the system. I do not have all the figures; perhaps the Minister's officials have them. However, I know that £125 million is less than the sum that was withheld from three or four major local authorities when they put in bids for their housing investment programmes. I can say off the top of my head that such cities as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham asked for sums over £100 million and received about half that amount, if that. If one considers that particular yardstick, one can see that the sum being put on the

465
table now is less than the sum that was withheld from three or four large authorities. They had asked for that money to carry out the job that the housing action trusts are supposed to carry out.
Reports submitted two or three years ago concerning the financial resources required for dealing with council housing mentioned sums such as £18 billion. That sum was not submitted by a political body but by one of the national research institutes. The figure, which was the first to be quoted, became a conservative estimate. Every figure submitted since has shown a tremendous increase on that original figure. So, as regards the present figure, we are talking about confetti money. Confetti money is going to be used to deal with probably the most difficult and tendentious social problem that exists today— the question of housing at the bottom end of the scale.
As regards the amendment, Clause 86 of the Bill allows a housing action trust, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to enter into agency agreements with another person or body for the discharging of any of its functions, including its housing function.
As it stands, Clause 86 appears to allow housing action trusts to escape the responsibilities which they would otherwise have under Section 27A of the Housing Act to consult tenants before entering into such an agreement and not to proceed if the majority are opposed to it. The amendment seeks to ensure that Section 27A applies in this case. Section 27A of the 1985 Act deals with a case where the local authority proposes to enter into a management agreement with another person or body over the management of its housing. The tenants themselves must be consulted and, if a majority of tenants say they do not agree with the proposal, the Secretary of State shall not give his approval to it. In effect, the tenants retain the right of veto.
The amendment requires housing action trusts to comply with Section 27A of the Housing Act. In committee in another place the late Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Marion Roe—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful for that correction, although politically what I said may be the case. I am afraid that I have lost my place. It is late in the Session and I hope that the Committee will sympathise with my predicament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We all have to row together!
Lord Dean of Beswick: Yes, we may do that. Mrs. Roe agreed that Section 27A should apply and agreed to consider how best to apply it. However, no amendment was brought forward on Report in another place. It is hoped that the Government will accept this amendment.
Section 27A was inserted into the 1985 Act by the Government in the Housing and Planning Act 1986. At that stage, it was supported by the Opposition because it gave additional rights to council tenants.
466
Those rights would apply whatever the proposal from the local authority, whether to delegate the management of an estate to a tenant management co-operative or whether to pass the management to a private company. It is absolutely right that tenants should have a veto, because the housing management matters which can be delegated to someone else include rent collection, caretaking, general management and maintenance, small repairs, allocations and lettings policy, policy on rent arrears, harassment and other matters, In other words, they include all the things which can dramatically affect the quality of life of the tenants concerned.
There is no reason why housing action trust tenants should lose that protection. We have every hope that the amendment will meet with the Government's approval. In Committee in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
"The Secretary of State will, of course, want HATs to consult their tenants about any arrangements that will amount to management agreements. I sympathise with the purpose of Amendment No. 580. I agree with the honourable Member for Makerfield that Section 27A of the Housing Act 1985 or its equivalent should apply to HATs. There should be a provision requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that tenants have been consulted on proposals for management agreements, and to withhold approval when a majority of the tenants oppose the proposals. I assure the honourable gentleman that we shall consider how best to apply the requirement of Section 27A to HATs in the Bill. In the light of that assurance, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 23/2/88; col. 1064.]
That was an assurance which was given in another place.
There may be some reason why the Government have not come forward with such an amendment. It may be that they have discovered that Clause 86 of this Bill does not override Section 27A after all and that tenants are protected. If that is the case, we shall be satisfied. However, our reading of the Bill is that they are not. That seems to be the interpretation which was put on the Bill by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place in February. That will not restrict a housing action trust from entering into agency agreements which are not matters of housing management. It would be free to enter into agreements on other issues.
We hope that the Government will support the amendment. Certainly it would reassure the tenants in the six authorities who seem likely to have their estates designated. Those tenants are recovering from the announcement and are beginning to look at the details of the Bill. Some of the tenants' representatives are alarmed by the wording of Clause 86. They believe that the power to privatise the management of their estates is contained in the Bill. That may not be the Government's intention and that is why it is important for them to make that clear to the tenants by accepting the amendment.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Government where tenants who have a beef against their local authority normally go. If they are not satisfied or if they have problems with a local authority tenancy, it is the case—as I know as an ex-chairman of housing and as my colleagues as former local government men will know—that they go to the surgeries of local councillors, which are often held on a weekly basis. In my term as a councillor in Manchester and as a

467
Member of Parliament representing a traditional working class area in Leeds, I believe that at least 80 per cent. of the people who came to see me had housing problems. The vast majority of those people were concerned about local authority housing. That is a point which I have not heard mentioned in our debate.
If tenants are not satisfied with the so-called imago which the Secretary of State will produce, who will they complain to? They cannot go to their local elected councillor. He has no authority in the matter. He can write to the housing action trust. It will not need to reply because he has no statutory rights in the matter. Some weeks ago I raised a question in your Lordships' House about an area of public concern. In Manchester certain people were appointed to positions who were accountable only to the Secretary of State, who is enshrined as a sort of god of local government. No one can take the tablets up the mountain to see him. That is a dangerous trend. As I see it, the amendment attempts to retain the rights which local authority tenants have under existing legislation. I do not see why those arrangements cannot be transposed into any new arrangements in which local authorities are asked to take part. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: When the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, spoke about the finance given to local authorites, he omitted to say that for the third year running gross capital resources made available to local authorities have been increased. This year, the figure stands at over £3 billion. Within that amount, £140 million is being provided for housing action estates—almost double last year's figure. We are making an extra £125 million available for HATs over the next three years. I believe that that is further evidence of our desire to provide resources to deal with run-down local authority housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he can deal with what I have said. To my knowledge, over the past four or five years the bids that local authorities have put in for local authority housing stock have been less than 50 per cent. net in the broadest sense. I believe that we are also entitled to ask whether the £125 million will have any effect on the global amount of housing investment that is made available within the same financial years. Alternatively, will it come from the housing investment programme itself? Is it an addition?
The Earl of Caithness: I cannot answer the noble Lord as regards bids and what was received in the past few years. I have not been able to look at those papers yet. Doubtless they will be passed to me while the noble Lord is sunning himself in some foreign emerald isle. I hope that he will spare a thought for those of us at the DoE who are beavering away.
For the third year running, gross capital receipts have gone up. The total amount this year is over £3 billion. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to withhold approval from any housing management agreement proposed by a HAT
468
unless he is satisfied that it has complied with the provisions of Section 27A of the Housing Act 1985. As the noble Lord has said, this requires detailed consultation by a local housing authority with tenants about any proposal to enter into a housing management agreement; and the Secretary of State cannot approve such an agreement if a majority of the tenants veto the proposals.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that we have considered the matter carefully. I am very sympathetic to the objective behind Section 27A. We have repeatedly said that HATs will be expected to consult tenants fully about their proposals. I have referred in previous discussion to the extensive requirements built into Part III of the Bill and in the public undertakings given by ministers about aspects of HAT policy to achieve the objectives of consultation. Therefore, it is our firm intention to require HATs to carry out full consultation with the tenants on housing management agreements. We propose to achieve this through the Secretary of State's management guidance to HATs, which will be published. We would back this up, if necessary, by a direction under the Secretary of State's general direction-making power in Clause 72. And when a HAT comes to the Secretary of State for approval to its proposed housing management agreement, I undertake that he would take tenants' views into account before giving approval to the proposal.
I am afraid I cannot agree, however, that the provision in Section 27A, requiring the Secretary of State not to give his approval in the face of a tenant veto, should be applied to HATs. The reason for this is because we are concerned about deliberate obstruction tactics. Once HATs are established, if Parliament agrees the necessary orders, they will want to proceed with their work in the most efficient and effective manner in order to bring tenants the benefits from the extra resources that the Government are making available.
However we know from the many misleading stories already circulating about HATs that there are those who oppose them on principle. I am sure that we should all be very sad if HATs were prevented from achieving their objectives as a result of deliberate obstruction. Those opposed to HATs in the first place would simply argue that their case had been proven; and those tenants who were caught in the middle would not get the benefits.
It is therefore with great regret that I must resist this amendment. However, I repeat my undertaking that HATs will be required to carry out full tenant consultation on housing management agreements and the Secretary of State will take tenants' views into account before giving approval.
Perhaps I may just add two points. First, HATs, unlike local authorities, will be in existence for a short period: they will be short-lived. Their role is to move into a run-down, badly managed area, refurbish it, improve it and give greater choice and better facilities to the tenants and then to find another landlord. Therefore, perhaps some of the powers of local authorities are not appropriate to HATs.
The second point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. He asked who a tenant within

469
a HAT could go to. The situation is different from the case which he brought to the attention of the Committee, in that there will be, as I have said and as I shall repeat, tenants' representation on HATs and there will be tenants' advisory fora to provide a means of channelling local people's views to HATs beyond representation on the boards. As I have said, we shall want full consultation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I welcome the first part of the Minister's reply and his sympathy towards the objectives of the amendment. His sympathy ends there. The Minister referred to the fact that the Secretary of State will do this and that, will issue edicts and will provide guidelines. When I first arrived in another place I was taught that unless a provision is enshrined in an Act it is subject to the whim of the Secretary of State. A future Secretary of State may take a much harsher view than our present very tenderly disposed Secretary of State for the Environment, who seems to go out of his way to consider everyone's views. Depending on the whim of the present Prime Minister, he may not be Secretary of State at the end of this year and we may get a replacement who is cast in a harsher mould. I take the suggestion with a pinch of salt.
Therefore, for the Minister to say to the Committee that the Secretary of State will do (a), (b), (c) and (d) is not worth the candle; it does not mean anything unless it is the law of the land. Someone might go to court and challenge actions of the Secretary of State taken on the basis of what has been said in this Chamber and at the Dispatch Box in another place: those actions would have no bearing in law. In fact Secretaries of State have been taken to court in recent years and have lost. They have misinterpreted their own legislation on the basis of what they had said they would do rather than what was set out in the relevant Act. We are bound by the Act.
While I welcome what the Minister said in the first instance, I would never accept a situation in which the Secretary of State, irrespective of political party, was to be the referee of every contest concerning housing. I do not think that it would work. The scheme is dependent on the situation in different areas of the country. There could be a variety of rulings from the Secretary of State depending on political pressures. I do not think that the Minister is naive enough to believe that that does not happen at times. Very often decisions which defy belief are made relating to housing. Some of those decisions are made on the basis of political consideration and not on the merits of the case.
I should like to read what the Minister has said in reply to the amendment, particularly in respect of those aspects which gave me some hope. However, I have no hope at all if the Secretary of State—any Secretary of State—is to be the referee on any question of housing. We are talking about people, mostly at the lower end of the income scale, whose only security has been the fact that they are tenants in a local authority council house. They thought they would live there all their lives and that no one would interfere with them.
470
It may be that some good will come out of the HATs. I hope that it will but on the basis of what the Minister said I do not believe it will. However, I should like to read what the Minister has said and digest it with my colleagues and other people concerned. Perhaps he may dwell on what I have said, because I do not believe that we can leave the situation as it is with the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, as referee.
On that premise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and to consider the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 86 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 125E:
Page 67, line 6, leave out subsection ("2").
The noble Lord said: Clause 89 is concerned with the information which local authorities may be required to supply to the Secretary of State in order to facilitate the establishment of housing action trusts. I want to say from the beginning that we are not opposed to the principle of Clause 89. That information should be required and the Secretary of State should be able to specify the information that is required. It is clearly proper, if Parliament has decided that there should be housing action trusts, that it should will the means as well as the end. That is what Clause 89 does in principle.
What we object to is subseciton (2) of Clause 89, which requires that any officer of the authority
"(a) who has the custody or control of any document to which the notice relates, or
(b) who is in a position to give information to which the notice relates, shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the notice is complied with".
We object to that principally for the reason it ignores the structure of local government departments and organisation and ignores the responsibility which senior officers, chief officers and ultimately the chief executive and the council itself of an authority have for the actions of their junior officers.
It has always been our view that when an obligation is laid on a local authority it is the responsibility of the council, and through the council the chief executive, to see to it that the obligations of the authorities are fulfilled by giving the appropriate instructions to junior officers. We do not believe that it is appropriate that a junior officer who may happen to have the custody or control of a document or who is in a position to give information should have the obligation placed upon him rather than that the responsibility should lie with the chief officer, the chief executive and the council to ensure that the obligation is carried out.
We are not just theorising. There is a long line of examples of legislation requiring local authorities to give information. For example, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984—which was the paving Act for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties—did not have a condition like subsection (2). It stated that the council and its officers had to give the

471
information. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act of 1985 used the phrase "a proper officer" rather than the provisions of subsection (2).
We should be very much happier if the Government would think again about this matter, go back to the previous precedents for ways of ensuring that the information is provided but that it is provided on the instruction and authority of the chief officers and ultimately of the council itself. That would be in accordance with the precedent and with the command structure, one might say, of local authorities as they exist.
There is one further consideration, which is that of data protection. Much information relating to housing records is kept on computer. It is subject to the Data Protection Act. Under the Data Protection Act the obligations to protect the security of those records when they are held on computer is, I assume, overriding and cannot be lessened by any provision of this Act. From the way in which the Data Protection Act is framed it appears that it is ultimately the senior person of any organisation who is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of that Act are fulfilled. If a request could come to and be fulfilled by a junior officer, it is difficult to see how the Data Protection Act requirement and the responsibility of the chief officer under that Act could be maintained.
We do not ask for anything different. We are not saying that information should in any way be withheld. We are not weakening the provisions of the clause. We are trying to take out something which in itself weakens the administrative and organisational structure of local authorities and which in our view is clearly undesirable to that extent. I beg to move.
9 P.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I can understand why the noble Lord is concerned that the provision that this amendment seeks to remove places a difficult duty on officers of a local authority. We would not seek to require them to comply with this duty lightly. But the important issue—as I know the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is aware—is the needs of the tenants on the estates that we have proposed for designation. We want to do the best we can to make HATs work effectively for the benefit of their tenants, and that is the reason for this provision.
I am clear that the Secretary of State will need to obtain information from a local authority to enable correct decisions to be made about designation of areas as HAT areas and for HATs to be given information which will help them function more effectively. Our readiness to lay a duty on individual officers as well as the local authority as a whole is an indication of the importance which we attach to getting HATs up and running for the benefit of the tenants. If HATs are going to be correctly designated and if they are going to achieve their objects in the best possible way, we may need to ask local authority officers to fulfil this duty. I hope such circumstances do not arise, but we need to be ready if they do.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of some previous legislation. Yes, our
472
measures are based on the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 and those contained in Section 169 of the Housing Act 1985. Clearly he has raised an important point. Perhaps he will allow me to look at the precise wording. He knows the principle that we are trying to achieve and I am sure that he would support that principle. Clearly the wording is important, and clarifying the wording of legislation is one of the roles that this Chamber fulfils extremely well. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to take this matter away to look at the precise wording in order to meet his concerns. He will also be able to understand ours.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for those final words, which give me some reassurance because I am bound to say that the noble Earl's first words struck me as totally irrational. To say that one embarks on a new procedure of interrogating junior officers simply because the information is important does not seem to me to be a rational way to proceed. I am glad that in his final remarks the Minister recognised that point. On the basis of what he has said I am disposed to withdraw the amendment although I shall not do it just yet.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to make a general comment to the Committee. I shall read very carefully what all noble Lords have said during our debates on the Housing Bill and particularly their remarks on housing action trusts. I shall be spending quite a lot of time during the recess understanding the way in which we propose that housing action trusts should work and indeed meeting some of those involved. We want housing action trusts to work and I shall be looking for a positive response from local authorities and those tenants who may become members of housing action trusts. I can assure noble Lords that I shall be taking extremely seriously the duties of this very important area of housing in which I am now privileged to be actively involved.
I should like also to take this opportunity to raise one other matter, though I shall be answering a Question on this subject tomorrow. Noble Lords may perhaps have noticed that once or twice I have come to the Dispatch Box since I started the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill on 14th July. At this point I should like to say thank you very much to all the officers of the House whom I have kept late on more than one occasion, to those who have compiled the Official Report, and the Clerks. I think that they have done a splendid job in serving us so well. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the most courteous way in which he has handled the Housing Bill, together with the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Graham of Edmonton. I wish them all a very happy Recess.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be churlish and against my instincts and judgment if I did not respond by thanking the noble Earl for his remarks. I know that because of the pressure of business we are in the middle of the Committee stage of this Bill but it gives us all time to pause and read further so that

473
we can learn more about the very difficult problems with which this Bill confronts us.
The noble Earl will not be surprised to know that in the past couple of weeks we have not felt in any way happier about the Housing Bill or many of its objectives. However, we recognise his sincerity and the skill and courtesy with which he has guided the Bill so far, as indeed has his noble friend Lord Hesketh, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, on Tuesday.
It is always a pleasure to debate with the noble Lord. We know that our arguments are treated seriously and that sometimes the force of argument achieves more than perhaps one achieves in a Division lobby.
I reciprocate by wishing all noble Lords a very fruitful and restful Recess. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clauses 90 and 91 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  SIR ALAN WALTERS
  SIR ALAN WALTERS
  EC COMMISSION: RECRUITMENT OF STAFF
  EC COMMISSION: RECRUITMENT OF STAFF
  SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
  SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
  RADIO FREQUENCY SPECTRUM: REPORT ON DEFENCE USE
  RADIO FREQUENCY SPECTRUM: REPORT ON DEFENCE USE
  TELEPOINT SERVICES
  TELEPOINT SERVICES
  SPACE POLICY: RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  SPACE POLICY: RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  FIFTH TV CHANNEL: STUDY
  FIFTH TV CHANNEL: STUDY
  "PLANNING FOR THE URBAN CYCLIST" CONGRESS
  "PLANNING FOR THE URBAN CYCLIST" CONGRESS
  SDI: FOUR-POINT AGREEMENT
  SDI: FOUR-POINT AGREEMENT
  GREENLAND WHITE-FRONTED GEESE
  GREENLAND WHITE-FRONTED GEESE
  BARNACLE GEESE
  BARNACLE GEESE
  AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT: POLLUTION CONTROL
  AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT: POLLUTION CONTROL
  POLLUTION CONTROL: CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS
  POLLUTION CONTROL: CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS
  TREES: REPLACEMENT PLANTING GRANTS
  TREES: REPLACEMENT PLANTING GRANTS
  HAZARDOUS WASTES: SHIPMENT DIRECTIVE
  HAZARDOUS WASTES: SHIPMENT DIRECTIVE
  HOUSING ASSOCIATION HOSTELS: FUNDING
  HOUSING ASSOCIATION HOSTELS: FUNDING
  TOURIST COACHES: WHEEL CLAMPING
  TOURIST COACHES: WHEEL CLAMPING
  PRISONERS: SEGREGATION REVIEW ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONERS: SEGREGATION REVIEW ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  THERAPISTS IN THE NHS: SALARY SCALES
  THERAPISTS IN THE NHS: SALARY SCALES
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: STAFFING
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: STAFFING