Sitting of 26 May 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Employment Act 1988

2. Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Act 1988

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 9 June
  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)
  NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL (Lords) (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 June
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 9 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Harland and Wolff
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of Harland and Wolff on 30 March. I most recently met the chairman on 10 May, when we discussed progress and the company's forward plans.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for that answer. What discussions has he had with representatives of the Harland and Wolff shipyard about the Ultimate Dream cruise liner project? What is his thinking on the matter, given its crucial significance to the future of the yard and Northern Ireland manufacturing bases?
    Mr. Viggers: I accept that it is an extremely important project for Harland and Wolff and for Northern Ireland generally. It is, however, at a conceptual design stage and has not been comprehensively costed. When we receive the costings we shall give the project careful and sympathetic consideration. It is too early to say what the Government's decision will be.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the Minister think of any other shipbuilding nation that levels abuse and insults at its potential customers? Does the Minister have any remarks for those—sad to say, some of his colleagues are among them—who try to equate the shipowner Ravi Tikkoo with John De Lorean? Has he or his Department taken any steps to assure that shipowner that his proposal will be given a fair run?
    Mr. Viggers: I am baffled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The relationship between the Government and Harland and Wolff is cordial. I am not aware of any comment derogatory to Mr. Tikkoo being made by the Government or any of my colleagues. From everything that I have heard, he has an outstanding business reputation.
    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the opportunity to raise further issues relating to Harland and Wolff in the Adjournment debate tomorrow, and I look forward to his contribution.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister confirm, for those who doubt the ability of Harland and Wolff to cope with such a major order, if it is fortunate enough to obtain it, that it is willing and has the expertise and co-operation between management and work force and that redundancies have slimmed down the yard to make it one of the most efficient in the United Kingdom? Will he reiterate his Department's willingness to give such support as may be required to ensure the continuance of shipbuilding in Belfast for the benefit of Northern Ireland and many companies on the mainland, which have written to those of us who have an

    503
    interest in the matter seeking our support to ensure that their work forces are maintained in employment on the mainland?
    Mr. Viggers: I welcome the recent flexibility in the work force at Harland and Wolff. While we have been left in no doubt about the project from the representations made by union leaders, politicians and others in Northern Ireland, it would be premature to comment, as we have not received the detailed costings and do not know what subsidy, if any, will be required if the ship is to proceed.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am sure that we all wish Harland and Wolff well in its search for work in the difficult merchant shipbuilding market. That market is not difficult only for Harland and Wolff, as I am sure the Minister appreciates. Can he assure the House that the Government will not put subsidies into Harland and Wolff in excess of what is allowable under the sixth EC directive? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no question of taking merchant yards in mainland Britain out of shipbuilding or of negotiating with our European partners for additional subsidies for Harland and Wolff?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous questioner on this subject. I reiterate that the sixth EC directive, limiting merchant shipbuilding subsidy to 28 per cent., applies to Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom Government comply with that. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would not be inconsistent with Government policy to do as he says.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept the perceived wisdom in the shipping industry that shipbuilding is due for an upturn in the 1990s and that Harland and Wolff is ideally placed to take advantage of it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Harland and Wolff must survive into the 1990s, so Government aid to the yard will continue to be necessary?
    Mr. Viggers: There has been speculation and informed comment that there might be an upturn in the world shipbuilding market in the early 1990s and thereafter. There was similar comment throughout the 1980s and, in each case, there was speculation that the upturn might come in two years' time. We shall study the position carefully, but will look primarily at the costings of the ship to ascertain whether any subsidy is required of us. We do not even know whether one will be required or its size. When we have the facts we shall make a decision, based on the best interests of all the people in Northern Ireland.

    Social Fund Loans
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in the Province have been refused social fund loans since 11 April.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Between 11 April 1988 and 29 April 1988—the last date for which information is available—247 applications for social fund loans were refused.
    Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that, because of the higher cost of living and substantially higher fuel costs in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, the number and amount of single payments in Northern Ireland are almost double those in the United
    504
    Kingdom? In view of those facts, will the hon. Gentleman implement the 1984 parity report and establish a fuel benefit for the poorer families in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He was right to say that there is greater deprivation in Northern Ireland and, therefore, more families rely on income support, family credit and so on than in the rest of Britain. Nevertheless, there are many poor families in this country who must pay high fuel costs. The parity policy which we adopt in Northern Ireland has always proved to be beneficial. It is proving beneficial at the moment, because the new premium from income support applies favourably to those who have large families, of which there are proportionately more in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that the electricity tariff in Northern Ireland is set at the maximum of the levels in the rest of the United Kingdom, so Northern Ireland people are not on all fours with the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Needham: We keep that point in mind, but there are swings and roundabouts. Because the premium is especially targeted towards families, particularly those with children, the new overall effect is favourable to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member should bear that in mind.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the new social security regulations on the poorer sector of Northern Ireland? Is he aware that in South Down alone there were 788 applications for single payments in April 1987, and that in April 1988 there were 189 applications under the social fund—a reduction of 76 per cent.? Is the hon Gentleman aware that there are backlogs in some minor offices of up to 500 applications under that fund, consisting of unprocessed or unlikely to be processed applications? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile those statistics with his statement:
    "The majority of claimants are likely to have gained or not suffered losses in terms of their benefits"?
    Mr. Needham: I accept that there are fewer claims under the social fund at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman compares the figures for March last year with those for March this year, for example, he will find that there were many more claims under the single payments scheme in March this year because it was the last month before the new system was introduced. One would therefore expect the position to be as it is. I am sure that once the backlog of single payments has been cleared, as it will be, the number of claims under the social fund will increase.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In a week when there has been talk about the moral high ground, will the Minister accept that perhaps some of the reaction in Northern Ireland to the social fund and social security regulations is muted because many people there believe that godliness with contentment is great gain. Nevertheless, there is an obligation on the Government as well as others to care for the widow and the fatherless in their affliction. The fact that there are needy in England does not mean that the needy in Northern Ireland should not be looked after, too.
    Mr. Needham: I have accepted that deprivation and unemployment in Northern Ireland are significantly greater on average than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That does not alter the fact that because we are targeting the benefits more specifically at families in low-paid work

    505
    and families with children—[Interruption.] Hon. Members find the matter humorous, but we estimate that in Northern Ireland £43 million more will be spent in social security provision this year than last year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

    Travel Bursary Scheme
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of young people who will benefit from his recently announced travel bursary scheme; and what is the timetable for its implementation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I anticipate that between 24 and 30 young people, selected equally from across the religious divide, will benefit from the Spirit of Enniskillen bursary scheme each year. The first applications will be considered in the autumn of 1988 with the first visits being undertaken in 1989.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and applaud the initiative. Will he tell the House a little more about this unique scheme? What does he hope it will achieve? I hope that it will promote the example and spirit set by Mr. Gordon Wilson in the wake of the horrific tragedy at Enniskillen last year.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The purpose of the scheme is to enable Catholic and Protestant young people to travel together around the world, to learn about each other and to learn how others are living across divides. My hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Wilson. We hope that the awards will be imbued with the spirit of forgiveness that he exemplified and the spirit of coming together evident among the people of Enniskillen after that horrific event. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that Mr. Gordon Wilson has agreed to be one of the judges in the first year of the award.

    Prisoners (Release Statistics)
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people sentenced to serve prison terms at the Secretary of State's pleasure in Northern Ireland have been released, and under what terms, since February 1987.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what terms prisoners serving sentences in Northern Ireland at the Secretary of State's pleasure are released; and how many have been released since February 1987.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Fifteen such prisoners have been released since February 1987. The licence in these cases remains in force indefinitely, and may be revoked at any time if this course seems necessary in the public interest. The licence may also include specific conditions, but no such conditions were included in any of the 15 cases.
    Mr. Mullin: I welcome the progress that has been made so far. Is the Secretary of State prepared to consider extending the review to people—such as Private Thain—who are over the age of 18 but pose no further threat to society?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because in much of the discussion of this matter there has been scant recognition of the real progress that has been made or of the fact that there has been a significant reduction in the number of those being detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure by virtue of having committed crimes while under the age of 18. We seek to consider sympathetically those dragged into or implicated in terrorist crime at a very young age. That is one of the criteria that we take into account. We are also considering reviewing other sentences.
    Mr. Bennett: Do the same conditions apply to people who committed offences in Northern Ireland but were convicted in England and are now serving their sentences in Northern Ireland? I refer especially to Shane Paul O'Docherty, who has now served 10 years of a sentence, and clearly comes into the category that the Secretary of State has referred to. He was drawn into terrorist activities at a very young age, but is now repentant of his activities and should be released.
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not discuss individual cases in the House. I am aware of the significant number of representations that have been made on behalf of that prisoner.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, and also what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said about Private Thain. However, is it not the case that none of the prisoners whom my right hon. Friend has released has returned' to crime, which is in contrast to such cases as two of the three people killed in Gibraltar who had—under the remission system—served sentences of imprisonment and returned to the IRA ranks? Will my right hon. Friend look at the question of remission? Will he also look with vigiliance and sympathy at those cases of persons detained at his pleasure?
    Mr. King: I confirm the first part of my hon. Friend's comments. My understanding is that none of those who were detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure, and then released, have been convicted of further offences. I understand the worry about remission and the re-involvement of people in crime. It is a matter of concern to us.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State tell us how many released prisoners and how many who remain in prison were imprisoned for crimes committed for Loyalist or Nationalist terrorist organisations? Does he agree that many people in prison—in places like the Maze—are still under the influence of those terrorist organisations? Would it not be a good idea to move those people as soon as possible to the new prison, where the influence of terrorist organisations has diminished?
    Mr. King: I shall give the exact figures to the hon. Gentleman of the division between the Loyalist terrorist organisations and the Republican terrorist organisations. However, I share his anxiety about the influence of those terrorist organisations that continues within the prisons. I am aware that a number of people in prison would dearly like to break free of such influences. I am very conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome what the Secretary of State has told the House, but will he say how many cases he is actively reviewing? Will he look again at the mixed wings

    507
    inside prisons, such as the Maze, and the incentives that are given to people to leave paramilitary wings to go into the mixed wings and be weaned away from terrorism and the terrorist organisations?
    Mr. King: The House is aware that I am at this moment considering whether to conduct a further special review of prisoners who remain detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure. However, I have no comment to make on that, as no decision has been made. The hon. Gentleman is aware of our policy on moving people into mixed wings. We are anxious to promote it. We are aware that one of the tragedies of Northern Ireland is the number of people who find it difficult to escape the intimidation and the threats that the terrorist organisations impose on their members. One of the most unpleasant aspects of the present situation is the number of appallingly vicious punishment shootings and beatings that are taking place. That is clear evidence of the intimidation that is going on.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that there is support in both sections of the community for the release scheme? Will he also keep in mind that if these prisoners had been of age and had been sentenced in the courts, many of them would have been freed long ago? It is unfair that, because they were then under-age, they are now serving long stretches of imprisonment, whereas if they had been over age, they would already have been released. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is welcome, but we should like him to go further and consider the proposition that I have put to him about the length of sentences.
    Mr. King: I am aware of the support from both sides of the community. As we know, the prisoners in question come from both extremes of the community. I know that that concern is widely shared.
    I do not accept in full the hon. Gentleman's point, which could be widely misunderstood, because whether those prisoners receive life sentences or are detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure—both categories are reviewed—the criteria of appropriate sentencing in terms of retribution and the risk to the public of release are taken into account in similar ways.

    Pupil Tests
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received opposing his proposals for the compulsory testing of pupils from (a) pupils, (b) parents and (c) teachers.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The period for comment on the Government's proposals does not end until 10 June 1988. It would not, therefore, be appropriate or meaningful at this stage to attempt an analysis of the responses received so far.
    Mr. Fatchett: I hope that the Minister will publish the analysis that he makes, unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in relation to the Education Reform Bill. Do the Government intend to publish the figures for the results of compulsory testing at the age of seven?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The consultation paper offers the people of Northern Ireland the option of testing at either seven or eight. I await with interest the responses of the people of Northern Ireland on this issue.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister deserves congratulations for the commendable, albeit limited, moves to urge religious integration in schools in Northern Ireland. However, when he is considering criticisms of his proposals, will he bear in mind that schoolchildren also have human rights to an education which is full in every sense of the word and which includes the right of mixing, learning and playing together with children of another religion or of no religion?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comments. I entirely agree with him. One of the document's central proposals is to provide an option for parents who wish and choose voluntarily to have an education system in which their children can be educated in the same classroom as children from the other side of the community. There are a growing number of such parents and I look forward to seeing that fact reflected in the responses to the document.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister please respond to a recent report of the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Research, which contains a section on compulsory testing and shows clearly that, for one in six pupils, there is a mismatch between their transfer results at age 11 and their performance at 16? Furthermore, will he tell the House what there is in his consultative document to alter that mismatch and, therefore, the future of many children in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that, having read the document, the hon. Lady will remember that two options are available for assessment and testing at age 11. One offers to substitute teacher assessment, together with assessment and testing marks at age 11 in English, mathematics and science, for the present verbal reasoning 11-plus test. Again, I look forward to receiving responses on that issue.
    Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regular testing of children will be of considerable benefit to parents in monitoring the progress of their children in school and the performance of the schools that they attend?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only will that be of considerable assistance to parents in determining how the education of their children is progressing, but it will enable us to determine much earlier in the life of our young people why, at present, almost one in four of those who leave our education system at the age of 16 have no recognised qualifications whatsoever.

    Eastern Health and Social Services Board
    Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairmen of the four health and social services boards on 9 March 1988. I plan to meet the chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board again shortly at the 1988 accountability review.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the decision by Mr. John Simpson to step down as chairman of the Eastern board is a telling reflection of the impossible task that the boards are now facing in trying to maintain services but keep within the cash limits imposed by the Government?
    Mr. Needham: No, I do not. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Simpson and I are at one in our desire to have an efficient and properly funded Health Service in Northern Ireland. Mr. Simpson has been vice-chairman for two years and chairman for four at a time of considerable upheaval, change and difficulty, and I believe that it is now time to bring in a new chairman who will be able to take on the difficult management problems that still face the board.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recognise that, because of financial cuts, facilities, services and maintenance are rapidly being run down? In addition, hospitals could be closed unless the Minister urgently comes up with more cash for the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that more cash will be forthcoming in the near future?
    Mr. Needham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise for a moment. There is an increase in health spending in Northern Ireland this year of £62 million, adding up to a total of £873 million, which is £557 per head and a 22 per cent. real increase since 1979. In the Eastern health board area this year there are new developments of £2·135 million. We have an excellent Health Service, and it will continue to be an excellent service that is properly funded by the Government.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Having sacked the present chairman of the Eastern board, is the Minister aware of the pleasure throughout the people's Eastern board area that he has not found another yes-man from the area to act as chairman and has had to look outside it to find a chairman to act as his henchman?
    Mr. Needham: That is an astonishing allegation. The next chairman of the Eastern board is the present vice-chairman, and before the right hon. Gentleman makes comments about the integrity and position of the new chairman, he should get his facts right.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is it correct to say that the outgoing chairman of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board has warned the Minister and the Department of Health and Social Services that as a result of Government cuts there will be drastic reductions in the service available to people in the board's area, and that, further, consultants, doctors, nurses and ancillary worker representatives have all protested to the Minister? When will he respond to the people's demands?
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, of the amount of rationalisation and savings required of the Eastern health board this year—£7·6 million—£5·2 million has been found by the board with no reduction in services in the acute sector. Also, there are plans for £2·135 million
    510
    worth of new developments. I am sure that the Eastern board will find the remaining funds it is looking for within its budget of hundreds of millions of pounds. I regret that so many hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland continue to denigrate the excellent Health Service there, which has adequate levels of funding.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he plans to take to encourage small businesses.
    Mr. Viggers: The Government continue to encourage the development of the Provinces's small business sector through a range of financial, advisory and training measures, which is unique to Northern Ireland. Government support to the Local Enterprise Development Unit was increased by £4·25 million in the past two years and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the unit has recently published its annual results, which show a record level of job promotions.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that while some of the larger firms in Northern Ireland depend increasingly on single big orders, it is more important than ever to encourage the small firms sector, which is probably the only way of solving the unemployment problem in areas such as west Belfast and Bogside? What steps has he taken to increase international awareness of the need to encourage small firms in the Province?
    Mr. Viggers: We have devoted a great deal of effort to encouraging smaller business with a wide range of programmes. I am delighted to say that the success of Northern Ireland in this sector has been recognised by the decision of the European Community to hold the first ever enterprise convention in Northern Ireland. About 300 delegates from 20 countries have expressed an interest in the conference in September-October already, and we hope that more will follow their example.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Minister aware of the seeming inconsistency of the Local Enterprise Development Unit when it allocates grants? Some firms that seem to be good applicants are turned down, and other firms that should, perhaps, be refused grants are given not only one grant but other grants. Will the Minister please examine the matter and rectify it?
    Mr. Viggers: The Local Enterprise Development Unit is independent and responsible for its own decisions. Any question relating to the acceptance or refusal of grants should initially be addressed to the chairman of LEDU, as it is called. However, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will draw it to my attention.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House, one soldier has been killed and four civilians have been murdered in sectarian attacks. Three of the civilians were murdered and nine were injured in a brutal and indiscriminate gun attack in a bar close to Belfast city centre. The period has also seen a continuation of particularly vicious punishment attacks.
    The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield encouraging results. Since the beginning of the year a total of 140 people have been charged with serious offences, including five with murder and nine with attempted murder. Some 300 weapons, approximately 70,000 rounds of ammunition, and about 4,100 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered some 200 weapons, almost 139,000 rounds of ammunition, and 600 lb of commercial explosives.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Bearing in mind the massive car bomb that was defused at the Strand road Royal Ulster Constabulary station in Londonderry, that one of the vehicles was stolen in Dublin, that another was stolen in Kerry, and that the explosives came from a source in the Irish Republic, what has happened to the promise of close security co-operation, and who is to blame for the breakdown?
    Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman knows the importance that we attach to improving cross-border security co-operation. The incident that he described precisely underlines why it is so important that we develop and progressively make cross-border security co-operation more effective. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one massive car bomb. There was another bomb, of which the right hon. Member will be aware, in Armagh. It was also defused. There is no doubt that at present we face what I warned the House is a serious threat. The right hon. Gentleman would wish to pay tribute to the vigilance of the security forces that ensured that both bombs were successfully defused.
    Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the recent murder of a young UDR member in my constituency and another brutal attack on the RUC in Cookstown the other evening, does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential to have an aggressive security policy to defeat terrorism? Will he tell the House of the new measures that he is considering to bring the terrorist campaign to its conclusion?
    Mr. King: Of course I am aware of both incidents. The attack at Cookstown could have been most serious. The hon. Gentleman will know something of the steps that we have recently taken to improve the effectiveness of the security forces. From his knowledge of the subject, the hon. Gentleman will equally well understand why I am not able in the House to go into the full detail of some of the measures that we are taking to seek to ensure the full availability of the resources that we deploy and that they are used as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State may be aware of speculation that the Royal Irish Rangers may be deployed in the North of Ireland. Does he agree that the deployment of a Northern Irish regiment would add further tensions and friction to an already volatile situation? Will he take
    512
    the opportunity to assure the House that Northern Irish regiments will not be deployed in Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. King: Obviously, I am not able to comment. It is a matter for the Ministry of Defence to make any announcements about deployments. The hon. Gentleman will know that, if they were to be deployed, the Royal Irish Rangers would not be the first Northern Irish regiment to be deployed since the start of the troubles. The British Army has a high reputation throughout the Province for the way in which it seeks to discharge its responsibilities, regardless of where its members are recruited. I have no doubt that, were the Royal Irish Rangers to serve in Northern Ireland, they would continue to maintain that high reputation.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the security forces have adequate helicopter coverage? In particular, does he think that the RUC should have a helicopter flight of its own?
    Mr. King: As my hon. Friend will know, we have made and are making additional helicopter resources available. I have no proposition before me for the RUC to have a helicopter flight of its own, but the co-operation between the Army, the RAF and the RUC is excellent, and the RUC is extremely grateful for the service that it gets.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the Secretary of State accept that the recent events in Gibraltar have had a negative impact on security in Northern Ireland, and that many of the major issues that are causing public disquiet cannot be answered by an inquest? If so, will he support the call for an inquiry after the inquest?
    Mr. King: There would have been a much more disquieting impact on everybody if the terrorist attack in Gibraltar had been successful, because it could have led to the most horrific suffering and tragedy of any terrorist attack in our experience of the IRA campaign. The process that now has to be pursued will lead to an inquest in Gibraltar, and it would help if people would support the due process of that inquiry and not seek to stir up concern in the way that many have sought to do.

    United Kingdom-Eire Government Discussions
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed at the last meeting between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: I hope to meet Irish Ministers shortly, at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. The final agenda is not yet fixed, but security co-operation will certainly be one of the subjects and, as announced after the last meeting, the problems of west Belfast and other disadvantaged areas will be discussed together with a number of other matters. The joint statement issued after the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 4 May sets out the matters discussed. A copy has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the previous concern expressed by the Irish Government, and, indeed, by many people in Britain, about the RUC's shoot-to-kill policy in Northern

    513
    Ireland, what assessment has been made of the effect upon British-Irish relations of the political orders given to the SAS to extend the shoot-to-kill policy to Gibraltar?
    Mr. King: That thoroughly pernicious question that the hon. Gentleman chose to ask starts from a fundamental distortion of the facts. Whatever views and comments may have been expressed about certain aspects of Mr. Stalker's report and inquiry, the hon. Gentleman might do the House the courtesy of recognising that Mr. Stalker made it clear that he was satisfied that there was no shoot-to-kill policy.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with representatives of the Government of the Republic the performance of the respective economies of the two parts of Ireland, and will he draw to their attention the beneficial effects that the Government's economic policies are now having in the Province, in particular the recent fall in unemployment?
    Mr. King: It is true that there is a great contrast between the performances of the two economies, and that leads to certain difficulties when we have lower taxation and lower indirect taxes. It raises considerable problems for us in smuggling across the border, which is now becoming substantial and which we are seeking to tackle. I recognise that the successful economic growth in the United Kingdom has been slowly, but now more progressively, reflected in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the welcome fall in unemployment.
    Mr. McCusker: Why does the Secretary of State not come to the House following such meetings and make a statement in accordance with the normal conventions of the House following such meetings with a foreign Government? Is is simply because he has nothing of any significance to report, or is it just that he is still contemptuous of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: The hon Gentleman knows that I have been scrupulous on every occasion when there has been a meeting of the Conference in immediately placing a full report of that in the Library. Moreover, I have extended an invitation to every elected Member in Northern Ireland to meet me before and after the meeting—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would like a personal report from me after the next Conference meeting, I shall be more than happy to provide it.
    Mr. Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that the Government's proposals for equality of employment in Northern Ireland are both fair and firm, proceeding by way of a code of practice? Do they not ensure maximum flexibility in creating a climate of co-operation with employers, while at the same time establishing a framework of enforcement by the High Court if need be?
    Mr. King: My hon Friend is absolutely right to make those points. It is essential for Northern Ireland that it is seen to he a place where there is fairness and equality of opportunity in employment. I believe that more and more fair-minded people in the Province recognise that.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
    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. O'Brien: On the way to the Barbican yesterday, did the Prime Minister observe the new wealth and riches of the City of London? Did she at the same time see the new poverty and homelessness in the same area? For which of those two features does the Prime Minister hold herself responsible?
    The Prime Minister: The City of London is earning more than £7 billion in foreign exchange for the whole of Britain. The enormous contribution that it makes to our balance of payments is greater than that of North sea oil at its peak, so it does no one any good to run it down. 'That is part of the process of creating wealth that will enable us to enjoy a higher standard of living. Yes, there is a problem—as the hon. Gentleman is aware—in building extra houses in the south-east, whether in the larger south-east or in filling the areas we have developed. A great deal of that is already happening, especially in the urban development corporations, which is excellent.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend take heart from the very good news from America today that its economy is once more on the move?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, because the state of the American economy affects the whole world. But, with due respect, the American economy has been growing at a very considerable rate for many years, and America has reduced unemployment because private business has been creating jobs very fast.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday her right hon. and hon. Friends described the decision to allow bids for Rowntree to proceed without impediment as "regional assassination", welcoming the gazumpers, deeply disappointing and "a dangerous signal" to predators? I and my hon. and right hon. Friends agree with them, and 60 of the right hon. Lady's hon. Friends also agree. Why does the Prime Minister not agree with them?
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made his decision. He explained the full reasons for it. My right hon. and learned Friend announced it in this House. The future of Rowntree is now in the hands of the shareholders. The decision of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not to intervene, and he made it on the advice of Sir Gordon Borrie of the Office of Fair Trading. That should be absolutely clear.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that with this decision about Rowntree she has given the all-clear to foreign takeover predators in any industry'? Does she not realise that, with this decision, she has put a "For Sale" notice on Britain?
    The Prime Minister: No. Each bid is dealt with on competition grounds, and also with a residual public interest. I might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the latest 1987 figures, the United Kingdom has £94 billion worth of investment in overseas countries, and the world has £55 billion in Britain. The fact is that this country has done extremely well by having an open economy, being able to stand up to competition, and having got rid of exchange controls. That is why we have this standard of living. It is only if a country cannot stand up to competition that it must go back to the closed economy of which the right hon. Gentleman is such an ardent exponent, and which was such a calamity for Britain.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is talking rubbish. Could she explain to us, as she preaches the virtues of competition, how competition is enhanced by the takeover of one of the major confectionery firms in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read both the statements of my—[Interruption.] We are dealing with competition against a European background. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to have companies here strong enough to stand up to it. I notice that his home constituency, Islwyn, has an advertisement in the magazine "Airport" which reads:
    "If your business is expanding"—[Interruption.]—"what does Islwyn mean to you?"
    The advertisement urges people to come to invest in Islwyn—which is excellent. But not from abroad—that is not what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the summit between Reagan and Gorbachev in Moscow this weekend, which is taking place only because of the maintenance of sound defence by the West? Does she not agree that it would not be happening if Western Governments had unilaterally thrown away their nuclear weapons, as the leader of the Labour party would have us do?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the summit is taking place only because of the background of strong and sure defence by this country, as well as by the United States, and because we are able to rely on the whole of NATO and on its nuclear arms, which the Labour party could not do. That party's decision not to decide for some particular time means that it is not behind NATO having nuclear weapons as part of its fundamental nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Faulds: In view of the Prime Minister's nauseating pretence about moral concern at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland—which makes her offence the worse—will she contemplate today what has fired her policies the more during her nine years of power: the careful computation of costs and profits that she learnt at her father's knee, or Christian concern, which she signally failed to learn?
    The Prime Minister: As I made perfectly clear in that address—[Interruption.] May I just quote?
    516
    "None of this … tells us exactly what kind of political and social institutions we should have. On this point, Christians will very often genuinely disagree, though it is a mark of Christian manners that they will do so with courtesy and mutual respect."
    That seems to be lacking in the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the Trades Union Congress yesterday not to sabotage the new employment training scheme, in stark contrast to the advice from some Labour Members? Will she now lead a new initiative between state and industry and commerce to ensure that no one in future is unemployed for lack of a suitable training or retraining opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we very much welcome the decision of the TUC to support the training programme. I hope that the Labour party will now follow the TUC, as it usually does, and do the same. The programme is meant to provide training for some 600,000 unemployed people and to give them a skill. There are jobs which require skills and which employers cannot fill. It is hoped, therefore, that the programme will be very progressive in reducing unemployment. As my hon. Friend knows, for the younger age group—those between 16 and 18—the youth training scheme guarantees them training very shortly after leaving school for up to two years. Therefore, we are taking great steps to ensure that people who have been unable to get jobs will receive training to help them to do so.
    Mr. Darling: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that her policy of transferring wealth from poor people to rich people and then urging rich people to give it back to poor people by way of charity is complete nonsense? Will she also reflect on the words of St. Luke, chapter 18, verses 10–14, before she goes to bed tonight?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will realise that wealth must be created before it can be distributed. Under this Government, far more wealth has been created and has been far more widely distributed. Figures published recently show that the poorer parts of the population have had greater increases than the average population.
    Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen that the figure for the long-term unemployed has dropped by more than 20 per cent.? Is that not good news? Has my right hon. Friend seen that our record for dealing with unemployment is far better than that of Europe, and that it is the best in Europe? Is not the reason for that the fact that companies such as Rolls-Royce, which has just achieved an order in America worth more than £1 billion, are now able to compete free from trade union misrule and in a buoyant economy?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is yes. The unemployment rate in

    517
    the United Kingdom has fallen faster in the past year than in any other major industrialised country. United Kingdom unemployment is now lower than the EC average and the news about long-term unemployment also falling fast in percentage terms and in absolute numbers is very good.
    I take this opportunity to congratulate Rolls-Royce on the excellent order it has won. It brings great cheer not only to the work force there, but to those of us on the Conservative Benches. Because it was gained against great competition, it is a great boost for the confidence of Britain that Rolls-Royce once again is at the top.
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bradley: Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents in Withington how her health care policies, presumably based on her interpretation of Christian morality, have led to a financial crisis in the south Manchester health authority? Will she personally intervene to stop further cuts in health care which next month will mean the closure of psychiatric beds at Withington hospital and the appalling closure of wards for the elderly at Burton house, Withington?
    The Prime Minister: A few months ago the Labour party was asking for an increase of £2 billion in health care expenditure this year. There has been just about that £2 billion increase in health expenditure, and within that the biggest every pay increases for doctors and nurses, to raise morale. It is now reasonable to expect that that extra money will go into extra patient care and be used fully and properly because, of course, it is taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Rover group in my constituency has announced another 1,500 new jobs, that last week Land Rover had its best production figures in over 15 years, and that every week
    518
    there are record numbers of job vacancies advertised in the local newspaper? Is that not evidence that in social and economic terms we are creating loads of new jobs through loads of investment, which produces loads of wealth, loads of care and loads of help for our community?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I congratulate my hon. Friend and Rover on being able to take on so many people. That happened because its products are good, because it is able to compete with others and because it is taking the opportunity to thrive under the Government. It is particularly good news that industry is receiving orders for the aeroengines and for cars, because they were areas where we were not excelling before the Government returned to power.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: I note that the Prime Minister appears to have seen the light and moved to the high moral ground. Is that a temporary aberration while she spends time rewriting the Bible, the Koran and purging the Church freethinkers—[Interruption]
    The Prime Minister: I was invited—
    Mr. Cryer: Not next year.
    The Prime Minister: I was invited, for which I was very grateful, by the Scottish Assembly to give an address. I gave an account of my personal beliefs. The hon. Gentleman may have it if he wishes. The Assembly received it extremely well and I was grateful for that. It issued a statement later saying that the account that appeared in the newspapers yesterday was totally unrepresentative—[Interruption] Perhaps I might just say that an official statement yesterday said:
    "it is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the decision of the General Assembly to represent yesterday's decision as being in any way a snub to the Prime Minister.
    The Reverend James Weatherhead, Principal Clerk of the Assembly added, 'I cannot believe that anyone who was present in the General Assembly and faithfully and honourably reported its proceedings could have been so grievously and irresponsibly mistaken.'"

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
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 spring adjournment will be as follows:

TUESDAY 7 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

WEDNESDAY 8 JUNE—Opposition day (13th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Failure to refer the Nestle bid for Rowntree to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The British Aerospace bid for Rover". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Motion to take note of EC document on spray suppression and sideguards. Details will be given in the Official Report.

THURSDAY 9 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.

FRIDAY 10 JUNE—There will be a debate on women's health on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Debate on Wednesday 8 June 1988:
Relevant European Community document: 8284/87, Heavier road vehicles: spray suppression and sideguards.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-v (1987–88) para 14 HC 43-xx (1987–88) para 3.]
Mr. Dobson: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the first day of the Criminal Justice Bill when we return will be devoted to a debate on capital punishment? Secondly, when can we expect the long-awaited debate on foreign affairs? Thirdly, will the Government provide an early opportunity for a debate on the White Paper on fair employment in Northern Ireland, which has just been published? Can we expect a statement after the Whitsun recess on the rather remarkable refusal by DHSS Ministers to answer questions on the social fund?
Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the remarkable events today when the police in Downing Street refused to allow some right hon. and hon. Members to accompany their colleagues to present a petition to No. 10 Downing street? Has he yet had an opportunity to make arrrangements for a demonstration of the lighting that may or may not be necessary for the televising of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me six questions about the business for the first week after the recess. First, he asked me about the Criminal Justice Bill, which is set down for debate on the first day back. The selection of amendments is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. However, if any new clauses relating to capital punishment are selected, it would be my intention that they should be debated first on 7 June.
I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern to have a debate on foreign affairs. He is quite right to press me on this matter. I shall arrange it as soon as possible, but I have no further news.
520
We have had some exchanges about the fair employment White Paper from Northern Ireland. I cannot offer a debate on this immediately, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether a debate would be possible.
The Government are well aware of the interest of hon. Members in the operation of the social fund, and because of that are seeking to be helpful, by providing information about individual local offices automatically, on a monthly basis, in the Libraries of both Houses.
The collation of data from 500 offices is a lengthy process, but the information will be made available at the first opportunity. There is of course no question of withholding from the House information which it is reasonably within our power to provide.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about some difficulties in Downing street. I have no information to give him at the moment, but I shall certainly make inquiries into that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about a lighting demonstration in the House. I am arranging for a letter from the chief political adviser of the BBC to the Clerk of the Select Committee on televising of proceedings of the House to be placed in the Library. The letter gives details of the arrangements that have been made for the BBC and ITN to hold a lighting demonstration in the Chamber at 10.30 am on Tuesday 14 June. All right hon. and hon. Members are invited to attend. Access for visitors to the line of route will therefore be restricted on that day. Details will be given on the All-party Whip this week.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As it is now five months since the Treasury published its paper showing that the average family in Britain has to pay £11 a week extra for food as a direct consequence of the common agricultural policy, could the Leader of the House say exactly when we might discuss this important issue, which affects the living costs of the average family, and also our international competitiveness?
Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary ingenuity, might manage to get in order a speech on that subject this afternoon.
Mr. James Wallace: When are the two items of business originally set down for this week emanating from the Procedure Committee, concerning short speeches and public petitions, liable to come back for discussion?
With regard to the business that replaced it—the remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill—we accept that one reason why the House sat so late yesterday was that the Northern Ireland provisions were added very late. That underlines the unsatisfactory way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted. Has the Leader of the House any proposals to set up a Northern Ireland Committee under Standing Order No. 99, as pressed upon him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)?
Mr. Wakeham: I regret that the business originally set down was not proceeded with as I had intended, and I shall arrange for it to be set down again as soon as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far, that there is quite a lot of disquiet about the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House. I recognise that hon. Members would like much of it dealt with otherwise, but I have no proposals to make in that connection.

521
The lateness of the hour to which the House sat last night was due much more to the antics of certain Left-wing Labour Members of Parliament, who sought to prolong the debate to an unreasonable hour and who must be a greater embarrassment—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end to this pointing.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: As we approach this pagan and profane holiday and parliamentary recess, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the early-day motion entitled "Public Holidays", standing in my name and that of some of my hon. Friends?
[This this House, while desiring that public holidays should be reasonably spread through the year, considers that they should enable the people to commemorate traditional religious and national occasions; feels shame that the forthcoming Spring Bank Holiday should have been fixed not on, but close to, Whit Monday, long kept, in like manner to Easter Monday, to mark the joy of a great Christian festival; deplores the policy of successive governments in this matter which has advanced the secularisation of a country where a Christian church is by law established and where, according to surveys of public opinion, the vast majority of Her Majesty's subjects acknowledge themselves to be in some measure Christian; further regrets the confusion caused to the public about the Christian calendar; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to invite the co-operation of Her Majesty's Opposition and others in revising the list of public holidays in the United Kingdom.]
Will my right hon. Friend enable the House to give some consideration to this matter? Is it not a scandal that we should hold in contempt the Christian festival of Pentecost?
Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that, because he and I might agree on this matter, it would necessarily be thought for the general convenience of the House. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, and if there were an opportunity for a debate, I would obviously welcome it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reflect upon what he has just said about last night's events and take into account the fact that the Government introduced a Bill that was attacked furiously by many of his own hon. Friends; that it had added to it a Northern Ireland dimension halfway through, which prevented some Northern Ireland Members from taking part in the proceedings before the guillotine; that as a result every minority party in the House took part, as is their right, in a campaign to obstruct the Government at all times; and that during the course of that it was decided by Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about business the week after next, not this week.
Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House took the opportunity to refer to last night's proceedings, and I think that it is in order for somebody to answer that. Will the right hon. Gentleman, during the course of the full business of the week after next, retract those statements, bearing in mind that it is the job of every Opposition Member to harry and obstruct this Government, especially when the Government introduce a measure that changes out of all recognition during the
522
course of its passage through the House, and taking into account the fact that Standing Order 39 should not have been invoked with those Members present?
Mr. Wakeham: The question of invoking Standing Order 39 is a question for the Chair, not for me. The hon. Gentleman's view of the conduct of an Opposition is very interesting. In his view, its role should be to obstruct the business to which members of his own Front Bench give a welcome and which is to be passed into law. Not only that, but his own Front Bench spokesmen complain about the lack of progress on the Bill. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is much more of an embarrassment to his right hon. and hon. Friends that he is to me.
Sir Anthony Grant: When will there be an opportunity to debate the length of speeches, a debate that disappeared as a result of the change of business? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this is of extreme importance and relevance to the televising of Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: I absolutely recognise the importance of that subject, and the connotation that my hon. Friend puts on it. As I have said, it is one of the casualties of this week, but I hope to reinstate it as soon as possible.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House make time available in the near future for a debate on the guidelines and criteria used by the Home Secretary to determine the allocation of police officers to the various police constabularies? Is he aware that, of the 450 officers available to be allocated this year, not one was allocated to Leicester constabulary, and that, despite the excellent work of the chief constable, assisted by the constabulary, they have not been assisted by the Government with extra resources? Bearing in mind the fact that there is one crime every 10 minutes in Leicestershire, when can we have a debate on this important matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that it is an important matter and I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate on it, but I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in the near future. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the club below the Gangway will listen. We are dealing with business for the week after next.
Mr. Michael Latham: Following the question by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), will my right hon. Friend please think about this again? Is he aware that we need an early debate on those criteria for the decision of the Home Secretary, because it is absolutely ludicrous that. Leicestershire has been given no more police, and that Leicestershire Members will be pursuing the Home Secretary very persistently in Question Time until that decision is changed?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend says; I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on why Mr. Giles Hopkinson, a senior Department of the Environment official, wrote a letter to the Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment saying that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister wanted Richmond

523
yard to be valued by a private-sector valuer? It is clear that they were involved. May we have a statement on the nature of that involvement?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I do not think that a statement is required. I have looked at the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). I accept that there may have been a misunderstanding, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend sought to mislead the House. To avoid any continuing misunderstanding, my hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member for Warrington, North today to set out the position and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early statement on the unprecedented position in my constituency at Hanway road, which is in a council estate? Royal mail deliveries have been suspended for the second time in three months because of attacks by dogs on postmen, which Ealing council has not brought under control. As pensioners, some of whom are very elderly, are having to walk two or three miles to collect their post, will the House consider the matter with a view to getting action taken to restore the post?
Mr. Wakeham: Last week, my hon. Friend raised the question of flooding in his constituency. Ealing council is empowered to assist with the incidents of that kind. I believe that the incident that he has raised, which must be very distressing, is a matter for the council rather than for me. I shall do anything that I can to assist my hon. Friend.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House may be aware that the consultative period for the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive proposals for nuclear dumping expires next Wednesday. Would it not be appropriate to have an early debate in Government time so that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies—Scotland is emerging as the key target area for Nirex and nuclear dumping—can record the strength of public opposition in Scotland to the proposals and warn the Government that, if they proceed with nuclear dumping in Scotland, they will be reduced from the third to the fourth party in Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place yesterday when this matter was raised. I told the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that I did not think it appropriate to have a debate at the present time, but that it was right and proper for any hon. Member to put his views and those of his constituents to Nirex. I believe that that is the way forward; the time for a debate is later.
Mr. James Kilfedder: In a country that prides itself on being a parliamentary democracy, is it not a disgrace that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland still slides out of his responsibility to tell right hon. and hon. Members what he is saying and doing in their names at the Anglo-Eire conference? Is it not time he was brought to account and a debate arranged to discuss the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the House earlier—I think he was—when my right hon. Friend was answering questions.
524
I thought that he gave a very good account of himself, and the invitation that he gave the hon. Gentleman is one that he should take up.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House recognise that, over the past year, there has been a growing interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland among hon. Members? Northern Ireland Members having a private tête-à -tête with the Secretary of State would not give the exposure that is needed. I am aware of the understanding and knowledge of the Leader of the House. Will he say whether there will be a legislative programme in the weeks after the recess affecting Northern Ireland? Last night's protests were made primarily by Ulster Unionists who could not take part in earlier debates and had only one alternative to show their opposition—to divide the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot anticipate any debate that we may have in the weeks after the recess, but I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's comments in the wider context. I recognise that the interest in Northern Ireland affairs is greater than that of just the Official Unionist party and the other parties that directly represent Northern Ireland. I still believe that my right hon. Friend's offer to have talks is a valuable part of the process which many hon. Members seek to take up in dealing with the matters of concern to them. I see no reason why Northern Ireland Members should not participate.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In view of the concern and considerable number of questions about European competition policy and the large number of policy aspects that are affected in the run-up to the single European market, will my right hon. Friend consider making time available for a wide debate on the implications of 1992?
Mr. Wakeham: There is a lot of pressure on time at the moment, but I agree with my hon. Friend—completion of a single European market by 1992 will have an enormous effect on all British business. It is an opportunity and a challenge. We have no plans at present for a debate specifically on this matter, but all the individual measures in the single market programme are considered by the Scrutiny Committee and can be debated when that Committee makes its recommendations. With a little ingenuity by hon. Members, today's debate offers another opportunity.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the disgraceful and shocking refusal of the Home Secretary to comply with the request of the chief constable of Leicester for more police, especially in view of the letter I have received from Chief Superintendent Adams who describes this decision as "creating extreme concern" among senior police officers and as showing that the Home Secretary has ignored the efforts of the police to contain the ever-increasing tide of crime, hooliganism, violence and vandalism? Surely the Home Secretary should, at the very least, make a statement about why crime in some parts of Leicestershire has doubled since the Conservative party came to power, while the police force is to be kept exactly the same?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot for one moment accept the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that are implied in the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I recognise the anxiety of the hon. and learned Gentleman

525
and his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). As I said, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Max Madden: Why do DHSS Ministers refuse to answer parliamentary questions on the operation of the social fund while, at Northern Ireland questions today, a Northern Ireland Minister could give the information that DHSS Ministers refuse to give to Members from other parts of the United Kingdom? Will the Leader of the House understand that it is wholly unacceptable for the DHSS to refuse to answer parliamentary questions on the social fund and to dump enormous amounts of information in the Library during the recess, clearly to suppress and conceal that information from the public, the media and Members of Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman press the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement when we return after the recess, making it clear that he has changed his policy and intends to answer parliamentary questions on the operation of the social fund?
Mr. Wakeham: It seems a strange way of withholding information from Members of Parliament to put it in the Library. I cannot add anything to what I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). There is no question of withholding information from the House that it is reasonably within our power to provide.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the official Opposition felt so strongly about the alleged deficiencies to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred last night in the debate on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill that hardly any of them bothered to turn up, and those who did bother to do so did not stay throughout the night, that there was no official representative on the Opposition Front Bench throughout the night and that all the running was made—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the week after next's business, not last night's.
Mr. Lawrence: It follows from that question that, if there had been any members of the public in the Gallery, they would have been appalled at—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes, but there are other opportunities to discuss what went on last night. We are dealing now with the business for the week after next.
Mr. Lawrence: If we had an early debate on the absurd procedure that we have accepted for ourselves in this matter, it would do a great deal to improve the standing of the House in the country.
Mr. Wakeham: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend, but I would certainly not promise him a further debate on that subject in the near future, although I think that it would have been better if Opposition Members had known what they were voting about.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House take time to have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and ask him to make an early statement about the operation of development and investment grants, particularly in the north-west—especially those emanating from the Manchester office? A company in my
526
constituency which had struggled for survival was awarded a loan of £600,000, but has still not received it a year later. Such incidents lead to the failure of companies rather than their development and improvement. That is a matter of considerable concern not only in my constituency but in many others.
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular difficulties, no doubt he will take them up direct with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If I can assist in the matter I shall do so, but I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of the plan announced yesterday by the Law Commission to allow much easier divorce, may I ask for an early debate on this most important subject, as increasing divorce threatens the social fabric of the nation?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's remarks, but a pause for reflection on receiving the report would probably be in the best interests of us all.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House reflected on the issues involving propriety at the heart of Government, encapsulated in early-day motion No. 1142?
[That this House notes that the Guardian of Friday 20th May carried an article entitled 'Thatcher's boy in a cleft stick', which stated that according to Foreign Office sources 'Mr. Charles Powell wants Washington or Paris nothing less, but he's not going to get either of them', and that Mr. Powell had been offered and turned down the pose of Ambassador in Stockholm, and that the article added 'Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland Affair. He escaped appearing before a Select Committee, but not their sharpest criticism for his orchestrating role in the leaking of a letter from the then Solicitor General, which ultimately resulted in the then Secretary of State for Defence's resignation'; expresses its concern that knowledge of wrong-doing by the Prime Minister is alleged to put Mr. Powell in a position to obtain an Embassy more senior than his status warrants; asserts that this is not in keeping with the high moral ground claimed by the Prime Minister; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to make a statement.]
Could he pass comment on the press statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the business for when we come back after the recess.
Mr. Dalyell: Will he make a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for the Government to comment on press statements today. Will the hon. Gentleman please ask about the business for the week after next?
Mr. Dalyell: Will the tight hon. Gentleman make a statement the week after next on the press assertion that the Prime Minister's private secretary is holding out for an embassy in Washington or Paris, has turned down Stockholm—[Interruption.] Yes, exactly. It is rather well known. There is an assertion and an issue—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the business for the week after next; otherwise we shall take time from the subsequent debate

527
and prevent those who legitimately wish to take part from doing so, and would the hon. Gentleman refrain from engaging in repartee with the club below the Gangway.
Mr. Dalyell: It is also asserted that an additional string to his bow is that he knows
"where the bodies are buried"
in the Westland affair. As the Lord President of the Council also knows a great deal about the matter, he knows the exact importance of what I am saying. This matter cannot go without a reply when we come back.
Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that by now the hon. Gentleman would have realised that he ought not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers—even The Guardian. I am afraid that his own lively imagination together with the speculation and gossip that some newspapers contain make for a very unreliable recipe. Facts may make for a more boring diet, but it is one that I recommend to the hon. Gentleman nevertheless.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I accept the great pressures placed upon my right hon. Friend, but does he accept in considering the business for the week after next that if Government—I do not mean this Government alone—did not introduce ill-considered legislation such as the Bill before the House last night, the House could find time to debate very important issues affecting people throughout the country? Not least, we could debate matters related to pre-1973 war widows, the unemployment and loss of exports that could well result if the furniture fire safety regulations are implemented without amendment, and many other issues. Will he not seriously consider the real issues that affect this nation, rather than the ill-considered legislation introduced by the Government when over-reacting to situations that develop in this country?
Mr. Wakeham: When my hon. Friend started his question, I thought that I would agree with him in wanting less legislation. I assure him that, as a business manager, I try to keep the amount of legislation to the minimum. However, towards the end of his question, I thought that he was encouraging me to find more legislation.
With regard to the business which was dispatched yesterday, the Bill before the House received an unopposed Second Reading and the bulk of the amendments were the result of listening to representations of hon. Members on all sides of the House in an attempt to meet their wishes. I believe that my hon. Friend would be the first to complain if the Government did not listen to the views of Back Benchers.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment took 19 days to answer my question? Will he also say why, if he received several drafts, he did not use them? Was it because they did not fit his preconceived views? Was that why he decided on an evasion of the facts? Will the Leader of the House reconsider the position and ask his hon. Friend to do the honourable thing and make a statement to the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is reasonably fair in these matters, that my hon. Friend has written a letter to him explaining what he
528
thinks is the basis of the misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to receive that letter; then, if he wishes to comment on it, we shall look at the best way to proceed.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that a recent Channel 4 poll of young people showed that 80 per cent. were in favour of the return of the death penalty? Does that not reveal that the vast majority of people in this country want the return of the death penalty? Will he confirm that on Tuesday week there will be a well structured debate in prime time that will run for a lengthy period?
Mr. Wakeham: The statistics and the arguments on the question of capital punishment have been well rehearsed in the many debates that we have had in the House. No doubt they will be well rehearsed again should we have a debate on Tuesday 7 June. As I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the question of the selection of amendments is for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. However, if any new clauses relating to capital punishment are selected, it would be my intention that they should be debated first on 7 June.
Mr. David Alton: Given the reply that the Leader of the House has just given about the importance of a free vote on capital punishment, does he not also agree that the other great issue of consicence—the life-and-death issue of the 1960s—concerning abortion should be similarly voted upon? Will he say whether he would be in favour of such an amendment being selected and the House being given the chance to vote on it?
Mr. Wakeham: The selection of amendments is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. It would be improper for me to comment on the selection of any amendments. It is a hypothetical question. I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Returning to the earlier question about the lighting demonstration for the possible future televising of the House and further debate on that issue, does my right hon. Friend accept that it might be a good idea to invite organisations other than the BBC and ITV to give demonstrations? Worthy though those organisations are, there may be expertise elsewhere which could be used to good effect.
Mr. Wakeham: Whom the Select Committee decides to invite to give evidence is a matter for it. It has been asked to prepare a report to the House and that is what it is doing. It seemed to the Select Committee that, as it was going to invite the BBC and the ITN to give a lighting demonstration, it would be helpful to the House that as many hon. Members as possible could see that demonstration. That is how it has been arranged. If the Committee decides to ask other organisations to give a demonstration—I am not saying that it will—we shall have to look at what arrangements can be made.
Mr. David Winnick: Reverting to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), does the Leader of the House agree that it is unacceptable that Members of Parliament, carrying out their duties, should not be able to go into Downing street, except six at a time? Who gave those instructions to the police? The Leader of the House accepts

529
that he has responsibility for all Members of the House, so will he recognise that, if we are carrying out our duties and wish to present letters or petitions to No. 10, there should be no restrictions whatsoever? Will he make a statement as early as possible after our return from the recess informing us that those restrictions will no longer be in place?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot possibly give an undertaking of that sort. I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I would look into the matter, but I was not aware of the details. Since then, I have been answering questions from other hon. Members and have had no chance to acquaint myself with the position. I shall do so when I leave the Chamber.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave on having an early debate on the Nirex report on nuclear dumping prepared by the Scottish National party? It is essential that we have an early debate to expose the lies which have been put out about, for example, the dumping of nuclear waste in my constituency at Schehallion. Anyone reading about nuclear dumping will know that most of the suitable areas are in constituencies held by Scottish nationalists.
Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. Friend will recognise that I have some experience of these matters. I understand the passions and the fears—often misguided—that they arouse. Of course, I shall be happy for there to be a debate on the subject, but I do not believe that this is the right time.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Leader of the House aware that early-day motion 463, expressing concern about the Government's policy in relation to Kampuchea, has now attracted the signatures of about 200 hon. Members from all parties?
[That this House calls on the Government to review urgently its policy towards Kampuchea; congratulates OXFAM fir its continued aid to that country; notes that Kampuchea is the only Third World country which has no United Nations development programme; believes that the country's diplomatic isolation due to the impasse at the United Nations concerning representation of Kampuchea must be ended; urges the Government to re-convene the 1954 Geneva Conference on Indo-China, which was co-chaired by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, and actively to promote a negotiated settlement which would isolate Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge; and stresses that as a matter of the greatest urgency Her Majesty's Government should provide reconstruction and development aid to Kampuchea forthwith.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members are especially concerned that the Government support the genocidal regime of Pol Pot? Should we not have an opportunity to debate this matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I have told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I am hoping to arrange a general debate on foreign affairs. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's contribution would be in order on that occasion.
On the question of the early-day motion, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained in answer to questions on 23 November, it is our long-held wish to see the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces and the freedom for the Kampuchean people to determine their own future.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend consider in the forthcoming business of the House the way in which the rule of the House, colloquially known as the mayor of Sligo rule, prevents hon. Members from questioning Ministers on the number of representations that they have received from hon. Members on a particular subject? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this rule is the very antithesis of open government? Should it not be referred to the Procedure Committee? Is it not time that we pensioned off the mayor of Sligo and his wretched little rule? Is it not typical of the hypocrisy that sometimes occurs in the House that we continually hear calls for the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, but we are not prepared to put our own house in order?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend, but I thank him for giving me notice of his question. I did not know about the mayor of Sligo rule until he told me about it. My hon. Friend will be aware that the rule of order to which he refers dates back to 1896, when the Speaker ruled that questions referring to communications between an individual Member and a Minister should not be allowed on the Notice Paper. My hon. Friend's question is therefore a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement when the House returns on the extraordinary evidence given by Mr. Peter Levene to the Select Committee on Defence that Ferranti and British Aerospace refused to provide information about the prices of spare parts to the Ministry of Defence'? In a business that is worth over £2 billion of taxpayers' money, should we not bring pressure to bear on those two companies? As British Aerospace seems to get such and excellent deal out of the Government, could we not ask the right hon. Member of Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to use his pressure on British Aerospace to stop that company ripping off the taxpayer? Could we not ask Tory MEP Basil de Ferranti to do the same for Ferranti, or is ripping off the taxpayer part of the enterprise culture?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman, who is a stickler for constitutional propriety in this House when it suits him, would be better advised not to make such remarks but to behave in the proper fashion. The Select Committee on Defence is taking evidence and will no doubt issue a report. When that report is received, the Government will no doubt respond to it, and that is the time to consider a debate. One-sided, biased and unsubstantiated remarks of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has made are not helpful for the good conduct of public affairs.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the forthcoming celebration of the tercentenary of the Bill of Rights and the glorious revolution, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the composition of the other place and the voting rights of hereditary peers?
Mr. Wakeham: I was hoping to celebrate that by getting through the Government's business in good time, in good order and with the business unamended as far as possible. Fascinating though the subject is to many of us, this is not the right time for such a discussion.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Will the Leader of the House stop misrepresenting what happened last night? May I assure him, without fear of contradiction,

531
that the House was kept here until 5.30 am at the insistence of the Ulster Unionists, who were using the only device available to them—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that we must deal with the business for next week.
Mr. McCusker: My point is linked to that.
—to protest at the means by which the Government apply legislation to Northern Ireland. Is the Leader of the House aware that Ulster Unionists have been informed only today that once again another important piece of legislation, the Criminal Justice Bill, will have sections that apply to Northern Ireland added on Report? Is that an adequate way of dealing with what has perhaps now become just an adjunct or attachment to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is it not time that Northern Ireland was governed like the rest of the country?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to go over yesterday's debates or to comment on debates to come, because that is not strictly relevant to my function here. Hon. Members of all parties should look at the substance of the issues before us rather than seeking to carp at every point at which they feel disgruntled when they are not taking the opportunities that are already available to them to consult and discuss with the Government.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) a few moments ago and, by way of a change, direct his attention again to the Criminal Justice Bill? My right hon. Friend has clearly stated that if you, Mr. Speaker, see fit to select an amendment on capital punishment, there is a particular day on which it is to be debated, which seems a fair indication that we are expecting just that. Can my right hon. Friend give any similar assurance either as to the day on which it is to be debated or whether he is hopeful about its selection in respect of the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I have said, except that my statement about the hypothetical situation with regard to new clauses on capital punishment, should you select them, Mr. Speaker, repeats the undertaking that I gave many months ago.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider, after the recess, the possibility of presenting to the House proposals for child care reform? I should like to draw his attention to the fact that my early-day motion No. 792 has been signed by over 300 hon. Members of all parties.
[That this House deplores the increasing frequency of grandparents being deprived the right of access to, care, fostering or adoption of their grandchildren; notes with alarm the attitude of some social services employees; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce early legislation to give legal rights to grandparents providing immediate right of access before children are taken into care and the right to be present or legally represented at any official hearing or inquiry regarding future access to, care, fostering and adoption of their grandchild or grandchildren.]
532
There is a demand for grandparents to have access to their grandchildren and a need for grandparents to have the right to be represented at court proceedings. As the White Paper was published in 1987, is it not time that the Government started to put their own house in order and tried to reform the law relating to child care?
Mr. Wakeham: I know the hon. Gentleman's long and deep concern about many of those issues. I also know that he intends to raise the matter in the House tomorrow when a Minister will reply to him. That is the best way to proceed from here.
Mr. Alan Meale: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Department of Energy has recently issued to limited sources a consultative document on coal-mining subsidence damage compensation? Is he also aware that district councils throughout Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire have already undertaken a large-scale survey at huge cost, but that date for the final receipt of evidence for the consultative paper is as early as 29 July? Will the right hon. Gentleman use the usual channels to ensure the extension of that consultative period so that all the evidence can rightly be given to the Department of Energy for full consideration during that consultative period?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman is correct that a great deal of work has already been done which would form the basis of the evidence, there does not appear to me to be a problem with the end date. However, I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy because it is obviously right that my consultation process should receive all the advice that anybody can give.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people in London are facing increasing misery living in bed-and-breakfast hotels; or are sleeping on the streets of London because of the homelessness crisis or facing ever-increasing rents in both the council and private sector; that in the Health Service in London, many hospitals are under threat because of hospital closure programmes due to Health Service amalgamations; that traffic and transport chaos is rife throughout the capital and that there are many growing social problems, partly as a result of the abolition of the Greater London council, but also because of the general underfunding of all aspects of London's social infrastructure? Will the Leader of the House repeat his earlier assurance that there will be an early, full and urgent debate on the plight of London and Londoners, and on the need for central Government funding to be restored to the level of 1979, before this Government took office?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I will defend to the end his right to say it. I wish that he would he a bit more balanced in his approach and talk about some of the extravagent Left-wing councils, and the council houses that are left untenanted when there are people who want to move into them. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am looking for time for a debate on London, and I am still looking for time. I repeat today the assurances that I have given him that I will do my best to find time for a debate.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May I press the Leader of the House further on that? Will he ensure that there is an early debate in Government time about the problems of

533
London, because, as unemployment has increased by 150 per cent. in the capital since 1979, with poor housing, above-average health cuts, low incomes and low benefits, but high costs to many individuals, many Londoners feel that they have been hammered by the Government and that they are living in unrecognised poverty? May we have an early debate on London?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to be seen to be discriminating between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), so I hope that he will take my previous answer as adequate for him as well.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jim Marshall, at long last.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I repeat the request by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for an early debate on the police, and specifically, on the Leicestershire constabulary? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows this, but great steps have been made in increasing the number of civilians in the police force in Leicestershire and in putting more police on the beat there. But still more policemen and women are required to combat rising crime in Leicester.
In view of this background, it is incomprehensible to all hon. Members representing Leicestershire, irrespective of their political parties, that the chief constable's reasonable request for a small increase in establishment should have been refused. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision not to arrange an early debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I have already told hon. Members that I shall refer the matter to the Home Secretary, and that is what I shall do. I cannot add any more. I hope that the fact that the hon. Gentleman was rather late in the batting order today does not mean the the Leicester Mercury will leave him out of the report.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Has the Leader of the House taken note of early-day motion 1163, which concerns the arrest and detention without trial of the general secretary of the Trade Union Federation of the West bank, Mr. Shaeer Saed?
[That this House condemns the arrest and detention without trial of Shaeer Saed, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Federation of the West Bank; believes that this is a further example of the Israeli Government's obstruction of the democratic organisation of Palestinian people within the Occupied Territories; notes that he has met senior representatives of both parties in the House; fears that his arrest may be intended to obstruct contacts between Palestinians and parliamentary representatives of other countries; and calls on the Government to protest, in the strongest terms, to the Israeli Government.]
Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House as soon as possible about this regrettable situation? We are particularly concerned because Mr. Saed showed a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House around Palestine, and his arrest may be related in some way to his having shown democratically elected Members of Parliaments of other countries around.
Mr. Wakham: The Government deplore the Israeli practice of holding Palestinians in detention without trial. We have asked the Israelis for details of Mr. Saed's case.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Anthony Banks.
Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply grateful for having been able to catch your eye on this occasion.
May we have an early debate on the outbreak of legionnaire's disease at Broadcasting house in London? The Leader of the House may be aware that I have been asking his right hon. and hon. Friends in the DHSS for a public inquiry, but it has been refused so far. It is clear that the BBC has not fully made available all the facts surrounding the outbreak of the disease, and by delaying giving the information to Londoners it has undoubtedly exposed many hundreds of thousands of them to the disease. In order to restore some confidence in London, may we have an early debate on this issue?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman raises a point of concern. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend and see whether any statement should be made.
Mr. David Winnick: May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order? You will have heard the exchanges earlier, and the Leader of the House may well report back to us that the problem that we complained about will continue. Can you help in any way? It is understandable that from time to time we should go to 10 Downing street in the course of our parliamentary duties, but I see no reason why scenes such as this morning's should be repeated—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can help the hon. Gentleman. I am not responsible for what goes on outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I called the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) last because I thought he might ask this question. It is a matter for the Leader of the House, who is looking into it, and not for me.
Mr. Winnick: Could you use your influence in any way, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I use my influence in all kinds of ways, but not on the ballot for notices of motion—the business to which we must now move on.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you for a general response about a general issue of privilege? May I have an assurance that when you decide on these matters you always call for all the necessary documents to enable you to make a reasonable judgment about them?
Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member that if any hon. Member raises a matter of privilege with me I go into it in the greatest detail and with the most careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman may have that absolute assurance.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR 13 JUNE
The following Members were successful in the Ballot:

Mr. Alan Meale

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens

Sir Peter Hordern

St. Christopher and Nevis (Gift)
4.26 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That Sir William Clark and Mr. Bernie Grant have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a gift of a Speaker's Chair and Desk to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis.
The House will recall that on 18 January it approved the presentation of a Speaker's Chair and Desk to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis. The gift was exhibited in the Upper Waiting Hall in the week beginning 7 March. The purpose of this motion, which is moved in accordance with the normal precedents on occasions of this sort, gives leave of absence to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) to present the gift formally on the House's behalf. They will be accompanied by Mr. Charles Winnifrith, clerk of Select Committees.
Question put and agreed to.

European Community
Mr. Speaker: I have to announce to the House that I have not selected the amendment on the Order Paper, but these matters may be canvassed in the debate.
4.27 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community, July-December 1987 (Cm. 336).
These debates are an important part of the role of the House in monitoring developments within the Community. The fact that they are seldom well attended is, in part, a reflection of the extent to which our membership of the Community is now taken for granted. But it is also a reflection of the pattern of debate in the past.
The White Paper that we are debating covers the period up to the European Council in Copenhagen last year. It describes the aims of the United Kingdom in the negotiations, which were still under way at the end of 1987. Our continuous central aim has been the lasting reform of the common agricultural policy. In the words of the White Paper our prime requirement was
"to achieve effective and proper control of agricultural spending, the key to which was a strict framework of budget discipline for all Community expenditure backed by mechanisms called 'stabilisers' to control the cost to the Community of support for each agricultural commodity".
That is now being achieved.
The CAP has often been debated in the House. In the proposals on the future financing of the Community brought forward by the Commission at the beginning of 1987, reform of the CAP played a central role. The Commission recognised the case that we had made for strict budget discipline to control agricultural expenditure and for a firmer link between that budget discipline and the individual regulations controlling agricultural expenditure.
In the summer of last year, the Commission put forward proposals for agricultural stabilisers—that is, binding limits on the support mechanisms for individual agricultural commodities, firmly linked to an overall guideline for agricultural expenditure. It was the achievement of those stabilisers and that linkage at Brussels earlier this year which marked the successful culmination of our efforts.
As a result of this agreement, we now have a legally binding ceiling on agricultural expenditure which will reduce its real growth from 10 per cent. a year over the past three years to less than 2 per cent. by 1990.
We have a crucial agreement under which, if a threshold of production is passed, guaranteed price cuts will be triggered. For cereals, they will amount to over 12 per cent. over four years on a cumulative basis, and around 8 per cent. a year for the next three years for oilseeds.
The combined effect of those changes means that, if production continues to rise, there will be double digit price cuts in the arable sector over the next three years. The cereals package alone will save £120 million this year, and up to £900 million in 1991. The savings on the costs of the oilseeds regime will save up to £400 million in 1990.
The House will agree that they are significant changes—large in themselves, and enormous in the psychological and political change that they represent within the

537
Community. The time for vigilance on CAP spending will never by over, but the era of open-ended support has been brought to an end.
It is on the basis of such policies that, last week, one newspaper was able to carry the headline "Butter mountain melts". The surplus of unsold butter, since the start of milk quotas 18 months ago, has been cut from 1·5 millon tonnes to half a million tonnes. That is still too much. It gives the lie, however, to those who claim that the butter mountain could only go one way—that is, upwards.
In addition, we have tightened up the control of agricultural expenditure in other ways. Before the Brussels agreement, agricultural expenditure was at the mercy of changes in the dollar-ecu exchange rate. If the ecu costs of agricultural expenditure went up, it was automatically reflected in the budget. If they went down the saving was not reflected in the budget. Now savings will feed through into the budget, and extra costs will be incurred only above a threshold and up to a fixed limit.
We have also secured other significant reforms in the management of the Community's budget and in the overall control of expenditure. In particular, hon. Members are rightly anxious that control of agricultural spending should not allow uncontrolled growth of non-agricultural spending. They will welcome the specific decision of the Brussels European Council in February to reaffirm the treaty provisions governing the control of non-obligatory spending for those programmes that are not clearly agreed priorities.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is difficult to assess whether British farmers have the same opportunity as their European counterparts to compete on equal terms. Will she urge her Government to hold an inquiry to determine whether British farmers are competing on equal terms with their European counterparts? It would restore confidence, which is at its lowest ebb since the war ended.
Mrs. Chalker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman said. In a recent debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sought to outline his views on that subject. I shall look again at what is available and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The European Council also agreed to have, within the overall own resources decision annual sub-ceilings on Community revenue, to ensure that overall budget discipline is secured. In all of this the United Kingdom has preserved the benefits of the Fontainebleau abatement mechanism. There were some who said that we should sacrifice some of the abatement to secure agricultural reform. We believed that we could have both, and I am glad to say that the Government were proved right.
The abatement is not a favour to the United Kingdom which we should bargain away in negotiations. The abatement was the recognition by the Community that the United Kingdom was paying more than its fair share to the Community budget. Our argument has always been that we are willing to pay our share of the cost of Community policies, but it has to be a fair share. We shall ensure that it continues to be a fair share.
Mr. George Robertson: I do not wish to raise the excitement level of the debate too quickly, but will the right hon. Lady tell the House who suggested that we
538
should give up some of our abatement to deal with the agricultural crisis? I have no recollection of anybody saying that.
Mrs. Chalker: I shall check on the matter. At this moment, I cannot recall the person who said it, but I have heard it said during our many years of debating these subjects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to advise him later.
Sir Anthony Meyer: If it is of any help to my right hon. Friend, I was the person who said it, and I have said it on repeated occasions. We are frustrating our long-term objectives by concentrating too much on our short-term objectives.
Mrs. Chalker: On a moment's further reflection and with some help from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will find that, on one occasion, the European Affairs Committee of the House of Lords referred to both matters being possible. However, we did not agree, and the outcome of the long negotiations has proved the Government to be absolutely right.
In 1984, the Leader of the Opposition told the press:
"The Prime Minister had better enjoy the sunshine at Fontainebleau because I do not think she is going to enjoy a hell of a lot else. She is not coming away with £475 million".
The right hon. Gentleman was right—in a way. We have come away not with £475 million, but with £3,000 million. That is a much more satisfactory solution for this country.
We were confident that, once the case for the abatement had been accepted, it would become enshrined in the policies of the Community. That confidence has been borne out by events.
The key question for the next few years is what sort of Community we create and how we maximise our benefits from it. The Opposition are still coy about giving us their vision of the Community. I understand that. I sympathise with the problem that they face. When Opposition Members were advocating withdrawal from the Community, the British people said no. Now that the Labour leadership is in favour of the Community, the bulk of the Labour party may say no. One of these days, the Labour party may manage to synchronise its policies with the wishes of the British people, but it has not happened yet, and I suspect that it will not happen for a long time.
The Opposition have chosen a somewhat unlikely champion of their new policy that we now hear about. Faced with the impossibility of having a coherent policy here at Westminster, they have left it all to Labour MEPs at the European Parliament. They have just published a new Labour vision for Europe. It is based on the old ideas of the corporate state that have been comprehensively rejected, not just in this country, but in all other member states of the Community. The Labour party's view of Europe is of a Europe firmly governed from the centre. It is a Europe of directive, regulation and bureaucracy, workers' co-operatives and social engineering. It is as though the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) were to be made President of the Commission.
Mr. George Foulkes: That is a good idea.
Mrs. Chalker: We can see where the hon. Gentleman's instincts lie. It is an interesting revelation. The Labour party's conception of the Community—be it in Strasbourg or in the House—is wrong.
The Government favour common action in the Community to solve our common problems. The Government favour concerted action to deal with unemployment. The most significant initiative to tackle unemployment, with an agreement on 40 specific proposals for action by the Community and member states, was taken under the British presidency in 1986.
We favour, too, concerted, sensible action to deal with the problems of the environment. It was under this Government that provision for concerted action on the environment was written into the treaty of Rome. That was one of the major elements of the Single European Act. The hon. Members whose party now puts itself forward as the champion of the environment, kept the House night after night opposing the Single European Act. Yet action on the environment was one of its benefits.
The Community has a role to play in setting standards for equality of opportunity. But none of that can be an end in itself. It may create a kind of equality, but it certainly does not create opportunity, and it is opportunity that we need to create.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the debate on 17 May when I made a fairly long speech about Ispra, the Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs courteous-ly replied:
"The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked what we wished to see by way of new emphases within those facilities. In my opening remarks I said we felt it regrettable that, for example, the environmental programmes were running at about 14 per cent. Hence, much work remains to be done there."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 916.]
Can the Minister put flesh on that? Her colleague has said that there is a great deal of work to be done, especially in relation to the joint research centre. Can she be specific about what is to be done?
Mrs. Chalker: I shall not be specific now or I shall take up the time of the House unreasonably. I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman a quick reply if I have the leave of the House to answer at the end of the debate.
In the preface to the pamphlet produced by the British Labour group of the European Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition described the aims of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Europe as
"the removal of many of the protections for consumers, citizens and workers which have been built up by national Parliaments over decades and which are seen as rigidities impeding market operations".
Anyone would think that the single market was the sole creation of the United Kingdom, foist in some undemocratic way on our unwilling partners. What nonsense that is. No one would think that the Community's single market agenda for this year had been agreed by all 12 Heads of Government, and that that agenda comprises the liberalisation of capital movements, the opening up of financial services, the liberalisation of transport, the mutual recognition of qualifications and the opening up of public procurement. The White Paper that we are discussing records a notable success in our efforts to liberalise air transport within the Community last year and that should be recognised by the House.
We had an example only this week of what could be achieved once the Community's finances were put on a
540
sound basis. We were able to agree in the Foreign Affairs Council on Tuesday to a new programme of Community expenditure on youth exchanges. I know that a number of hon. Members were concerned that the introduction of such a scheme should not damage our existing youth exchange programmes. Under the agreement that we have reached, our youth exchange centre will be the designated co-ordinating body for Community youth exchanges in this country. The total United Kingdom Government money devoted to youth exchanges in Europe will increase substantially.
Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend referred some moments ago to the Opposition's over-bureaucratic approach to the Community, but is she happy about the extent to which the Community seeks to regulate activities within its boundaries? I draw her attention to comparisons that are frequently made between the economic success of the United States over the past 10 to 15 years and that of Europe. I take as one indicator the creation of jobs, which is significantly different. The United States has created many more jobs than the Community. Does my right hon. Friend have any proposals to make to the Community to try to reduce regulations and bureaucracy, to set the economy free and to allow the economy naturally to generate more jobs in the way that the United States has?
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is well aware that it is almost impossible to make a direct comparison between the United States of America and the EC, for the simple reason that there are vastly different tax systems in the United States, even between states, and in the member countries of the EC.
However, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks about regulations. I was a member of the Secretary of State for Employment's committee on breaking down barriers. We have fought consistently, and we shall go on doing so within the EC, to get rid of unnecessary regulations and barriers. But in saying that, let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that if a regulation or a barrier is necessary for security or safety, we shall maintain that in the best interests of Britain and the Community. One must apply common sense to regulations and barriers. There are many more to be dismantled and they will be dismantled, but there may be some which, for our own safety and security, we shall have to retain.
Let me return to what I was saying about the way in which we are making progress—steadily, not dramatically, perhaps sometimes for the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) rather boringly, but sound work is often not headline material of newspapers, as he well knows. There is sometimes a tendency to go for the headlines and not do the work. I should prefer to see the work done, whatever the headlines contain.
We have gained agreement from the Commission that the Community should add its weight to that of the United States and other countries in contributing to the International Fund for Ireland which has so effectively supported the economic reconstruction of Northern Ireland and the Republic. That has been the result of a joint initiative by the British and Irish Governments. It is another example of the practical way in which the Community makes its contribution to economic and political development.

541
I know that to many hon. Members our European agenda is familiar. It is also familiar to those who have witnessed Britain's economic success over the last few years. Our partners, in Europe and beyond, now look to Britain and see not the failed policies of the 1970s, but the success of policies of the 1980s. Fortunately, they do not suffer from political myopia. Conservative or Socialist, they judge Britain by the results that we are achieving and by our successful economic policies. They see the fastest drop in unemployment of any country in the Community. They see the fastest growth. They realise that what has worked at the national level can work at the Community level as well. That is the true measure of the success of our European policies over the last few years. Not only have we achieved essential reforms, but we have, by the success of our financial policies, established a new pattern of policy-making throughout the Community.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: How can the right hon. Lady talk about Britain's great economic success when my constituency—in the area that we both represent—has an unemployment level of 27 per cent.? Although the Government argue that unemployment has gone down in the area, the drop is only minimal. No wonder the right hon. Lady only managed to secure her seat at the general election with a majority of 200.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in blaming the Government for unemployment in his constituency and in mine. Secondly, he is wrong about my majority, although it was perhaps smaller than I would have wished.
Let me explain the sea change that must take place. Britain cannot continue with a policy of economic regeneration which was out of date before the previous Labour Government left office. It was a policy which, sad to say, laid the basis for the rot in so many companies that did not change their method of working and has produced the unemployment that far too many people suffered in the early 1980s. That level is coming down. Unemployment in my area is coming down.
Whatever may be happening in the hon. Gentleman's area, I shall be doing everything that I can through the Community to ensure that unemployment comes down throughout the country. One of the ways that will happen is by the wider opportunities available to British industry that will result from the single market. That is why we are directing a massive campaign of information and publicity to business and the public, to ensure that they are aware of the opportunities offered by the single market and are able to exploit them in the same way that every other country in the Community is doing.
We have reduced unemployment faster than any other European country because we have created more new jobs than any other European country. We have attracted to this country—and to my part of the world—new investment, which would not have come our way but for the economic policies pursued by the Government. We have done that by creating efficient manufacturing and service industries.
Jobs and prosperity will not be created by directives that dictate to companies the structure of their boards or the detailed organisation of the workplace. Jobs will come from expansion into Europe and, through collaborative ventures, expansion beyond Europe. We have achieved many other aims in the period covered by the White Paper and since then. However, it is more important to look
542
forward, to establish what people want and to define what our combined efforts within the Community can help bring about for the betterment of our citizens.
We want easier and cheaper transport. We want better product standards for consumers. We want the freedom to buy and sell insurance, mortgages and banking services throughout the Community. That is exactly what the single market means. They all touch the lives of ordinary people. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of touch with today's public, who are buying shares and their own houses. They are out of touch also with those who are unable to own their own homes but are benefiting from improved job opportunities and increased expenditure on health and education, which are the fruits of economic success.
We are now living on the money that British people are earning, and not on the money that the previous Labour Government had to borrow. That is why Britain is enjoying continuing success after seven successive years of growth and with a level of job creation that no other European country is enjoying, and which is envied by our partners.
Our objective has been to achieve all that within a sensible legislative framework. On occasions, the collective action that we take is bound to impose constraints. However, the Community must ensure that such constraints are more than outweighed by the opportunities. If we set the agenda for the Community on the basis outlined by the Labour party in the European Parliament, it would be an agenda of directives and regulations, imposing constraints but not creating opportunities. That is exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). The Government wish to see the minimum number of regulations and the maximum number of opportunities.
When I was much younger, but still very interested in politics, I took to my heart a remark made by President Kennedy in his inaugural address which I believe remains true today:
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
Too often, the question is asked, particularly by the Labour party, "What has the Community done for us?", when the proper question to ask is, "What can we do for ourselves within the Community?" Our trade deficit is not a consequence of Community membership; it is a measure of our own failure to take advantage of the opportunities that membership of the Community offers. We will ensure that every company in Britain has the opportunity and the know-how to exploit the opportunities offered by the single market.
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): My right hon. Friend has stated that she wishes to get rid of silly regulations and actions. Last week, the Commission put forward a plan to treble the levy on—of all things—budgie seed. That will increase the retail price of budgie seed by 300 per cent., which will affect 4 million people—many of them pensioners. What could be sillier than that? Will my right hon. Friend put a stop to that silliness—which is but one of many examples—and help pensioners make a saving?
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has not only waged a significant campaign to establish Miracle Bus in the Community but, from his reading of The Star, he will know of the problems which

543
some correspondents like to make the meat of the European Community. I assure my hon. Friend that he need not worry about budgie seed—we shall make sure that it is available at a competitive price through competition within the European Community.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mrs. Chalker: I have already given way once to every hon. Member who wished to intervene. I believe that I should now draw my remarks to a conclusion.
It is fair to say that when Britain joined the Community, the European playing field was uneven. The rules were written for a game that we were not accustomed to playing. We have changed that. We have reformed the inequities and have brought the rule book up to date. I have made clear the way in which we have set the agenda for the 1990s. The six-monthly White Paper before the House records progress made along that route. I commend it to the House. The next White Paper will record the signal achievements of the past six months. They represent a major landmark in the pursuit of this country's interests and those of the Community as a whole.
4.56 pm
Mr. George Robertson: This debate marks the usual ludicrously belated tour around the European Community and review of matters which occurred nearly a year ago. To be considering a six-month period in the European Community almost 11 months to the day after the commencement of the relevant period makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny of this important subject and exposes the all-pervasive influence of the Community. I have protested from this Dispatch Box before about the delay in considering six-monthly reports. I do so again, but I am pessimistic enough to believe that in six or nine months' time, I shall be making precisely the same complaint. That situation is not good enough when so much of what occurs in the Community affects so many people—ranging from the levy on budgie seed to food prices. To be debating such an out-of-date period of events is ludicrous.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) give me an assurance that Labour MEPs will vote against the directive to treble the levy on budgie seed?
Mr. Robertson: If Labour MEPs thought that I was in any position to give assurances on their behalf, it would send a shudder of apprehension right up their collective spine. However, I am certain that my colleagues in the European Parliament will work to protect the consumer even more than any Government Member has done in the past or is likely to do in the future.
Since the period covered by the report came and went, and as the Minister has bravely reminded the House, there has been held the European summit, which the Prime Minister attended with so many inflexible demands, absolute preconditions and sticking points in mind relating to the key issues which were put before those attending that summit. She returned holding scraps of paper bearing the words, "legally binding guarantees" relating to
544
financial discipline and curbing agricultural spending. The Minister's apologia for that agreement was as limp as anything in the propaganda she has presented today.
Last Thursday's debate on the Community's finances was to the contrary and told the sobering truth about the promise from Brussels. The chairman of the Conservative party, who moonlights as the Paymaster General and is now lying back on the green Government Front Bench, crept in last Thursday night to inform the House that nearly £1 billion extra would have to be coughed up to cover the immediate, euphemistically titled "problems" of the Community. I intend to return to that in a moment.
We said that the Prime Minister had been conned in Brussels. Now there is visible evidence, in the humbling of Her Majesty's Treasury before the Treasury Select Committee and, last Thursday, before the House. The package that the right hon. Lady was sold in February, which she brought back with such embarrassed bravado to the House that Monday afternoon, is now well and truly falling apart. Our much-vaunted rebate is once more in question, pursued by all those in the Community who ignore their own economic miracles so as to pay as little as possible to the Community budget.
The rigid limits on the common agricultural policy which were to rein it in and reduce its impact—we have heard all about them again from the Minister this afternoon—must be seen in the light of the 19·6 per cent. increase in the cost of the CAP in 1988 over that of 1987. That is the real measure of the restraint that the Minister is dangling before us, in the shape of jam tomorrow. Jam today, in the past 12 months, has meant an almost 20 per cent. increase in the cost of the CAP to the consumers of Europe.
The two outcomes of the Brussels summit were not a guaranteed rebate for Britain, or the legally binding controls on agricultural spending of which we were told and have been told again today. Instead, we have learnt a whole new vocabulary of European creative accounting. Added to the euphemism mountain are two new expressions. We now have "financial engineering", which has appeared suddenly on the scene—and the Great Mechanic of the Conservative party is here to articulate it for us. We also have an "inter-institutional agreement"—an IIA to go alongside the IGA or inter-governmental agreement, the reimbursable advances, the non-reimbursable advances and all the other euphemisms for debt, crisis and financial liability. It is almost like that section in Reader's Digest called "increase your word power". There is a competition in the European Community to invent new words and expressions simply to cover up the fact that more cash is required.
The period that we are discussing covers the period of sabotage of the framework research programme by the British Government, who delayed and delayed its commencement, setting back valuable work right across the Community. They then jumped in and rejoined on almost exactly the terms that they initially rejected. It also covers the period when the Government decided to pull out of the European Space Agency project, and then tried to get in again on the cheapest available terms.
Thus the tangible areas of non-Europeanism were displayed to our friends and allies at a time when the Prime Minister was trying, with a notable lack of success, to impose her conditions—conditions to which we subscribe and on which we supported her—on the uncontrolled budget of the European Community. This Prime Minister

545
is one of the least communitarian of all Prime Ministers since the war. She despises her fellow Heads of Government, treating them like mere Conservative Cabinet Ministers. She suspects their intelligence and openly displays her contempt for their judgment. She pays, and as a consequence everyone in this country pays, a rich price for the domineering, abrasive way in which she goes about her European business.
I mentioned before the humiliating spectacle of the Paymaster General—the Conservative party chairman—coming back to the House last week to tell us that he was about to bail out the Common Market to the tune of almost £1 billion, which is almost equivalent to our total net contribution last year, and simultaneously introduce primary legislation to agree to a new own-resources formula for the European budget. All that is in advance of the so-called legally binding commitments on future spending. None of it is written down; none of it is agreed; nothing is actually on paper. Yet we in the British Parliament are being told to endorse the new arrangements.
Apart from being procedurally breathtaking, the gambit displays how bad the crisis really is. This time it is wholly appropriate to shoot the messenger, as the messenger is part of the process. The root of the Community's crisis remains in the CAP as it always has, and events in the past week show only too well that the Hanover summit in a few weeks' time may well be dominated like so many before it by a cash crisis caused by agricultural overspending.
Stabilisers—the great new wheeze invented for Brussels: the limits on production beyond which price cuts will be made—were set far too high, far higher than the Prime Minister knew was required, so no real progress can even be foreseen for at least a year. In her speech, the Minister—cleverly, I concede—disguised the fact that any savings as a result of stabilisers will certainly not come in the near future, if indeed in the distant future. Still the waste goes on, with the Community's wealth squandered on storing and destroying food that no one wants.
Opposition Members are often accused of being biased and prejudiced on the issue, and of giving the Government an unfair time. But a recent escapee from the British Civil Service has blown a valuable and well-informed whistle on the whole matter of the CAP. Sir Michael Franklin, who has just retired as permanent secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has written an excellent and highly readable book published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs and entitled, appropriately, "Rich Man's Farming: The Crisis in Agriculture". He paints a dismal picture. It comes from the pen of someone who really knows what he is talking about, and what has gone on in the Community.
Sir Michael tells us that over the past decade agricultural expenditure rose by 7 per cent. per annum, when the wealth of the European Community, measured in gross domestic product at constant prices, grew by only 2 per cent. By 1985, real farm incomes were back at 1974 levels, and in the next three years they dropped in real terms by 3 per cent.—and this at a time when the standard of living in the rest of the Community was rising. Meanwhile the numbers employed in agriculture dropped by 24 per cent. between 1973 and 1983, and continue to drop.
It is a failure of a policy in every one of the respects for which it was designed, designed as it was to protect farm
546
communities and incomes and to ensure balanced food supplies for the people of Europe. Still the 12 nations of the European Community conspire, either deliberately or through intimidation, to maintain a policy of waste, expense and high food prices which constantly bankrupts the Community of all promise.
Let me deal briefly with the important subject of the Government's accountability to this Parliament for European Community affairs. It is now some considerable time since the Single European Act—carried through the mechanism of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986—came into force, with all the new powers conceded to European Community institutions. I congratulate the Minister on managing, after about a year of the operation of the new amended treaty, to get a published document on to the streets of Britain so that we know what we are up against. That at least shows some efficiency, a year being a commendably short time for the Government to bring those important documents out into the open.
The Single European Act meant more majority voting, with automatic implementation of Community law in this country. It meant more powers for the European Parliament and for European measures. More competence is covered, including European political co-operation—that is, the co-ordination of foreign policy. All that stems from the European Single Act, yet the House has not changed its procedures one jot in recognition of the increasing pervasiveness of European legislation—whether we regard that pervasiveness as good or bad—and the institutions within it.
Looking at the recent European Parliament report, snappily entitled "Bodies Specialising in European Community Affairs Within National Parliaments", I do not wish to make a partisan point, but I was struck by how poorly our Parliament supervises the European dimension.
The House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation has staff but few powers to do more than recommend matters for usually delayed debates in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) chairs that Committee and is recognised for his great skill and industry. It is sad that he cannot be in his usual place today, but he also chairs the Select Committee on the Lyndhurst bypass and is paying a long-arranged visit to the New forest to see where the bypass is to be located. However, I know that he would concede that the staff and the powers of the Select Committee are wholly inadequate to deal with the post-European Single Act era.
The House of Lords Select Committee, which the right hon. Lady chose to mention in her speech, is an admirable institution which does an excellent job monitoring the details and the broad issues involved in the European Community, but it is surely perverse and indefensible that that scrutiny function should exist only in the non-elected Upper House.
The sheer magnitude of the issues which will hit this country, sometimes foreseen but often unpredicted, are not debated regularly and are never voted upon by Parliament, will soon become a scandal unless we create our own institutions to deal with them. It is one thing—and, of course, it is a controversial thing—to concede elements of sovereignty to European institutions, but it is quite another thing—and much more worrying—to

547
concede the right to monitoring, supervising and even discussing what is being decided in our name outside this place.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that action will be taken to get an immediate review of the way in which the House of Commons considers European Community business, perhaps through the vehicle of the Procedure Committee, so that we can ensure the elementary consideration of the very important issues that can affect so many people in this country so often and in so many ways.
I now turn to the completion of the internal European market and its great target date of 1992. Lord Young, who never has to answer critics from both sides of this House, is already spending something like £5 million on yet another media extravaganza that warns, cajoles, hectors and boasts about 1992, its pitfalls and its opportunities. The House and the country would be wise to remain sober about what this business men's Euro-hype is all about.
First, there is already a single market in Europe, albeit incomplete, and Britain has not done very well as a consequence of it. Membership has already seen a flood of European goods drowning many United Kingdom industries. Secondly, the abolition of all remaining restrictions to trade—if such an event were possible—without major changes in attitude by British industry would lead to an even more calamitous devastation of British industry at the hands of our Community competitors.
The disciples of free European trade—the doomed Commissioner Lord Cockfield being in their front rank—see multiplying benefits from removing non-tariff barriers. The Cecchini report entitled "European Challenge", inititated by the European Commission and published this month, is lyrical in its exposition of the remarkable improvements to competition, efficiency and employment that will result from completing the internal market. It claims a 5 per cent. increase in Community, GNP, and a dazzling 1·8 million jobs to be created and to be set against Communitywide unemployment totalling 16 million.
It ill becomes the right hon. Lady, who has a good reputation for being frank and honest, to boast that we have the biggest reduction in unemployment in the Community when we had one of the largest rates of unemployment in the Community—and most of that was created by her Government during the nine years they have been in power.
The unemployment rate in this country in the last 12 months before the 1979 election went down every month. It shot up to ludicrous and shameful levels under this Administration. Therefore, for the right hon. Lady to take credit for managing to achieve marginal reductions is breathtaking in its cheek.
Mrs. Chalker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was once said—and he will remember by whom—that inflation is the mother and father of unemployment. That is what happened under the Labour Government. Inflation put in train unemployment. The high levels of inflation, the failure of the Labour Government to control inflation in the late 1970s and their propensity to go on borrowing caused the unemployment at the beginning of the 1980s.
Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Lady's memory is probably faulty after nine years of struggling to justify the policies of the Government.
In the 12 months before the 1979 election, inflation and unemployment were going down every month. Within months of the 1979 election—if we really need to relive that period—VAT was almost doubled by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the right hon. Lady's boss in the Foreign Office, and unemployment climbed to a historically high level which beat that of our European competitors by a mile. That is what the right hon. Lady finds it so difficult to defend.
The new rose-coloured studies that are being produced mask a complex and wholly unrealistic set of assumptions which have been criticised in detail by reputable research institutes such as the Centre for Economic Relations and DRI Europe. DRI suggests that the increase in GNP will be closer to 0·5 per cent. than to 5 per cent. and that a mere 300,000 jobs will be created.
Those studies, whether they are optimistic or pessimistic, add little to the understanding of what is being contemplated for 1992. Their lack of realism and the sheer hypotheses of their assumptions mean that they should be dismissed as crystal gazing. In fact, I would suggest that the right hon. Lady would be wiser to consult Mrs. Nancy Reagan's astrologer.
Much of what is intended in completing the single internal market is good, sensible and, indeed, overdue. The harmonisation of technical and product standards will make it easier to sell and buy across the Community, as long as the British Government have the same single-minded determination as the French, the Italians and the Germans in making sure that we get a fair share of the technical standards adopted by the Community as part of that harmonisation process, and that we are not left hanging around with continental standards being adopted for everything.
The harmonisation of qualifications will at last make possible the real free movement of labour. The elimination or reduction of wasteful bureacratic border procedures will help industry and trade and those who are involved in it. But the tragedy, or the sinister element behind this great £5 million advertising hype is the vision of a Thatcher-Cockfield package that is being sold to our fellow Europeans in the same way as it is being peddled to the British public.
The Government see 1992 as a vision of Euro-Thatcherism with unrestrained competition, liberated and uncontrolled market forces, wholesale deregulation with no protection for the vulnerable industries, companies, regions and communities around us. This week we heard evidence of that attitude in the words of Mr. David Williamson. The report we are considering notes with some pride that Mr. David Williamson
"formerly a senior Cabinet Office official, was appointed Secretary-General of the Commission on 1 October."
I am sure that what he said in London this week about the single market has been drawn to the Minister's attention. He said:
"In the UK there is rather a heavy concentration on the internal market as a cash register operation."
That is out of the mouth of somebody who has been through the indoctrination process of the Foreign Office

549
and the Cabinet Office. He can now tell the truth because he has been liberated from the coat tails of the lady in No. 10. He went on:
"The community must also decide accompanying economic, social and structural policy measures if it was to achieve the full benefits of a unified market."
If the Minister can liberate herself from the lady in No. 10, perhaps she will tell us whether she agrees with the Cockfield view of the internal market or with the Williamson interpretation. I am sure that we would all like to know.
There is no question in the Government's mind of seeing intervention as a mechanism for easing transition or to facilitate change. After 1992 there is to be no drive to create alternative employment when jobs are lost, no harmonisation of workers' rights from country to country and no equalisation of anything other than the lowest possible level of health and safety standards, despite the fact that article 118A of the Single European Act, about which the Minister spoke lyrically, provides specific powers for that to be an accompanying measure for any movement towards a completed market. A free market does not make a fairer market and, as Mr. Williamson says, an unfair market will simply not produce the rewards that are envisaged by the programme.
I agree that the single European market will provide opportunities but it will also provide dangers for British industry. It will open the doors to our exporters but it will open doors wide to imports from the Community. It could lead to a considerable new trade for British firms hut, without adequate safeguards, it could see our small and medium-sized businesses die in the fight against European mega-firms. The events of this week in watching the Rowntree takeover only too amply illustrate the dangers that there may be.
In its editorial today, the Financial Times says:
"There is a risk that in the rush to prepare for 1992, too many European industries will be concentrated in the hands of a few giant concerns which will be tempted to collude rather than compete."
It goes on to say:
"Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to get carried away with the idea that big is best or that what businessmen think is in their own interests is always good for the consumer."
That is a danger in the single European market that exists for all of us.
Mr. David Curry: Did the hon. Gentleman note that the same editorial in the Financial Times approved the Government's decision not to refer the Rowntree bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Robertson: I am not in the least surprised at that attitude from the house magazine for the British capital market. However, it is appropriate that it should warn the Government and the country of the dangers that are in our way if 1992 is simply seen, as Lord Cockfield, the Prime Minister, Lord Young and others see it, as a paradise for big business and trouble for everybody else in the country.
Mr. Tony Banks: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the advertisements that have been chosen by the Department of Trade and Industry to advertise the benefits of the single market have selected two very big and ugly business men, which seems rather strange to us?
Mr. Robertson: I would not go on the aesthetic merits of Mr. Alan Sugar or any of the others. However, they are big business men and that should worry a lot of people in the country, who, at the moment, have not yet taken on the challenges and risks involved in European trade. Such people would be wise to look carefully at what has happened to Rowntree. The business was built on hard graft, good sense, initiative and enterprise and it is now to be swallowed up simply as a mechanism for giving Nestle or other competitors a bigger slice of the market in Europe. In spite of that, we do not hear a squeak on the advertisements about a stronger competition policy for the Community or any policy on mergers and acquisitions that might give encouragement to companies to believe that they would be protected.
We know that the Government are not concerned with that because they do not have the slightest clue about what the impact of 1992 will be on most British industry. We have repeatedly asked—it has been repeatedly denied—for a sector-by-sector, industry-by-industry study showing the potential impact of 1992. Only in that way can we fully appreciate the risks to British industry and the opportunities that might be opened up. A £5 million television advertising campaign on behalf of British big business is no substitute for that. The Prime Minister clearly sees it as being an unbalanced, uninformed, ill-prepared and doctrinaire plunge into the unknown. Those in this country whose livelihoods are tied in with that future would be well advised to worry about it.
I should like to conclude on a positive note. I would have liked to have started on a positive note but the manifest failures of the Government demand to be exposed for the wasted opportunities that they represent. The Community has promise. There are challenges that it can meet and dominate, given the political will of the leadership in the 12 countries concerned. European political co-operation has seen the development of co-ordinated policies to the outside world and their deployment to the benefit of everyone. The fact that it has pushed the Government into being more radical, sensible and practical than they want to be is all to the good.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Give us an example.
Mr. Robertson: The impending protocol linking the European Community and COMECON, both East and West in Europe, overcoming years of mutual distrust, is a significant step forward for us all. The call on Tuesday by European Foreign Ministers, following the meeting with Foreign Minister Peres of Israel, for more progress on the middle east is an excellent example of the Community using its influence where it can in order to move events forward. In central America, South Africa and Turkey, European political co-operation has meant that a unified European voice has influenced world events that will affect all our nations in time.
That is a process we welcome and we hope that it will be deepened. The opportunities for European co-operation are considerable. In mobilising the momentum of ESPRIT, EUREKA and RACE to face the technological challenge of Japan, in seeing environmental protection as a Europewide problem to be met at a European level, in the idea of a community, not of a free-for-all market, working together on common problems in a small world, we have considerable hope to offer all the people of Europe.

551
If we see the Community simply as a market, an unregulated free-for-all, where the rich areas, rich firms and rich workers get richer and more powerful and the rest of us are left to rot, we shall have created nothing at all. We shall have simply destroyed all that is good and valuable in the great European Community.
5.29 pm
Mr. David Curry: I sometimes feel that debates in the House on the European Community resemble the endless repeats of "Match of the Day" that one sees on television. They tend to be the great debates about who won in Brussels. We have watched every foul, every back pass and every dispute between the linesman and the referee. But everybody is getting thoroughly bored and can remember by heart almost every incident of that episode.
I should like to take advantage of a rare occasion to look at European development from over the hill, especially at some realistic implications of the move towards 1992. It will be refreshing for me to remark on the Community but to refer neither to the Budget nor CAP.
First, I shall comment a little on the campaign for 1992 and the need for a co-ordinated Government policy towards it. The great fanfare for 1992 must be accompanied by economic policy-making decisions that enable British industries to compete in overseas markets. There are now some worrying signs, which it would be unfair not to mention.
There is a parity relationship between the pound and the deutschmark, which gives some businesses cause for concern. Companies are reaching capacity shortages, and that unmet demand is fed by imports. British companies are tending to meet their home market demands before overseas demands, because the profit margins are bigger on domestic trade.
The interest rate cuts that we have introduced in order to stabilise the currency level will stimulate demand, which will in turn feed through into further imports. The United Kingdom is a very attractive import market because of the strength of the pound, and the efficiency and facility of our distribution system.
At the same time, some companies, including those in my northern constituency, are not in the position of those in the great booming southern constituencies that have labour bottlenecks. We must manage our economic affairs so that British industry is given more than an exhortation to meet the 1992 deadline. It would be a tragedy, after all the work to make British business competitive and get rid of the great slack attitude that has lost us many markets overseas, if we traded in another site but could not take advantage of the great movement towards a free market. In many respects, we invented that market in Europe. The great British demand has been, "Give us the real Common Market." We must make sure that we can compete in it.
As a specific example, I recall a speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the conclusion of the Königswinter conference at Cambridge. He said that the way to go forward in Europe is not via the sort of tax harmonisation in the Cockfield package. I agree with him. The way forward is by deregulation. But if the Financial Services Act is our vision of deregulation, that will not help our businesses to compete in Europe. I fear
552
that that sort of policy might make the City of London one of the great losers from 1992, rather than a great winner. That is particularly so when one considers that it costs five times as much to list in London as in Amsterdam.
We must be certain, not only that business must get out into the markets but that the Government have a duty to provide the broad economic policies that facilitate such an approach.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned competition in the Community. Clearly there is an urgent need for national monopolies and mergers legislation to dovetail with the EEC legislation. As the Community becomes more integrated, it will become harder to sustain a distinction between takeovers affecting trade across borders and takeovers that do not do so. It is important that we pursue price-fixing agreements and make sure that consumers get the prime benefit of lowering costs, which is the root of supply-side economics. That is itself the basis of the movement towards 1992.
We must be intensely suspicious of the argument that "bigger" is necessarily justified because of a single market. The main benefits should come from the opportunities for mailer and medium-sized companies, especially in the service sector, to reach an optimum size in the market place. There is much less of a case to be made for cross-border mergers of already large concerns. This is a key point. The efficiency of the market must come from the increased size of the market, not necessarily from the increasing size of the players within it.
Perhaps it is ironic that the justification for the Nestle proposal to take over Rowntree plc was not the creation of a monopoly in the United Kingdom, but reduced competition within the Community as a whole, because of fewer players in the Community market place.
What matters is that it is much better for 20 companies to compete in a Continental-sized market place than for a handful to compete in each national market place. The biggest tariff barrier of all is the tendancy for companies to charge higer prices and earn higher profit margins at home and serve their external markets on a marginal cost basis. The threat of more competition at home is essential to persuade companies to lower their prices.
Another important point is that we must resist the silent call from business that, in parallel with the creation of the internal market in Europe, we must institute more thorough-going external protection. First, that would invite retaliation and secondly it would perpetuate the inefficiencies that a single market is designed to eliminate. The development of competition policy in Europe must be a necessary parallel to the creation of a single market place in Europe.
I must also refer to what may be the trend in monetary policy. I am looking over the mountain again, at the considerable implications for business. The development of monetary co-operation is linked inextricably with the achievement of the internal market. It would be silly not to look this straight in the face. This means that national abilities to exercise full autonomy in monetary policy will be diluted. The Community cannot sustain simultaneously free internal markets, free movement of capital, and manage exchange rates and full national autonomy in monetary policy. Those objectives simply do not marry up.
In practice, the defence of an agreed exchange rate may well require enhanced co-operation, which in turn will mean the subordination of certain national monetary aims.There is likely to be a parallel between the

553
completion of the internal market and a consequent acceleration in the pace of achieving monetary union and accord. That will also stimulate the requirement that a currency is valid coin beyond national boundaries; if you like, we can call it a transnational currency.
Financial operators, after 1992, will be able to do business across borders, and exchange restrictions will be eliminated. If there is free choice in the currency to be used, it is inevitable that a few currencies will predominate. The economies of scale will apply to currency matters, just as they apply in other areas of economic activity. The predominating currencies will have a stable and real value. This represents a possible emergence of a parallel currency in which trade can be conducted, to avoid the scandalously high cost of foreign exchange transactions.
It is worth recalling the time and expense involved in transferring funds between EEC countries. To have to change currencies is just as much a barrier to trade, especially to small and medium-sized companies, as keeping lorries hanging about frontiers is a barrier to trade in physical goods. Only the banks benefit, when they enjoy the float derived from the currency exchange. The average commission of 9 per cent. is really a levy on small businesses. They do not have the option of establishing themselves overseas or investing there. They are now looking towards a classical export situation.
Perhaps the move will be from some sort of parallel currency to a common currency. That will happen if the parallel currency becomes so widespread that it replaces domestic currencies or where a strong convergence of national economies makes it possible to fix exchange rates irrevocably. At that point, a common currency might emerge.
It is worth noting that in a genuine single market there will be room for West Germany to take a more reflationary stance without risking the higher budgetary deficit or inflation rate that is an understandable preoccupation among German leaders now.
If the object of managing exchange rates, through the EMS or broader international agreement is to restore more stable exchange rates—in other words, to restore a system which is akin to Bretton Woods—there is an argument for having the additional advantages also of a common currency. If we have relatively fixed rates without a common currency, there are certain to be residual doubts about how determined the economic management is, and nothing is done to overcome the severe costs of exchanging money.
This is speculation, and I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was planning to speculate this afternoon on what might logically flow from the creation of the internal market. I do not think that these are visionary speculations; they are plausible, potential, practical consequences of letting the market decide. We have said as a Government that our motto in terms of the creation of a single market is to let the market decide what is necessary and whether there has to be an adjustment in rates. If the market is to decide, we must not start complaining if it decides on things that entail certain inconveniences for us.
This is the context in which we have to set the role of the pound. I believe that membership of the exchange rate mechanism is a necessary condition of this financial integration. Fluctuation of the pound against other ecu currencies would make the ecu less acceptable than if the rate against the pound were stable.
554
The 1992 movement is already exercising an external force. We see it in the pace of investment in the Community by companies that feel that they must get there before 1992, and a lot of that investment is coming to the United Kingdom. I believe that we may also see in the foreseeable future further enlargements of the European Community. The debate has resumed in Norway about the relationship with Europe, because Norway, as a NATO country, will feel extremely exposed if it is dependent upon the United States outside the context of the European Community.
We have seen in both Austria and Switzerland a debate resuming about the nature of the relationship with the European Community. As we know, Turkey has lodged an application. I do not say that these will necessarily result in membership, but the 1992 movement has quite clearly stimulated a change in the political situation throughout Europe, with those countries which could previously get by and manage with associated and special relationships now having to reflect upon their situation.
In the longer term also, there may be implications for defence and security policy, because all the major western democracies are strapped for cash in one way or another when it comes to defence spending. We cannot at the moment produce a NATO defence White Paper, as it were, that allocates the roles in more than general terms, and it may be that if the market takes us towards a greater degree of political association, that will begin to make possible a greater rationalisation of the defence burden. That would be a great economic benefit for all the countries in the European Community.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) raised the question of the implications for the House of the movement towards 1992. I agree with him that it is impossible to say that 1992 will be a purely economic phenomenon, divorced from political implications of any kind. It is not possible to create a sort of apartheid between an economic movement arid the political consequences that may flow from it. That raises the question of the monitoring of legislation in the House. I know that it is fashionable to say that somehow the Danes have got it right because the Folketing manages to bind their Governments. I do not believe that. Theirs is such a tortuous system of proportional representation that it denies any government a firm majority in the Chamber, and it is that that makes Governments' lives so unpredictable. It does not have any success in binding the Government; all it does is make consistent Government policies very difficult to pursue.
I want to suggest something that I know will not find favour with everybody—and I suspect that what I have said already will not be greeted with hoots of joy by everybody. If the House is serious about monitoring legislation it should look to the European Parliament as some sort of partner in the process of maintaining democratic accountability and scrutiny, because otherwise it will not happen. It is important that in this Europe that is developing politically, the notion of democratic accountability should be maintained. That must be done by a process of partnership; it should not be resolved on a competitive basis between Parliaments.
To the Government I would say that at the moment we have everything going for us in Europe. We have a stable Government with four years ahead of them, a strong economic performance and a Prime Minister who has achieved world stature. We are winning the economic

555
argument throughout the world, because umpteen Governments are now pursuing policies of the kind that have been pursued in the House. European Community policies are increasingly reflecting our own ideas, and the new defence situation, following the series of meetings between Reagan and Gorbachev and the new detente in international relations, is presenting a new challenge to the coherence of Europe and its ability to manage its own defence.
It is important that we grasp the opportunity for the United Kingdom to play a creative role in the Community, in alliance in particular, I suggest, with the French, who are also now heading for a period of stable government and clear leadership. It is very important that we do not pursue a policy of grudging minimalism towards Europe, with a motto that sometimes seems to be "a bridge too short". We have a particular chance; we have caught up a great deal on our deficit; all that remains is to decide whether we want to take it.
I hope profoundly that, under this Government, we shall take that opportunity and play a creative role in the development of Europe; otherwise we shall be overtaken by events. We have a history of joining things just when everybody is ready to move to the next phase. We must not be in that situation now. The choice is entirely ours to make.
5.46 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: It is always an honour to speak in a debate on developments in the European Community. As a Liberal, I am a dedicated European, like all my party colleagues. As the years go by, I am getting more dedicated to the European movement and one of the reasons is, perhaps, that for over 40 years we have had peace within the European Community; we have been able to live with our neighbours peacefully and quietly and we are able to work together in harmony to improve the economic situation within the Community. Many hon. Members may not realise that there are 20 countries or more throughout the world at war at this very moment. How fortunate we are in Britain and in the Community that we are not at war.
This is not just one of the regular six-monthly European debates, for the period we are dealing with represents the first six months of the Single European Act. Things are changing in Europe and the goal of the common internal market in 1992 is approaching fast. I am sure that many farmers in the Community will find it difficult to keep going until we have that internal market. This is a historic moment, a time to consider in which direction Europe should be moving. One thing is clear: the Single European Act and the approach of the common internal market mean that far more decisions are unavoidably being made at the European level, and it is impossible for any of the national Parliaments properly to scrutinise them.
When the goal of the common internal market was first reviewed it was estimated that there would have to be new legislation in about 300 areas within the Community or regions to make it a reality. About one third of those regions have now been dealt with, but it is clear—and the House of Lords Select Committee supports this view—that the present system of parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate. There is what has been dubbed a "democratic
556
deficit" within the Community. We should therefore recognise that only one body is properly equipped to exercise that vital role—the European Parliament.
We have already agreed to economic cohesion within the Community. We must complement that with a vital democratic element that allows the European Parliament to do its job properly, by giving it proper powers of democratic control and scrutiny. Such a move is about not accumulating power at European level but leaving as much power as possible with the nations and regions, replacing the arbitrary exercise of power at European level with a democratic process. It would be wonderful if that could he achieved by 1992.
Alas, that view is not shared by the Government. They regard the European Parliament as a toothless talking shop, not as a Parliament in the sense that we know. There is no better example of that attitude than the decision that has been taken yet again to hold the next European elections under the first-past-the-post system. Every other EC country will elect its members of the European Parliament by some form of proportional representation—only Britain will not. I say "Britain" advisedly, because Northern Ireland will have the advantage of a fair system. Is every other European country out of step, or is it us? That question must be answered, and I hope that when the Minister replies she will pay attention to what I have said.
How do the Government justify that outrageous distortion of the popular vote? The only argument used against proportional representation for Westminster is the need for so-called strong government—in other words, a one-party majority. For European elections, that argument does not hold water. The European Parliament exists to scrutinise, not to elect a Government.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman, and in the past I have shared many of his views about proportional representation. Will he reflect on the fact that proportional representation enabled Mr. Le Pen to become a major force in French politics? Now that he has become a major force, it will be hard to get rid of him. That is causing me to have second thoughts about the matter.
Mr. Howells: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will agree that a system of proportional representation would be beneficial to this country and the electorate.
There is no prospect of any party forming a majority in the European Parliament and no reason for the elections being held under an undemocratic system. How can the British Government's decision to oppose proportional representation for European elections be justified?
The problem is that the British perception of the European Community is dominated by the two major parties and the press. The way in which they portray the Community is overwhelmingly negative. The Government take a purely cash-register approach. The building of a supranational cohesion of countries must be undertaken with more enthusiasm if it is to be successful.
When the Government disagree with one of the British Commissioners, a view begins to circulate that he must be replaced when his first term of office comes to an end. Lord Cockfield has taken his responsibilities as Commissioner extremely seriously and has done an outstanding job. It

557
would be a scandal if he were pushed aside before the completion of the policies that he has done so much to turn into reality.
The way in which the Government use EEC grants is typical of their attitude. When a grant is offered for a purpose, the Government deduct the amount involved from what they would have spent. That is precisely what is happening with the dualling of the A30 through Cornwall. We should demand that EEC spending intended to help the outlying regions is not siphoned off by central Government in that cavalier fashion.
Will the Minister say why the Government keep so quiet about the significant financial contribution that the EC makes to the cost of the youth training scheme and other training programmes? Perhaps the Minister will remind us of the size of that contribution.
The Labour party has taken a purely negative attitude to the EC for well over 20 years. It always failed to jump beyond the established state, in the same way as, until recently, it has feared devolution. It seems that attitudes are changing in the Labour movement. I hope that devolution will take place before the turn of the century and that the people of Wales and Scotland will have their own Parliaments. Who knows, perhaps the English will have regional Parliaments as well by then.
During the six-month period that we are debating there was intense discussion about the 1988 EC budget. Although no agreement was reached by the end of the year, we should be grateful that a settlement was found and that Britain agreed to it. Even in hard economic terms, the value of the common internal market has been estimated at £126 billion a year—about five times the Community's present budget.
If we are to have a common internal market, it is essential to have the back-up of strong social and regional policies to ensure that areas far from the centre of Europe can keep up. If we are to have such policies, they must be adequately financed. The accession to the Community of Spain and Portugal has made that more necessary.
There are many other issues that I should like to raise. As the Minister and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) raised the common agricultural policy and finance, let us remind ourselves that in the Community and in Britain we arc very fortunate that we have plenty of food. Other parts of the world would give their right hand for the food that we have in this country. I am sure that, given the will, there is a way to help them. It is the duty of the Community to do what it can to help.
Our agriculture is the most efficient in Europe. However, if one looks at its record in 1988 and its profit and loss accounts, one sees that confidence in the industry is at a low ebb. We were told by the Inland Revenue that about 50 per cent. of British farmers made a loss in 1986–87. What a wonderful achievement for the Government! Many farmers are talking about survival. It is our duty to try to help them. As I have said before, we are talking about 1992, but there are still four years to go. An internal inquiry would be beneficial to British farmers, enabling them to know whether they are competing on equal terms with others in the Community. If British farmers had that information, they would be willing to compete with their counterparts.
A great deal has been said about stabilisers. The present proposals will not be of benefit to many British farmers. If
558
we have stabilisers they must be fair, and British farmers must be able to compete on equal terms with others in the Community.
We should remain loyal to our friends in the Community. I believe that the survival of this great country of ours lies within the bounds of the Community.
6 pm
Mr. David Howell: My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). in an excellent speech, made what he described as -speculative" comments about the current and future development of the European Community. I disagree on only one point. We are addressing the immediate issues of the European Community—issues that were unfolding and demanding our attention last year during the period covered by the White Paper. I should dearly like to think that my ministerial colleagues and their advisers are turning their minds to these issues and are moving away from some of the drearier and more difficult problems that have dogged every discussion in recent years about the Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was right to point out that we had reached a point of vast significance in European Community affairs—the first signs are in the White Paper—when a number of powerful influences and tides are flowing the British way. There are huge opportunities, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will describe how the Government will exploit some of them.
First, there is the obvious point that, at last, we seem to be making some small progress—not everyone would agree—in curbing the CAP monster and establishing the principle, if no more than that at this stage, that the purpose of rural economic policy should be to curb rather than encourage massive over-production of unwanted foodstuffs at vast costs. We have been engaged in that fight for years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been at the forefront and may yet end up, whether she wants it or not, with the label of the best European of them all, by establishing that we need a policy for rural economic development in Britain and Europe rather than a policy for increasing agricultural production. We are moving on that front.
Secondly, as the White Paper reveals in paragraph 2.15, things are moving on the monetary front, with the development of new thinking about more effective Communitywide monetary co-ordination. The British Government have been the slowest to move, and there may be high prices to pay for the delay. There is a new phase of views about the European monetary system and how it will play its part in the global financial structure that is emerging to replace the collapsed world order based on the dollar.
Thirdly, there is the goal of the single market. There has been hype by some politicians, but changes are occurring. There are directives already and it is not a matter of waiting until 1992. The business men or Governments who wait until then will find that it is too late. Why should we wait for 1992? There are already 100 directives either approved or in the pipeline that totally change the financial and corporate structure of European industry and commerce, and there are many more to come. The goal of the single market is vital and we shall hear much more about it.

559
Fourthly—this influences what happens in the Community—ideas and policies are on the march about the defence of Europe and the structure of the defence industries behind the defence of Europe. In the post-intermediate nuclear forces scene thare has been much questioning about how to develop a more coherent European defence pillar without undermining the North Atlantic Alliance. This changes the mood in Europe. We need not go back as far as the failed European Defence Council of the 1950s. New thoughts are developing. The French, who must decide whether to rejoin completely the NATO military structure, are taking a much more positive and constructive view of their dormant NATO membership. These enormous changes are reflected in a number of paragraphs in the White Paper.
I should like to pick out two of the four aspects that I have discussed—the single market and European monetary integration, as expressed by the European monetary system. Are they connected? My unequivocal answer is that they certainly are. It is an illusion to think that this island can gain the benefits of the growth of a single market without us understanding that we must be members of the European monetary system. The two are connected, and one cannot work without the other.
It is fantasy to think that there can be a single market for goods and services and for the transmission across borders of financial services and the products of knowledge-intensive industries—a single market that comes into being in the way urged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others as a new super-power—without economic and monetary co-ordination and a framework within which currencies can achieve reasonable stability.
No such system could emerge without European monetary integration of the kind expressed by the EMS in its present state. The White Paper—with its references in paragraphs 2.13 and 2.15 to the need for exchange rate stability in the world, including Europe, and the need to develop, refine and improve the European monetary system—takes us into the heart of the political and policy issues which we should address. It is good that we have an opportunity to consider these matters.
I should like to elaborate on why the crucial issue of monetary co-ordination is the key to unlocking all the potential advantages of the single market which may otherwise be denied to us. It is obvious that, if a highly volatile currency such as sterling is outside the less volatile zone of the existing currencies within the exchange rate mechanism, it is a highly awkward factor in a single market. It is ironic that we were told that the problem of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS was that sterling's inclusion would mean frequent and embarrassing realignments and that we must not do that because it would show up the fact that sterling was moving away from the deutschmark, dollar or whatever. It was said that it would be embarrassing and that the Opposition would crucify the Government.
After the events of recent weeks I should much prefer the mild squalls of a currency realignment in Brussels, perhaps upward of the pound—which is, rightly, a strong currency—than the traumas of a political storm of the kind into which we have been dragged in recent weeks. The frequent realignments that we are bound to have in the
560
EMS offer a much better and calmer prospect than the internal embarrassments and awkwardnesses of arguments about the sterling rate outside the EMS. So, even on these narrow practical and political grounds, we would do better to think of the pound as belonging to a co-ordinated European system rather than as a currency waiting unanchored and unmoored to be knocked about by the bow waves of everyone else's currency policies.
Secondly, we must consider the position of industry and its prospects in the single European market in the context of the European monetary system. I am not one to support the moaners in British industry who always want the currency to be lower than it is. We have a strong currency because we are a strong country, and it will remain strong. Like the Japanese, we must be determined to live with a strong currency and import low prices. That way, we shall remain highly effective with massive value added and develop and accelerate our colossal economic recovery. Nor is it realistic to demand zero volatility of currencies. Currencies move from day to day and week to week and business men must learn to hedge against such developments, even if that is an additional difficulty.
There is a strong industrial and commercial case, however, for a medium-term consistency in our objectives for the currency. In other words, there must be a framework in which the Government are known to be trying to operate. The European monetary system offers such a framework. While the White Paper was being prepared, we were operating within a framework, but on a shadow basis. Towards the end of last year and at the beginning of this, we appeared to be shadowing the deutschmark. That gave industry the broad understanding that, within a certain range and allowing for certain movements, the Government had a rough view of the exchange rate that they would like for sterling. They had a sort of policy for sterling.
We need to return to that. I do not know whether it will be at a higher rate, although I suspect it will. We must have a policy, and the framework of the EMS offers that policy in a way that will make it politically much easier to handle than being out on our own. That is essential if industry is to exploit the opportunities of the single market, as other countries in the Community clearly will.
We need also to consider the single market as it affects financial services industries and the liberalisation of capital movements both of which were dealt with in the White Paper. It is an illusion that we shall achieve the true liberalisation of capital movements in the European Community—between the great financial centres of Frankfurt, London, Paris, Milan—unless we have a reasonable framework governing the relative exchange rates. Unless the EMS is further developed and strengthened and unless sterling is included in it, capital movements will not be liberalised. Anyone who envisages colossal potential gains for our huge financial services industry, with its millions of jobs and its £7 billion-worth of export earnings—to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred this afternoon—without a strong European currency system of which sterling is a part, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We have to face that realisation soon, because the two matters cannot be separated.
Finally, let me deal with the larger question that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and others have been addressing vigorously on the world scene. We are blind if we cannot see that the era of the dollar as the international

561
reserve currency is coming to an end. Huge instabilities are building up as people try to find a new system to replace it. They ask, "Should we go back to Bretton Woods or should we go on to something new?" One thing is certain: if we stay where we are we shall suffer more of the financial earthquakes and tidal waves of which we had the first intimation last October. There will be many more unless we have a more stable international system.
The European element of that system is a key building block. Britain has already played a decisive role and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is a financial statesman of world standing. Even his critics in the Opposition and elsewhere must concede that. He has played a decisive role, through the Group of Seven countries, in trying to carry forward discussions to find a replacement for the old crumbling dollar standard. However, that will not work until G7 becomes G3. By that I do not mean America, Japan and Germany but America, Japan and Europe—the essential element in the new stable world financial system that we must have.
It is Britain's proper responsibility to make what contribution it can to the building process, not only by taking an active part in the G7 discussions but by playing a positive role in strengthening the European currency bloc and providing one of the three foundations of the trilateral financial order to support replacement for the old dollar reserve currency system.
It is no use wringing one's hands and saying, "But that implies a loss of sovereign independence." Unless we establish a global system in place of the dollar system, with which we have lived for 40 years, and unless Europe plays a part in it, we shall be swamped. We shall suffer vast instability of the kind of which we have already had some suggestion in recent months. We shall be tossed aside. Sterling will be kicked around like a football by forces far outside our control. Sovereign indepencence and the power of self-determination in governing our currency will mean absolutely nothing. The more we talk about that concept and believe it the more the control of our currency—an intimate matter in our social welfare and progress will be taken completely out of our hands.
Those who talk about the need to control our destiny should look to where the powers lie to do that. They should understand that, if they stand back from allowing the development of a more co-ordinated EMS and the liberalisation of capital movements and the single market for industrial and other goods and services associated with it, they are the ones who are letting go on sovereign independence and surrendering self-determination.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has battled vigorously and with great determination in endlessly tedious meetings of the Council of Ministers at which, as some of us recall, one sits up all night fighting about commas and dots. My right hon. Friend's efforts have been second to none in the fight to get some sense into the new directives and the new shaping of the Europe that is emerging. The efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been second to none in trying to get out of the way the lunatic nonsense of the old common agricultural policy, with its emphasis on producing more and more food that no one wants at higher and higher cost, which leads in the end to the damaging and undermining of rural Europe and the rural economy rather than its reinforcement.
Let my right hon. Friend the Minister of State turn her able and agile mind, and encourage her colleagues to turn
562
their minds, to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, because they are the issues on which we need a policy and the issues that we must discuss in the House. If we do not have such a policy—if we stand back from it—others will race ahead. That would be a tragedy, because we are no longer a passenger in Europe. We are not in the second tier. We are not a junior member. We are one of the most powerful economies in Europe. We do not have to sit aside and watch France and Germany being the big boys and doing all the allying.
To stand aside now would not just be yet another missed opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said; it would be to opt out of our major responsibilities in re-establishing the new economic pattern upon which world progress and economic development will proceed. These are much bigger issues than the question of cereal prices or milk quotas, although those are vital. These are the issues which the House fails at its peril to address.
6.19 pm
Mr. Pat Wall: I do not wish to make a wide-ranging speech, as other hon. Members have, but I wish to refer specifically to item 11.8, "South Africa", contained on page 29 of the White Paper, which states:
"The Twelve remain committed in working for the initiation of a process of peaceful change in South Africa. They maintained their programmes of positive measures to assist the black South African community, and continue to implement the restrictive measures on which they agreed in October 1985 and September 1986."
One of those positive measures to assist the black South African community was the EEC code of conduct, adopted in September 1977 by the then nine members of the Community. It was a code for EEC-based companies with interests in South Africa. It laid down guidelines in relation to wage rates, the employment of migrant labour, the racial structure of the work force, the advancement of black workers, the revision of fringe benefits and the designation of work places. The code is voluntary, but it has not produced any significant changes. Last week I spoke to South African trade unionists visiting this country and they said that they regarded the EEC code of conduct as a joke, and that that was a view shared generally by black workers in South Africa.
Under the code, companies were obliged to present an annual report on the progress made in implementing those points I have outlined, with emphasis on three issues: the right of workers to join, and be represented by, a trade union of their choice; a minimum wage at least 50 per cent. above the so-called minimum living level, which is a level simply for the survival of workers and their families and no support for the system of migrant labour.
In 1979 the newly elected Conservative Government ended the practice of publishing the names of companies failing to meet the EEC code, including Quinton Hazel, of which the Prime Minister's husband was then a director.
In 1985 the code was modified, with companies being asked to pay only 28 per cent:. above the subsistence wages, instead of 50 per cent., by replacing the minimum living level with the supplementary living level.
According to Labour Research, 234 United Kingdom companies have subsidiaries and associates in South Africa, which account for 40 per cent. of foreign investment. Further, eight British companies appear in the list of the top 100 companies in South Africa. Last year

563
Britain was South Africa's third largest trading partner after Japan and West Germany, which is also a signatory to the EEC code of conduct. In 1987 exports from the United Kingdom rose by 11·8 per cent. to £949 million, although imports fell by 20 per cent. to £658 million.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that that substantial increase in British exports to South Africa helps to create jobs for British industry?
Mr. Wall: There are plenty of markets in the world. We do not have to use a market where people are exploited to the extent that they are in South Africa.
Imports from the EEC countries fell by £810 million in 1987, but exports increased by £60 million. Those changes do not reflect a reduction in trade, but only the changes in currency that took place. There is no sign that the sanctions agreed by the EEC, or the code of conduct, are being applied properly for South Africa.
Labour Research examined the reports of 118 companies reporting under the EEC code. It found that 25 companies pay 1,916 black workers less than the EEC recommended minimum. Seven of those 25 companies pay at least 321 black workers less than the subsistence level, which is a starvation wage. Only 51 of the 118 companies have recognition agreements with trade unions in South Africa. Ten companies failed to give sufficient information to determine what they pay to their employees or how many employees they have. Those companies include names such as Blue Circle Industries, Commercial Union, GEC, IMI, Tarmac and Redland.
The standard of wages in most cases is pitiful. Loring Rattray, a subsidiary of Shell, pays its employees £25 per week, which it claims meets the EEC standards. Courtaulds does not accept that a relevant EEC rate exists. It pays £46 per week to households where both husband and wife work for that company.
In the past 18 months at least 16 British companies have been involved in labour disputes. Those include such famous names as ICI, Thorn EMI, Johnson Matthey, Plessey, Pilkington, Shell, Trafalgar House, BP and Unilever.
The most notorious case concerns BTR—the well known takeover and asset-stripping company. It shamed this nation with a dispute at Hangers, the firm that makes artificial limbs. In May 1985 it sacked 900 workers in a South African factory. That dispute continues today. Two strike leaders and a daughter of one of the strikers were abducted and murdered by vigilantes from the Inkatha movement. The management which fought the workers' union, the Metal and Allied Workers' Union, an affiliate of the Congress of South African Trade Unions—which now has a membership of a million workers—nevertheless recognised the gangster union, NUMSA, the National Union of Mineworkers of South Africa, which is directly linked to the murders that took place in that factory.
One press report estimates that 49 dismissed workers have died from starvation or starvation-related diseases since that lock-out began. The EEC code of conduct is largely ineffective, as are the limited sanctions applied by the EEC to South Africa. The British Government continue to do the absolute minimum to carry out the provisions of the EEC.
564
Despite promising that there would be no Government funding for trade missions to South Africa, such visits continue under the direction of the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association, as do visits by groups of Tory Members.
The Department of Trade and Industry continues to publish material to assist companies with trade and investment in South Africa. While 61 companies—to their credit—have withdrawn from South Africa since 1985, others continue to invest and enjoy the profits that accrue from low wages and the apartheid system.
Opposition Members believe that all trade links should be broken with the apartheid regime in South Africa, and that full sanctions should be applied. Even if the Government will not adopt that policy, they should insist that the EEC code of conduct is carried out with regard to the employment of migrant labour, the payment of decent wages, trade union recognition and a refusal to carry out the new anti-trade union laws that the South African Government are proposing. The Government should insist that the other 11 members of the EEC will meet those requirements.
The code of conduct and sanctions alone will not fundamentally change the situation in South Africa. They are the minimum that we can do to aid the struggle against that evil and disgusting regime. My faith is clearly in the working people of South Africa to change the system, and to do away with apartheid and with the big business interests that profit from that system and prop that system up.
6.28 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I do not question for one moment the sincerity of the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on South Africa. He has campaigned about that issue for many years. Although I might disagree with his sentiments, I agree absolutely with his central point. He said that the EEC policy was one of make-believe; that it was not working and that all we are doing is trying to convince ourselves that something is happening, when it is not. I should like to make the simple point that almost every sentiment expressed so far in the debate has been on the basis of make-believe.
The Minister paid tribute to the fact that we might get a bus from Southend, starting from tomorrow. I am sorry that she did not have the time to explain what has happened in relation to that bus and that that bus might never arrive in Frankfurt because there is not yet an agreement on where the bus can stop. We have regulations on transport and buses which should have enabled that to be agreed three years ago. Since then, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has discussed the issue personally with Herr Genscher.
The Minister has taken up the matter on infraction proceedings in the Commission. I was one of six people from Southend who flew over with the British ambassador to meet a man who was described as the chief transport civil servant in Bonn, to discuss the question of the Southend bus. When we met him we found, sadly, that he is still designated as having responsibility for the Berlin airlift. When we pointed out that that had ceased some time ago, he explained that his designation had not changed. The rules and the regulations which were abundantly clear should have allowed a bus to travel from

565
Ostend to Frankfurt, but we have had three years of non-stop harassment and bureaucracy in an endeavour to sort the matter out.
My fear is that all the high-flown sentiments about what Europe can do and what 1992 might mean get away from the central point that, for this country, the EEC is still a sick and costly joke, and that many of its so-called aims will not only not be realised, but cannot be realised.
Let us take first the issue which has been mentioned so often—the common agricultural policy. We are told once again, as we have been told three times before, that that issue is well on the way to being resolved and that we are going to have stability, control and legally binding restraints on spending. Apart from the fact that some of the expenditure may now be legally bound, that is exactly the story that we were told at the time of Fontainebleau. Last week, the delightful and courteous Paymaster General admitted that last year we had to operate a ten-month year so that the Common Market would be within the restrictions that had been agreed at Fontainebleau, and that is what happened.
The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I think that he would be the first to acknowledge that the grounds for the ten-month year last year was the use by the Community of the doctrine of "exceptional circumstances", a doctrine which, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, had been nefarious in its implications and applications. By setting up the reserve fund under the new arrangements, the "exceptional circumstances" loophole cannot be used in future.
Mr. Taylor: I am delighted that my hon. Friend said that about the exceptional circumstances clause. My understanding was that the ten-month year went considerably beyond "exceptional circumstances", but he is right in saying that the exceptional circumstances clause allowed the EEC to spend whatever it liked so long as it said that there were exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstance clause is now re-written into the new agreement and although the answer is that it could work in both directions, I question whether it will work at all because there are plenty of other ways in which expenditure can be changed. I do not believe that it will be restricted.
We are told that there will be stabilisers which will curb spending. We heard that from the SLD representative, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), as well. The Minister must know what has happened to the so-called stabilisers. Let us take wheat as an example. What is this year's proposed expenditure for wheat? There is a massive increase because the stabiliser works only when the provision for last year has been exceeded. Even then, the reduction is only 5 per cent., which, in any event, is an artificial figure, bearing in mind the changes made by the member states themselves.
We should accept, and not kid ourselves, that there is no way in which the common agricultural policy will ever he reformed sensibly and rationally by the EEC because of its structure. That cannot happen unless agreed by member states, and some country will always be having an election. It does not help the Common Market, the British Parliament, or anyone, if we have the constant myth of holding debates every so often in which hon. Members make visionary comments about all the great things that
566
might happen in 1992 or 2002, when we know that the EEC is not able to deal with its practical and real problems.
I was interested by the spokesman for the Social and Liberal Democratic party, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, who said, "Isn't it sad that we have all this extra food when lots of people in the world would like to have it?" He must know—I hope that he accepts this—that those people are poor because the Common Market is shamefully dumping its surplus food around the world at crazy low prices, thus depriving the poor countries of decent prices for their food. That is why such countries cannot pay their debts or buy machinery. The hon. Member must know that £220 million has been spent on that every week this year.
Mr. David Howell indicated dissent.
Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is shaking his head, but I can assure him that that figure was given in a parliamentary answer that I received three weeks ago from a Minister.
Mr. Howell: I did not shake my head at my hon. Friend's detail, because he is a master of detail and I always admire his dogged and rugged fight on the nonsenses of excess agricultural production. I shook my head simply because people in Ethiopia are dying and will die in much larger numbers not because of shortages of food—the food is there—but because it cannot be moved by roads because of the political warfare and civil war. It does not have anything to do with food production.
Mr. Taylor: I certainly accept that there is a war in Ethiopia and that that is an additional problem. However, I suggest that, if the war ended and Ethiopia had peace once again, it would suffer as so many other countries in the Third world are suffering because of the shameful and cruel policies of the EEC which are inflicting devastation and destruction on poor countries.
My hon. Friend must know that we are paying people three times the world price to produce wheat and he must know what we are doing in relation to the price of sugar. If we are crazy enough to want to pay those high prices and to force our communities to pay those high prices, that is a matter for ourselves. We know from the Treasury's own paper that we are forcing the average British family to spend £11 per week more for their food than they would if it were not for the CAP. If we want to do that, that is our own business, although it is bad for the economy, for our competitiveness and for our business. What we are not entitled to do is wreck world markets and cause so mach damage to the Third world by our dumping policies.
I had the pleasure of raising a question in the House about New Zealand's butter the other day. I got plenty of shouts, and people who disagreed with me said that it was terrible that New Zealand should have its throat cut on those exports. However, we should be aware that, when New Zealand tries to sell its butter anywhere else in the world, whether in Japan, in Korea or even in Russia, it finds Common Market salesmen selling butter for 6p per pound. That is what they are doing at special sales. It is recorded in a written answer that there was a special sale of 240,000 tonnes to Russia last month.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Community sold butter at a low price to the Soviet Union. However, does he agree that in this circumstance New

567
Zealand approved of that sale? It has a common interest with the Community in raising the world price of butter because otherwise it is trying to sell a commodity on which it is dependent for exports at low prices which do not represent a proper rate of return. Some of us heard the chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Board, Mr. Jim Graham, say quite specifically that he approved of the Community's disposal programme because it offered the hope of getting prices back in balance. My hon. Friend's general remarks are right, but New Zealand subscribed to those circumstances.
Mr. Taylor: I do not want to go into too much detail, but my hon. Friend may be misinterpreting what New Zealand Ministers have said. They said that, rather than a continuing year-by-year consistent dumping, they would prefer an accelerated dump which was part of last year's agreement to try to get rid of the existing mighty dump, on the understanding that it would not happen again. That is rather different from saying that the sale at 6p a pound was approved by the New Zealand Government. We are doing something cruel and nasty to New Zealand and other countries.
I am surprised that the Liberal party of all parties, which is meant to care about people and have some feeling for them, does not recognise that and do something about it. We know that organisations such as Oxfam constantly plead with Parliament to do something about this—but do we care? Rather than talk about visionary sentiments to do with how we are going to have the leading currency in the world and a new kind of trade structure, we should face up to doing something practical about a problem that is killing people and causing starvation and misery in the world, due to our wrongful policies. But sadly, nothing has been done.
The Paymaster General must know that things will not change because of these so-called reforms. There is not the slightest sign of that. Expenditure on dumping is up in 1988, as is expenditure on agriculture. The Minister must know these facts. Europe is proposing only a minor stabiliser for cereals and spending will increase even further. I appeal to hon. Members not to continue with visionary sentiments such as those that prevailed at the time of our original membership and of the Single European Act, but to try to do all in their power to persuade the Common Market to solve this real problem.
On the basis of what is contained in the White Paper, it is clear that there is only one way to go about this—to use the single power that we have, and every so often to say no to more spending. Sadly, it is recorded in the White Paper that we agreed to give a massive extra amount of money to the Common Market to spend, and we know exactly how it will be spent: on causing high food prices at home and devastation in the Third world.
Also, in the context of make-believe, I remind the Government of Britain's net contributions to the EEC. We were told at Fontainebleau that things would improve—that there would be refunds, which I am sure we have had. But can the Paymaster General explain what went wrong in the year that ended on 5 April 1988? The Government gave us four estimates. First, we were told that the net contribution was likely to be £500 million. Suddenly, it became £700 million; then it grew to £900 million; and then the Treasury White Paper said that it would be £1·5
568
billion. What is happening to the tight control of spending if our estimate of the net contributions for the year that has just ended was so wildly out? Recently, in a written answer, the Prime Minister said that last year's figure might have to be increased by £200 million because of changes that have taken place.
Why should we continue with this make-believe about trade? I happen to be a director of several companies, including an insurance company that trades throughout the world. One of the countries in which we operate is Germany, and we find that trade with that country is certainly not simple. The Minister must know what has happened. We always had a reasonable surplus in our trade with the EEC, but since membership that trade has gone crazily wrong. The latest figures for the year that has just ended were as follows: imports from the Common Market, £38·5 billion of manufactured goods; exports to the Common Market, £27·7 billion. That is a gap of more than £11 billion. Treasury Ministers are well aware that if anything will threaten the future prosperity of our country, the trade gap will.
It has been suggested by some that this is our fault—that somehow British managers, workers and trade unionists are at fault, because while the Germans have been rushing to send things here, we have not been rushing to send things to them. Why has our trade with the Common Market gone so abysmally wrong, yet our trade with the rest of the world has improved to such an extent that we can still keep our heads above water? Something is seriously wrong, and it is likely to grow worse.
I ask the Government to stop the make-believe about the harmonisation of taxation. I was delighted to hear the Paymaster General's assurance that the Government were going to use their veto to stop the imposition of VAT on food, fuel and children's clothing. But the Government must know that the Commission has proposed a massive programme of tax harmonisation, the basic feature of which is a huge reduction of the tax on alcohol and tobacco and a massive increase in tax on essentials—on a whole range of items from transport to newspaper.
If we are not going to harmonise liquor taxation it is almost impossible to see how we can have a completed market. If people are to be allowed to move freely from one place to another the position is not like American states, between which there are only minor differences—the tax on wine in Britain must be cut by 85 per cent. and that on liquor by £2·85. How can we have a free market without such harmonisation? At some stage the Government must face up to that problem. They cannot say they will look into the issue and set up committees. They must give us broad guidance about whether they accept the general principle of a huge cut in alcohol tax and a massive—
Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend recommending the harmonisation of indirect taxation on wine, spirits and cigarettes?
Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows, I am not recommending that. It would be difficult to get such a measure through the House, although it is likely to happen if 1992 is to become a reality.
We are kidding ourselves and indulging in make-believe when we suggest that 1992 is directly related to trade. It is about the harmonisation of such things as tax. It is foolish to pretend that we are talking about trade issues. However,

569
the Government will make their decisions on these issues and I doubt whether what I or anyone else says will make a great deal of difference. Nevertheless, I hope that they will reflect on the extent to which the European institutions have recently shown their intention and wish to extend their authority and reduce that of the national Governments substantially. There have been recent examples of that, and I hope that the Government will at least say that they are worried about the extent to which the non-elected, non-democratic institutions of Europe are seeking to extend their powers.
Two weeks ago, the EEC Commission decided to put a ban on apple imports into this country and others. It was a total ban on American, Canadian and Chilean apples—and those of certain other countries—and tight quotas that amounted to a ban were applied to New Zealand. The ban meant that we had to send back ships that were on their way here and many people lost a great deal of money. It also meant that housewives in Britain will have limited choice. We all know that the problem is the glut of 350,000 Golden Delicious apples, which are mainly produced in Italy and Greece and which are more than a year old. So we tell our consumers that they should eat these old apples instead of the ones that they might have preferred from America, Canada or Chile.
The interesting thing is that on all previous occasions when the Commission has tried to put a ban on a product such as this, it has consulted member states and our Government first. On this occasion there was no consultation, and it strikes me that that is a new pattern that we should watch out for.
Secondly. the Commission put forward proposals for 1992 on the basis of article 100A—majority voting—even though Mr. Speaker's counsel made it clear that that appeared to be an abuse of powers. It means that summer time for the United Kingdom will be decided by a majority in the Council of Ministers, and quite soon at that. According to our legal advisers, the Commission was wrong in this case to decide the matter by majority vote when it had no reason to do so.
Thirdly, we had the rather unusual and strange proposal to tax budgie seed. It was regarded as a small and peripheral matter in European terms, but it is rather important to the 4 million budgie owners in Britain. The proposal is not to impose a minor change but to increase the levy on such seed from £25 to £119, the sole reason being to harmonise the levies on budgie seed and on barley. I ask the Minister whether the matter was decided by a majority vote and whether the Government had any particular views.
The fourth point that should worry us is the extent to which the European Court is taking powers of taxation from the House. It was announced only this morning that the Government are bringing forward an amendment to the Finance Bill for the sole purpose of bringing in the changes that were proposed by the European Court of Justice. It told the Government that, against their wishes, they must charge VAT on spectacles and hearing aids. The European Court is shortly to make a judgment on whether we should also pay taxation.
Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to a decision by the European Court. Does he agree that that decision interpreted the sixth VAT directive, which was passed by the House in 1977? How did he vote on that occasion?
Mr. Taylor: Precisely, no, but my hon. Friend is well aware that, whenever there is a vote on such issues, my vote is usually in the other direction. The Labour party was in power on that occasion, and I was not in the shadow Cabinet at the time. I shall look up the matter and tell my hon. Friend what the position is. When we were in opposition, Conservative Members took a firm, robust and patriotic stance on such matters.
The European Court is substantially extending its power and authority in relation to the sixth directive and other matters. As my hon. Friend will be concerned to know, in a few weeks it will decide whether the British Government should be instructed to levy VAT on gas, electricity for industry, water, sewerage, new services, and all new industrial and commercial buildings. It worries me that a non-elected group of foreign judges is able to determine what taxation should be levied on citizens of the United Kingdom.
I have put my points not so that visionary individuals will be able to say, "Here is someone who is always niggling and cannot see broad horizons," but simply to appeal to the Government not to be carried away by glossy stories and dreams. Let the Government accept the simple fact that reform of the CAP will not happen and that the only way we shall safeguard our farmers and European finances is to seek the repatriation of agriculture from the EEC, and that can be achieved only if we say no to more money.
Let the Government face our contributions and start trying to get their figures right, instead of always getting them wrong. Let them face the significance of an appalling trade gap with the Common Market. It substantially threatens the future of our country. There are good reasons for that, as the Minister well knows. We should appeal to the Common Market to start solving some of the real problems before it now, and not just to give a 30 per cent. pay rise and tell people to go on dreaming, as it is doing now.
6.53 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is like old times following the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I content myself with the friendly thought that, had the hon. Gentleman been Secretary of State for Scotland in a Conservative Government, the face of Scottish politics would be different.
Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the current trend of politics in Scotland continues, it is likely that, after the next election, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) could again be the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Dalyell: I had better be careful. I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East on one matter, and that is the importance of millet seed not only for budgerigars but for pigeon fanciers. I tremble before few organisations, but one is the formidable local pigeon fanciers organisation. A wise politician does not cross pigeon fanciers. I tried to interrupt the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on what will be done about the soaring price of millet seed. The matter may be a bit of a canard, but I should like a serious answer.
Paragraphs 1.4 and 15.2 of the EEC document refer to David Williamson, the first. British Secretary-General. I take this opportunity to wish him well. In the same breath,

571
I say a big thank you to Emile Noel, a Frenchman of wit and wisdom, who showed kindness to the indirectly elected incoming British European parliamentary delegation. I shall always have good thoughts of that charming Frenchman. I do not know whether he thought that we should have joined the EEC, because we were not sufficiently Communautaire, but that did not prevent his giving of his time and experience to those new Members who asked about the Byzantine ways of the Community. Emile Noel was a great European civil servant.
On 17 May, I asked a specific question about Ispra. I am glad that the Paymaster General is present. I say quite openly that, in his incarnation as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, he was a good science Minister with a genuine interest in his portfolio. He knows about the problems of Ispra. I asked whether it is sensible to conduct negotiations with the JRC and whether it should become more involved in radioactive waste management.
Paragraph 1.10 refers to transport. I am a National Union of Railwaymen-sponsored Member. Earlier in the week, my colleagues and I spent some hours with Sir Robert Reid, the chairman of British Rail, discussing the Channel tunnel. I have one question relating to the vexed issue of customs. It involves the Treasury, the Home Office in relation to immigration aspects, and the Department of Transport. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that, at a cost of £15 million, £20 million or whatever, a great customs terminal is apparently to be built at Waterloo, while the French and our other European partners are prepared to conduct customs operations on board trains. What kind of sense does it make to have matters officially dealt with in the Pas de Calais, but the prospect of endless queues at Waterloo station, apart from the problem of having a 47 mph limit in Britain and 115-plus on the continent? We have real problems, and I hope that a combination of Ministers will sort them out.
Paragraph 6.5 refers to AIDS and cancer research. I repeat the view of Professor Ken Murray FRS, of the department of biochemistry at Edinburgh university, and many others that, possibly, the best way of giving money to cancer research on a European basis is to help distinguished individuals in university departments. The Paymaster General had some sympathy with that view when he was in the Department of Education and Science, but what is the Government's policy on that?
In paragraph 12.5 there is a reference to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visiting the European Parliament. It is a personal view—I cannot say that it is shared by my colleagues—but is it not a bit churlish to send to the European Parliament a Minister of State? Should not that be a job for the Foreign Secretary? I should have thought that there was an argument for the Foreign Secretary keeping that engagement. It may be that on this occasion there were difficulties, but I am really asking about the policy on sending senior Ministers.
I want to deal with the one major issue that I have to raise, and that is where European policy is now made. Is it in the Foreign Office—I see the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) nodding—or is it in Downing street? One of the casualties of the Falklands war was the Foreign Office. It was right in terms of Britain's long-term interests, but it carried the can, and since 1982–83 it seems
572
to many of us that the policy that matters in relation to Europe, as in relation to so much else, has been made in Downing street.
Some of us have become more and more curious about the role of Mr. Charles Powell in the process of formulating European policy, because not since Sir Horace Wilson has there been anything quite like it. Before the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) gets excited about this, let me refer not to some Labour party magazine but to the Sunday Telegraph, which I think he will agree is not exactly the house magazine of the Labour party. Mr. Bruce Anderson, who would not consider himself to be some extreme Left-winger, said of Mr. Powell:
"one of the ablest prime ministerial private secretaries of the century—and one of the most important … When the history of the past few years comes to be written, he will be seen as one of the three or four most influential figures at the heart of this administration … Total rapport … rebuffing contrary advice from the Foreign Office … It seems that he and not Sir Geoffrey is the Foreign Secretary … those with whom he is dealing abroad are asking themselves whether he is really speaking for HMG, and telling their embassies to find out what Charles Powell thinks."
If the Foreign Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues allow the Prime Minister to personalise Government to the extent that the right hon. Lady—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is difficult to see what this has to do with the subject under debate.
Mr. Dalyell: It has a very great deal to do with it. It is at the heart of European formulation of policy.
I have to ask in what circumstances Mr. Powell has been unprecedently promoted in post. Never before has a private secretary been so—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said that this has anything to do with the matter under discussion. We should return to the White Paper on the developments within the EEC. I cannot see how this is one of those developments covered by the White Paper.
Mr. Dalyell: Every hon. Member who has spoken has gone very wide indeed. I am saying that this matter is at the heart of the formulation of policy.
As I said yesterday, pre-1986, I did not name civil servants controversially. But Mr. Powell is not a shrinking violet.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot accept responsibility for the scope of the debate before I came into the Chair. I did not listen to it. I am responsible for the debate that is taking place now on the White Paper on developments in the EC, of which the House is asked to take note. If the hon. Gentleman can assure me that the matter that he is raising is covered by the White Paper, I might be persuaded to allow him to continue his speech on those lines. Otherwise, he should change tack.
Mr. Dalyell: The press have stated that Mr. Powell, in certain circumstances, has asked for the ambassadorships in Paris or Washington. Appointments to key embassies are matters of important European policy to Britain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see how diplomatic appointments can in any way arise under the document that the House is debating. The hon. Gentleman must find some new line of debate or resume his seat.
Mr. Dalyell: Are we not talking about political co-operation in Europe? I should have thought that appointments to embassies such as Paris or Rome were a matter of considerable importance because those are places in which policies—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not minimise the importance of the matter; it is its relevance that I call in question. It does not seem to be relevant to the debate.
Mr. Dalyell: What could be more relevant than the appointment of senior diplomats to the British embassy in Paris? Is not that central to the whole question of our performance in Europe?
We have to go back to January 1986. Mr. Powell did his job immaculately. He did tell the Prime Minister everything.
Mr. Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I come to your assistance and perhaps, inter alia, the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by drawing to your attention pages 28 and 29 of the report entitled "European Political Co-operation"? European political co-operation is a Eurospeak term for the co-ordination of foreign policy. You will see that all the items in paragraphs 11 to 11.15 are concerned with foreign policy issues, and the British diplomatic service is an integral part of the process. My hon. Friend is mentioning a member of the diplomatic service, who fits neatly into that pattern of negotiation. The drift of Government policy, with which we agree, is towards the closer integration of foreign policy. I should have thought that my hon. Friend's references would fit into what is a wide remit of a report that covers practically everything that happened in the Community in six months.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's offer of help is rather like being struck on the head with a lifebelt. However, in the light of what he has said, I shall follow carefully what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says.
Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful for lifebelts on the head or any other part of the anatomy at the moment. The Guardian of Friday 20 May said:
"Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland affair."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying it on. I am sure that he knows that he is testing my patience. We are not going to go down that road when we are debating the White Paper on developments within the EC. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue with that line of debate.
Mr. Dalyell: It is testing the patience of many of us to think that knowledge of where the bodies were buried in the Westland affair can be a qualification for being ambassador in Paris.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to do his exhumation on some other occasion.
Mr. Dalyell: This matter came up during business questions. In order to save time I referred to early-day motion 1142. I dropped the Leader of the House a note asking for exactly what he said, and, most courteously, produced a document headed, "Line to take". It said:
"I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would by now have realised he ought not to believe everything he reads in the newspapers—even the Guardian. I am afraid his own
574
lively imagination, alongside the speculation and gossip some newspapers contain, makes for a very unreliable recipe indeed. Facts may make for a more boring diet, but it is one I none the less recommend to the hon. Gentleman."
It will be noticed that that was the line the Leader of the House was advised to take, but was not an honest rebuttal of the facts as set out in the early-day motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a line of debate which is not relevant to the document before the House. Unless the hon. Gentleman addresses himself more directly to the subject of the debate, I shall ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Dalyell: This subject surely centres on a civil servant's capacity to obtain the ambassadorship of a country, such as Paris. I ask a very direct question of a Foreign Office Minister. Did Mr. Powell, or did he riot, turn down the offer of the ambassadorship in Stockholm? What other interpretation can be placed on the words
"Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland affair"?
Clearly, the implication is that knowledge of wrongdoing by the Prime Minister places Mr. Powell in the position of being able to demand the ambassadorship of the Paris embassy or at a pinch, I am told, that of Rome, and to turn down the ambassadorship at Stockholm. Will the Government ask The Guardian to make any kind of withdrawal?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has totally disregarded my advice. I must for the last time say to him that if he persists in pursuing that line, I shall have no option but to insist that he resumes his seat.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish in any way to be discourteous to the Chair. Nor do I want to take up the time of other hon. Members who wish to speak. I say only that this is a serious issue. The arguments were set out at column 851 of Hansard for 25 July 1986, at column 386 of Hansard for 29 October 1981, and in the Adjournement debate on 22 April this year. The press has clearly implied that the Prime Minister, in saving her own political skin over the Westland affair—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly intends to have no regard to my ruling. I call Sir Anthony Meyer.
7.12 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: This debate will have been worth while if only for the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who have made the best speeches so far on this subject. After what has just taken place, I am a little shamefaced to say that I will cover some of the ground covered by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—although, I hasten to add, without making any incursion into the realm of personalities. However, I intend later to deal with the relative responsibilities of the Foreign Office and 10 Downing street in relation to our European policies.
At the outset of this debate, I entertained some hopes that the much proclaimed new realism of the Labour party on European matters would have enabled the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to come out in his true colours as the convinced European we all know him to be, instead of the "Mr. Facing Both Ways" which he

575
was obliged so unconvincingly to impersonate today. By his intervention in Prime Minister's questions today, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition blew the gaff and made perfectly plain the fact that when it comes to the crunch, he and his party are still the protectionist Little Englanders that they have always been.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Do not be so silly.
Sir Anthony Meyer: That was clearly the implication of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's Question Time today, on the issue of the Rowntree takeover.
Hon. Members know perfectly well where I stand. I support the decisions taken by Governments of both parties to join the European Community and to make British membership the principal instrument of protecting British interests and of increasing British influence. Unlike some hon. Members on both sides of the house, I am also prepared to will the means to achieve that end. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, perhaps, I hold the view that if we want to achieve a true single market by 1992, with the great benefits it can bring, we must move some way towards an approximation of indirect taxes throughout the Community. I would not go so far as proposing identical rates on every item, but the more glaring differences will have to be eased.
Ministers keep telling me that such is quite unnecessary and that an effective single market can be perfectly well achieved with widely differing levels of indirect tax. They point to the United States, which is undoubtedly a single market, where different states have different levels of sales tax—although there are nowhere near the same discrepancies in the United States that there are within the European Community; only the kind of difference which would be left after a sensible move towards approximation in Europe.
The Government's argument is more dishonest than that. It has been overlooked that in defending the poll tax, the Government argue that it would be totally impracticable to finance local government in this country by way of a local sales tax, as different levels would produce unacceptable distortions of shopping patterns. The Government have that all wrong. They cannot have it both ways, when the two concepts they try to defend are so blatantly mutually incompatible. As regards Europe, the idea that there can be a common market despite huge differences in the levels of sales tax is totally dominant in ministerial circles.
The debate on 11 May on the issue of tax harmonisation turned out to be a contest between the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), whose speech had the great virtue of total inaudibility. It was a contest as to which of the two could sound more unenthusiastic about the European Community. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend won that particular contest hands down when he said:
"We simply do not think it is necessary for the completion of the internal market that tax rates be approximated. Moreover, we have a major difficulty with the Commission's proposals for zero rates. As drafted, the proposal makes no provision for zero rates, although the Commission has hinted at temporary derogations for member states with particular difficulties.
576
We have made specific pledges to the electorate to retain zero rating on food, fuel and power, and children's clothing. I can assure the House that we neither wish nor intend to resile from those pledges. So I would have been happy to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)"—
and for once it was not in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—
"and our hon. Friends."—[Official Report, 11 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 411–12.]
The latter presumably included my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
In other words, election pledges are paramount, if I may coin a phrase, whatever damage may thereby be done to our other national objectives, and some Ministers seem positively eager to give encouraging signals to the cabal of malcontents who remain muttering in their caves about the unwisdom of ever having committed Britain to joining the European Community.
But there is a bigger issue than tax harmonisation: one on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford spoke in his penetrating speech, and to which The Economist draws attention this week. That issue is whether Britain, one of the great financial centres of the world, will be able to hang on to and develop that status—which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded us at Prime Minister's Question Time today, is worth more than North sea oil in revenues.
As The Economist puts it, Britain as a member of the EC, would be
"able to ensure that much of the matching of savings and investment would take place through London".
According to The Economist,
"That claim becomes less plausible the longer sterling stays outside the European Monetary System. To international moneymen, the British debate over the EMS grows quainter by the day … The one remaining obstacle to full EMS membership for sterling is Mrs. Thatcher's own hostility to the idea."
I am a great admirer of both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I am delighted that they are now beginning to stand up for themselves. It has been sad over past years to see that once great, once proud Department, the Foreign Office, cowering in a corner like a whipped child after being put in the doghouse through its failure to oblige the House to face up to realities over the Falklands.
I sometimes like to describe my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary as being engaged in a game of grandmother's steps with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He can move, provided that he is not seen to be doing so; if she turns and sees him moving, he must go back to square one. I should like to see my right hon. and learned Friend take his courage in both hands and keep moving—as quietly, modestly and unprovocatively as possible, but none the less moving steadily—in the direction in which he knows that he must go, the direction of extending our influence and strengthening our interests throughout the world. I very much hope that he is able to do so.
7.22 pm
Mr. John Marshall: First, let me welcome the further impetus applied during the Danish presidency to the creation of the internal market. I must disagree, perhaps not for the first time this evening, with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for

577
Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who said that 1992 was about harmonisation. As a long-standing and experienced battler in European Community matters, he should know full well that what 1992 is about is the removal of artificial trade barriers to produce a genuine Community. Harmonisation was introduced to deal with the noise of lawnmowers, for instance, not because some bureaucrat somewhere had the foolish notion that lawnmower noise was something about which he felt particularly strongly, but so that there could be genuine competition between lawnmower manufacturers in the United Kingdom and their competitors in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Sir Anthony Meyer: My own lawnmower, British-made, is so insufferably noisy that I am quite unable to use it before lunchtime. It seems to me a jolly good thing that there should be some rules about keeping lawnmowers a bit quieter.
Mr. Marshall: I am glad that the environment of my hon. Friend's constituency is being improved as a result of the draft directive. But I was really trying to say that, apart from improving the environment of his garden, the measure will make competition much more real between manufacturers within the Community, and the United Kingdom is bound to benefit from that increased competition.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is to build up protectionism.
Mr. Marshall: No. My hon. Friend has got it wrong again. It is not to build up protectionism at all; it is to get rid of protectionism. It is to allow competition to take place. It is time that my hon. Friend got his speeches out of the groove in which they have been since 1971, or perhaps 1975. I sometimes think that he is like my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who would like to believe that the world ended in 1975. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would like to think that the 1975 referendum had not taken place. He should recognise that Britain is in the European Community for good, and for the good of our country. The niggles that we hear from him whenever we debate the European Community do his constituency and his good sense no good at all.
I remember the days when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was "Secretary of State for Scotland" in the Glasgow parliamentary debating association. He used to make first-rate speeches then: those were the days before he discovered the European Community. Since he has become obsessed with the Community and with niggling about it, I am afraid that the standard of his speeches has declined somewhat. I wish that he could concentrate on another theme. I think that that would be of benefit to the House, the European Community and perhaps my hon. Friend's career as well.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I apologise for the character of my speeches. But does my hon. Friend—who, I know, studies these matters seriously—not accept that there is a great deal of protectionism in almost every measure coming out of the Commission in relation to 1992 and other matters? Will he consider in particular the proposals for foreign banks to come into the Community, which was simply a measure to protect the Common Market against outside intervention? Does he not accept that there is considerable evidence that the EEC is becoming a highly protectionist body?
Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend has got it wrong yet again. What 1992 is about is opening up the European market in financial services so that British and Scottish financial institutions can compete within the Community in a way that they cannot do today. That is not protectionist.
As for institutions outside the European Community, we must remember that certain countries such as Japan have not been exactly welcoming when it comes to European financial institutions seeking to join their market. Without going too far at this stage in the argument about reciprocity—about which we have heard a great deal in recent days—I feel that there is much to be said for saying to the Japanese and others, "If you will not give us certain rights, we will not give them to you."
Mr. Roger Knapman: If the Common Market is so much in favour of reciprocity, why did the Director General of Fair Trading say yesterday with regard to Rowntree that the extent to which Swiss companies are or are not vulnerable to similar bids from overseas was irrelevant?
Mr. Marshall: As my hon. Friend knows, there is currently no EC directive on merger policy. When I spoke last week to the European Commissioner for merger policy, Commissioner Sutherland, he made it clear that the reason he would not be interfering in the Rowntree bid was that he had no power to do so. But I was intending to deal with reciprocity later in my speech.
Having suffered a certain amount of injury time, let me pay tribute to the work that Lord Cockfield has done in respect of 1992.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Let me say en passant that perhaps as a result of that work his fate is assured.
Mr. Marshall: I am sure that my noble Friend will take that delphic comment in the way that it was intended. Whatever his fate may be, I am sure that when the history of the Delors commission is written, he will be seen as one of the giants of that commission and universally commended for the treat energy he has put into creating the impetus to make the internal market for the European Community. The drive, enthusiasm and vision of Lord Cockfield have made 1992 possible for the European Community.
I believe that Britain should welcome the abolition of trading barriers which will be brought about by 1992. Already 49 per cent. of our exports go to our partners in the European Community. The financial services sector, which will benefit greatly from 1992, is an industry from which we as a country do very well. Of course, 1992 will benefit not only the south-east of England; it will benefit other parts of the United Kingdom. The liberalisation of the financial services market should benefit the canny investors of Charlotte square in Edinburgh just as much as it will benefit those in the City of London.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, decisions about 1992 are already being made and it is wrong to assume that everything will happen on 31 December 1992. For a large number of markets, the decisions will have been made long before that. During the past six months, about 31 decisions were made by the Council. Of course there are bound to be some decisions which may be delayed somewhat beyond

579
31 December 1992. I consider that one of the Commission's mistakes during the past six months was to produce proposals for tax harmonisation. Those were stillborn and they must now be regarded as being as dead as the proverbial dodo. The Commission was putting economic theory before political practicality.
If we consider some of the proposals, the Commission said that petrol prices in Italy should fall by 29 per cent., and in Luxembourg they should go up by 32 per cent. The price of popular cigarettes should go up by 120 per cent. in Spain and fall by 44 per cent. in Denmark. It suggested that spirits should increase in price by 145 per cent. in Greece and drop by 50 per cent. in Denmark. In Ireland, the price of wine would decrease by 64 per cent., but the price of beer should decrease by 18 per cent. in France and 12 per cent. in Germany.
Do we really expect that the income tax payers of Ireland and Denmark would be amused at the prospect of higher income taxes and that they would then indulge in a toast to European unity as a result of those proposals? Do we really think that the drinkers in the German bier kellers will drink a toast to European unity if they are asked to pay 12 per cent. more for their litres of beer? Do we really think that smokers in Greece will relish the prospect of a near tripling in cigarette prices and then dream of Athens' contribution to European civilisation? Do we really think that the motorists of Germany would become more European if their petrol prices were to go up by 19 per cent. when the petrol price in Denmark went down by 19 per cent.? Of course, it is a political mirage. The sooner the European Commission clears up those proposals the better, as they will waste a lot of time and energy being debated and there is no likelihood of them coming to pass. The proposals do not just affect the United Kingdom. They have an adverse effect upon every country in the European Community.
Apart from the impact of taxes on cigarettes, wines and spirits and petrol, the proposals for VAT are socially regressive. In the United Kingdom, people with incomes of less than £60 a week spend 43 per cent. of that income on products that are currently zero-rated, while individuals with a weekly income of £325 to £450 spend only 22 per cent. of that income on zero-rated products. In the face of such widespread opposition, for the Commission to maintain those proposals is an exercise in pig-headed stupidity and wilful obstinacy. There is no prospect that they will be adopted, and energy is being dissipated in discussing them which could be used to much better effect elsewhere. The sooner the proposals are torn up the better. The tragedy of the European Community is that the Delors commission will not tear them up. It will take a new commission and new commissioners to remove those proposals.
The European Community has a population greater than that of the United States or Japan. It has a gross national product greater than that of the United States or Japan. We are a much more important trading block than either Japan or the United States. We are just as inventive as the Japanese or the Americans. Indeed, with all our assets, the Americans and the Japanese should be afraid of us, the European Community. Why are we so often afraid of the Japanese and the Americans? The reason is very simple. We have not taken full advantage of the potential
580
of a home market of 320 million people. We have failed to create that full potential and 1992 provides us with the last chance to seize that opportunity before it is snatched away from us.
I congratulate the Government on the success of their campaign to educate the public and industry about the potential of 1992. Last year, during the period of the Danish presidency, covered by the report, there was a great deal of concern in the United Kingdom that France and Germany were well aware of what 1992 meant. Most people in the United Kingdom realise that 1992 will be a special year. It will be the year in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be re-elected for the third time. Of course, 1992 has a much greater significance than that historic event. It will create for industry in the United Kingdom an opportunity that it has never had before.
If industry is to prepare for 1992, it is essential that merger policies in the United Kingdom should take account of the potential of 1992. It is essential that when we consider mergers in the United Kingdom, we should recognise that from 1992 the market will be a European market and not a national market. Some 18 months ago, a merger between Tate and Lyle and British Sugar was vetoed, despite the fact that they would have been subject to competition from the European Community and prices would have been kept down because of that competition. More recently, a possible merger between Rowntree and Cadbury was frustrated because they would have had a large percentage of the United Kingdom confectionery market, although they would not have had an excessive percentage of the European market.
No doubt 1992 will result in a series of transnational mergers. If the United Kingdom is to be the only liberal capital market of the major markets in Europe, it is inevitable that British companies will be the main victims of that phenomenon. In our main competitors within the European Community, Germany, France and Italy, it is most unlikely that a hostile bid from a British company would succeed. Indeed, as Pearson discovered, it is almost impossible to carry out a friendly merger in France. If we are to remain the only open market, we shall be the country where the transnational mergers will take place and there must be a risk that we shall become a branch factory economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) referred to reciprocity, to Rowntree and Switzerland. I listened with interest to what was said yesterday about the subject but I feel that some of the comments distorted the philosophy of British industry and were perhaps kinder to the philosophy of Swiss industry than they should have been. We were told yesterday that in the United Kingdom some companies have strange voting structures. What we should have been told is that very few British companies have voting structures and that if any company were to go to the stock exchange today and say that it wanted a public float with a series of non-voting shares, the stock exchange would tell it, not very politely, to get knotted.
In Switzerland the ethos is quite different. A company's articles of association make it possible for it to frustrate hostile mergers. The only example we were given yesterday of a British company buying a Swiss company involved Cartier. I would not describe Cartier as a British company because 53 per cent. are bearer shares and no one knows who owns them. It was able to bid for the Swiss company only because the company went to it and said, "Please bid

581
for us." I challenge my right hon. Friend the Minister to produce one example of a hostile bid in Switzerland by a British company that has succeeded.
If the argument about reciprocity does not apply to bids from Switzerland, I can only suggest that the paragraph about reciprocity in the White Paper on merger policy was put in to deal with bids from the Moscow Norodny hank.
There is a bid for Rowntree because it made a success of the preparations for 1992. It has been in Europe since—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how this arises from the White Paper.
Mr. Marshall: One of the questions that relates to 1992 is that of merger policy. The White Paper refers to the progress being made in the developments towards 1992.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to be about to embark on a detailed discussion of Rowntree. That will not take place in 1992, but this year, 1988.
Mr. Marshall: I was going to deal with the matter only en passant. I was going to ask four questions of my right hon. Friend the Minister relating to merger policy. Perhaps we can deal with them in a debate after the Whitsun recess. Merger policy has to be looked at closely in respect of 1992 because there are deep implications for the future of British industry.
I have listened with interest to the various comments made about the European monetary system. I am always suspicious of economic panaceas because over the past 20 or 30 years I have found that most of the economic panaceas put forward have turned out to be unsuccessful. Rarely have the anticipated results flown from the proposals put forward. Since 1979 I have, as a Member of the European Parliament, listened to a number of my colleagues advocate British membership of the exchange rate mechanism and the European monetary system. Whatever the exchange rate has been, I have been told that the parity was right. Whether sterling has been high or low, I have been told that it is a good time to join. I get suspicious of people who tell me that whatever the rate, it is the right rate and that at long last we have reached a rate at which we can make the fateful leap.
The arguments for British membership of the exchange rate mechanism are, to say the least, thin. Those who argue that Britain should join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS have to answer some questions. Why is it that Britain, which has not been a member of the exchange rate mechanism, has had a more successful economic record than many of the countries that are members of the exchange rate mechanism? Why is it that productivity has been growing more rapidly in the United Kingdom that in those countries that are subject to the exchange rate mechanism? Why has the growth in jobs been higher in the United Kingdom than in countries that are members of the EMS? Why has our ecomomy done so much better than those countries that are subject to the exchange rate mechanism? Could it be that membership of the exchange rate mechanism is not the panacea that some of my hon. Friends suggest?
I was interested in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. He said that there might well be frequent realignments, if we were to join the exchange mechanism but that somehow there would not be a
582
political storm about them. Some of us are sufficiently long in the tooth to remember what happened in 1967 when there was a realignment of the sterling-dollar rate. I do riot think that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson would say that there was no political storm or political fall-out from that. The lesson of history is that when there is a realignment as the result of a summit of Finance Ministers, there is frequently a political storm when the Minister comes back. How would a Minister, perhaps from the current Opposition, care to come back and say that there had been a devaluation of the pound relative to the deutsch mark of 15 per cent.? If people believe that that would not create a political storm, they are being unduly naive.
One of the consequences of realignment is that there would be significant benefits for the speculators because they can always read when a realignment is likely to take place and they would make millions of pounds of deutschmarks out of it.
The Copenhagen summit will be seen as a further milestone on the road to sanity within the European Community. We must realise that the Prime Minister is very much the saviour of Europe because the only reason why controls were put on milk output within the European Community was the determination of the Prime Minister to secure them. The only reason why there has been agreement on stabilisers is, again, the determination of the Prime Minister. The only reason why over the next few years there will be a reduction in the percentage of the European budget being spent on the common agricultural policy is the determination of the Prime Minister to secure that reduction.
The only reason why The Grocer magazine was able to report—[Interruption.] I am afraid that it was not published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Perhaps it would have been interesting if it had been. The only reason why The Grocer magazine was able to say 10 days ago that there was no longer any skimmed milk powder in intervention in the United Kingdom is the determination of the Prime Minister to take Europe out of the thicket of subsidies and surpluses. It is a great privilege that she is our leader and that she has secured changes in Europe that are essential to bring sanity to the CAP.
The changes my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured in the CAP will lead to a more cost-effective European budget. Money that has been spent on the CAP could not be spent on the regional and social funds or on research. Surely it must be better to spend money on cancer research than on funding the growth of tobacco. That is the sort of line along which the United Kingdom is moving. We are trying to reduce substantially the percentage of the European budget going to agriculture.
The debates on the European Community in this House are too often characterised by a sense of defeatism. The speeches of my right hon. Friends are cast too often in a groove of gloom and doom. Some hon. Members want to re-fight the battle of Culloden Moor—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Battle of Bannockburn."] There are even one or two hon. Members who would like to fight the battle of 1066 once again. Their negative attitude to the potential from the European Community does them and the House no good. We must recognise that the European Community provides many jobs for this country. It is the source of our influence in the world. Europe is the cradle of our defence. We should take advantage of the opportunities and

583
recognise them and stop being sniggering and negative as some hon. Members are towards the European Community.
7.50 pm
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I shall speak briefly on the recent joint applications from Cleveland and Durham county councils to the European Commission for an integrated development operations programme. It is a small bid for just £210 million towards a programme of £430 million.
The eligibility of Durham and Cleveland counties for support from Europe is a recognition of the relatively low level of per capita income in the northern region. That is a direct result of the demise of the industrial base, due to the policies pursued by the Government.
The application by the two counties requests funding out of the European Commission structural fund. The money will be used to support programmes such as business advice services, land reclamation, and improved communications and transport, and to improve the physical environment, as well as develop tourism and provide training. The structural funds of the European Community, especially the regional and social funds, are important sources of support to the north. Their significance increases as the Government withdraw their regional support.
There are several concerns over the future of the structural funds and access to their benefits by less-favoured regions of the United Kingdom.
First, the Government's desire to minimise and change the basis of statistics will increasingly deny regions of the United Kingdom the right to participate in European programmes. A recent example is the Government's failure to provide regional data on research and development, which has led to most English regions being denied access to an EC initiative because only the United Kingdom aggregate figures were used.
Our second concern is the shift in emphasis towards co-ordinated and infrastructure programmes. We welcome these as a genuine attempt to examine and redress the underlying reasons for regional disparities, but they must be viewed against the Government's desire to weaken the role of local government, and to reduce the planning function and spending on local economic development by local authorities.
Those policies of the Government will limit the ability of certain regions of the United Kingdom to participate in the integrated development programme. I refer particularly today to the northern region.
In short, the EC is making progress in devising schemes for regional development, although there is some concern within the Opposition that there may be a bias towards the Mediterranean regions in their distribution.
The Opposition want to see our Government help and not hinder attempts at securing better funding for regional development initiatives. We want to see the Government supporting positive initiatives from Europe that will help to provide a long-term solution to the regional imbalances from which we are suffering.
7.55 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I sense that the mood of the House favours brief contributions, so as I am a new boy among the hardened experts on European affairs I hope that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) will forgive me if I do not comment on her speech other than to say that it was rather constructive.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Constructive!
Mr. Boswell: I am pleased to hear that one other hon. Member is listening to the debate. But I should like to deal with agriculture, if I may, and other related points including some that I have stored up for a long time.
Mr. Devlin: I sought to take issue on one point. The hon. Lady's speech was far from constructive when one considers the vast amount of regional aid.
Ms. Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As an hon. Member who is new to the House, I am unaware of the full rules of the House. Could you therefore advise me on the fact that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) never interrupts hon. Members when they are speaking, so that they can respond and defend themselves, but interrupts by the devious method that we have just seen. When that happens how can we have a proper debate? That is a back-door complaint.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order for an hon. Member who has the Floor to allow another hon. Member to intervene in his speech, so long as the intervention is relevant and brief. I understood that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) had given way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).
Mr. Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All that I sought to say was that the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that the hon. Lady had made a constructive speech was wholly misconceived in the light of the Government's commitment to the northern region, and the notable successes that we are achieving there through means such as the urban development corporation recently installed on Teesside.
Mr. Boswell: As ever, I am honoured to accept a reproof by my hon. Friend. Perhaps I may help if I carry on to the next remark that I was going to make. I am in the business of sharing compliments with the Labour party wherever possible. I commend the party very much for its new attitude to Europe. It resembles nothing more closely than an exchange between the writer Thomas Carlyle and an anonymous lady. She said to him "Sir, I accept the universe." He replied: "Madam, you had better."
Moving on to the workings of the European Council, a myth and misconception is encouraged by the visionaries, and the anti-visionaries, of whom we have heard today. There is a feeling that however good, notable and lapidary is a settlement, it somehow sets a pattern indefinitely for the rest of the European Community. Europe does not work like that. The Council moves from one point of disagreement towards the next. The Minister of State might accept that the best one can expect and perhaps claim of Council meetings is that that remarkable and deliberative body will move at a deliberate pace. A camel train will pitch its caravan at an oasis for the night, and one can only hope to set its direction again in the morning.

585
Some constructive points have been made about agriculture, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) with regard to the settlement on stabilisers. We have the basic building blocks of agricultural control. The stabilisers are being put in place commodity by commodity. There is an overall financial ceiling, but there are some difficulties in starting it up because of the weight of the past. That was explored by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). For example, the inherited stocks and the cost of disposing of them must be considered. We have the machinery whereby we can control what has previously been uncontrollable. Whether we do so depends on our being eternally vigilant.
Many of us remember mechanisms such as the guarantee threshold for cereals. They have come and gone. Now we have the opportunity to carry out the job. It is fair to record that, for milk products, for example, where annual expenditure was rising by about £1 billion a year, since 1984, with the imposition of quotas which were the precursors of stabilisers, expenditure in the Community has stabilised and tended to drop somewhat.
Of the current agricultural topics, clearly the topic of the green currencies looms large. I shall not make a long, partisan speech on behalf of British farmers. I recall that there is a disparity within the green currencies averaging perhaps 10 per cent. and in a band between 5 and 12 per cent. I feel that this must be addressed, sooner rather than later. There is a problem of cost for the Community, as we all know—a small one for the United Kingdom, but a much larger one if there is a French devaluation. But the issue will not go away; it must be addressed by 1992 and it is better to make an early start on it if we can. Others have been making the same point about the European monetary system.
On the general economic issue of 1992, I feel that the Minister of State, in opening the debate, spoke extremely clearly. I read with interest the comments of our noble Friend Lord Young in the other place yesterday on the implications for competition policy of that change. He indicated, in a somewhat oblique way, I thought, that the judgment on what is or is not a competitive position will have to move to the wider format of the enlarged market. I feel that we need to hammer out as a national Government with other member states and with the Commission a more definite blueprint for competition policy and the agreed transition thereto rather quickly.
I feel passionately that 1992 is much more than a simple matter of economics; it is an important political and psychological development. I wish to make two points on it. The first is from a position of no interest, unlike many other hon. Members who have spoken. It is important that we in this place stop treating our colleagues in the European Parliament purely as strangers and perhaps treat them a little more as brothers and sisters, if I may put it that way. Secondly, I stress the importance of education for 1992, and my right hon. Friend need make no apology for the campaign that is being launched now successfully by the Government.
I was delighted when my 17-year-old daughter, without the least prompting from me or anybody else, announced at her school that she wished to conduct a project on 1992. She derived a wealth of useful information from the packs available from the Department for Enterprise and is now writing her project. At the same time, to put a barb into this, I was a little concerned that the school seemed to be
586
surprised that she thought that that was an interesting subject to explore. We need to take this right from youth upwards and make much more of it.
More important still, we need to recognise that we do not go into Europe simply as Britons to conduct tribal wars or cutting-out expeditions. We go there to establish a degree of mutual understanding and to find mutual interests. If we find that Ruhr steel workers are unemployed or that small farmers in the Auvergne arc facing problems, they are our problems just as much as problems of the other member states. I have derived great benefit and satisfaction from the European contacts I have made. We cannot see this as a zero sum exercise.
Again, it is not a purely European exercise. The United Kingdom is not just an offshore island and Europe cannot afford to be simply an offshore continent, devoid of wider responsibilities to both the developed and the developing worlds. The damage with the common agricultural policy as it is operating has been not so much its internal waste of resources, on which we could argue at length and which we could quantify, as its wider repercussions on the pattern of world trade. There I agree, although I do not always agree, with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
The new concept developed in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of producer subsidy equivalent provides us with a very powerful analytical tool for working out the relative scale of agricultural protection in various states throughout the world. It may not be suitable, as Sir Michael Franklin, who was mentioned at the beginning of the debate, has suggested, to use it as the operational mechanism for enforcing cuts in tariffs and protection under the OECD and the GATT round, but it is a very useful starting point.
I believe that, as Europeans, we should take GATT very seriously now. Just as we are now beginning to find political detente with the east in relation to political and military matters, so with the west and the other developed and developing countries of the free world we should be looking for a measure of trade detente. I believe that that will be a very important theme beginning from this year and going through the negotiations and into 1992. We want open discussion of multilateral agricultural disarmament, fully and freely negotiated, balanced and to mutual benefit. We shall not be able to take it all the way, any more than, in my view, we can with nuclear weapons, but we must take it an important stage down the road.
8.5 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: The oft-used phrase in replies from both sides of the House that we have had a very wide-ranging debate could not be more true than of tonight's debate. I shall not attempt to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his quest for millet seed or the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in his quest for budgie seed and apples—not that they are not important—but will concentrate on some of the even more important issues that have been raised.
I was disappointed by the Minister's introduction; it was not as constructive as I had hoped and expected. It was lacking in the vision that I had hoped for. Although the right hon. Lady is a Foreign Office Minister—indeed, deputy Foreign Secretary—she hardly touched on external

587
relations, trade and aid or European political co-operation, which together take up nearly a quarter of the White Paper. I thought that they might form the centrepiece of the contribution by the deputy Foreign Secretary. I shall touch on a few of these topics later, which I hope will give the right hon. Lady a chance to make amends in her reply.
I shall deal first with one or two of the main issues raised in the debate, excluding the budget, which we dealt with at great length last week and which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) covered. He mentioned the speech of Mr. David Williamson, as did a number of other hon. Members. It was a very revealing and interesting speech. I have read that gentleman's curriculum vitae. He is a very impressive man, a Companion of the Bath and a former Under-Secretary in the Cabinet Office with special responsibility for the European Community. According to the Tuesday 24 May issue of that oft-quoted newspaper the Financial Times, Mr. Willliamson accused the United Kingdom of
"taking too narrow a view of EC plans to create a single market by 1992",
and said:
"In the UK, there is rather a heavy concentration on the internal market as a cash register operation."
Looking at Conservative Members talking about the prospects of the internal market—we even had the hon. Member for Southend, East telling us about his pecuniary interests—we often imagine that we see little pound signs lighting up in the pupils of their eyes, like little cash register symbols, at the prospect of the kind of money that they are going to make in the years after 1992.
The Department of Trade's version of a business man's Europe contrasts markedly with the version from across the Channel. To their credit, those across the Channel stress the advantages to consumers, workers and the environment. The advantages were best expressed in a speech by the president of the Commission, Jacques Delors, in Stockholm on 12 May. I am afraid that the text of his speech is in French, but I shall do my best to use parts of it.
Jacques Delors said that Europe is advancing towards six linked objectives. One is completion of the internal market, but the others, which are equally important, are often forgotten by Conservative Members, although not by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). We did not have the opportunity to hear too much of his wisdom tonight.
The first of the other objectives is strengthening economic and social cohesion, including the social dimension of the Community. Hon. Members may recall that when we were discussing entry into the Common Market—I freely supported entry—one of the reasons why Labour Members, and some Conservative Members, supported it was because of that social cohesion and the social dimension.
Pensions in the Community range from a maximum of £125 per week to a minimum of £41·15p per week. Where in that range does the pensioner in the United Kingdom fall? Of course, we know that it is at the bottom of the pile.
Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the important difference is that in the United Kingdom occupational pensions are paid in addition to the basic state retirement pension? Under the European caisse
588
system there is often a single pension. The disparity in the income of pensioners—certainly for those retiring over the past few years—has become much less.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is admitting that there is a disparity. He is contesting the figures produced by the Community, but, as he knows, many pensioners in the United Kingdom rely completely on the state pension.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that in a number of Community countries, ladies are not eligible for pension at 60, and that the percentage of the national income given to pensioners is higher in the United Kingdom than in almost any other Community country?
Mr. Foulkes: That does not refute the point that I was making, which was that because the majority of pensioners must rely on state pensions they are substantially worse off. I should like to see the retirement age for men and women harmonised in the United Kingdom.
The second of the important objectives advanced by Jacques Delors is joint co-operation on research. The third is monetary co-operation. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the possibility of Britain joining the exchange rate mechanism. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) put a different complexion on the matter. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are asked about British membership of the exchange rate mechanism, the answer is always carefully rehearsed so that, for once, they give the same reply. They say that we shall join when the time is right.
As we are getting towards the recess, perhaps the Minister will be a little brave—she has been on other issues—and say what the criteria are for deciding when the time is right. I am asking her not to say when the time will be, but to give a hint of what the criteria are so that Labour Members can make judgments about when the time is likely to be right.
A further objective mentioned by Jacques Delors was that greater account should be taken of environmental matters. The Minister claimed some credit on environmental issues, which astonished me. Will she explain why on 22 separate occasions legal action has been taken against the United Kingdom for violating European environmental laws? Will she explain why Blackpool and Southport beaches are among the worst in Europe? Will she explain why there continue to be dangerous levels of lead in drinking water in Scotland, especially in Ayr, which is where I stay? It is reliably stated that intelligence levels decrease as the level of lead in water increases, so those who live in Ayr clearly have some personal concern.
Jacques Delors stressed the importance of accompanying policies for the internal market, and said that they are indispensable to the economic and social cohesion of the Community. He mentioned the development of backward regions. I pay tribute to the excellent, eloquent and intelligent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). She revealed that the United Kingdom has abandoned regional policy. As a result, we are losing aid from the European Community—money that it must give for vital projects in regions of the country is being lost. Those indispensable accompanying policies, as Jacques Delors described them, are being undermined by the United Kingdom.
Jacques Delors mentioned the struggle against long-term unemployment. Conservative Members claim

589
some credit for the decline in unemployment. My hon. Friend the member for Hamilton exposed some aspects of those claims. Let us never forget the cosmetic action that the Government have taken to cover up the real level of unemployment.
A further indispensable policy mentioned by Jacques Delors is professional instruction for young people—real professional instruction, not the schemes dreamed up by the Government, which have caused so much resentment among our young people. France has 41,000 young people in training for electrical craft and technical skills. In comparison, we have only 15,000 young people in training.
Mrs. Chalker: That is all we need.
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister should ask employers in the south-east of England about the difficulties they have in obtaining skilled employees. Her colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment will tell her about the difficulties involved. The Government are not making the sort of response that Jacques Delors is crying out for.
Another indispensable objective mentioned by Jacques Delors is the development of rural areas. As an hon. Member representing a large rural area, I confirm that deregulation, privatisation and the free-enterprise society have resulted in a reduction in services and jobs and in depopulation. Jacques Delors supported the Belgian idea of a pedestal of guaranteed social rights. How can the Government say that we are moving towards those guarantees of social rights when they have made cuts in housing benefit and social security over the past few months?
All Delors's objectives are entirely consistent with the Labour party's policy, which was agreed yesterday at the national executive committee meeting. That is the authorised version of the policy. The Minister mentioned the document produced by Labour MEPs entitled "Bringing Common Sense to the Common Market". That document made a useful contribution to the discussions. I shall not go into details, but if there are any questions, I can certainly answer them. Our policy is entirely consistent with the vision of the European Community put forward by Jacques Delors.
The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) always makes a good contribution to these debates, and I hope that that praise does him no harm because I mean him no harm—[Interruption.] It may be the kiss of death. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton mentioned the need for greater accountability of the European Community both here and in Brussels and Strasbourg. We believe that the European Commission should be made more accountable. The Single European Act enlarged it without setting out new safeguards of accountability. My hon. Friend Lord Bruce sometimes gives the Labour party little credit for the way that we opposed the Single European Act. Sometimes, some ironic remarks by Labour Members are taken out of context, so, as one who likes irony as a method of contributing to debates, I must be careful in future. We strongly opposed the Single European Act, and some of our predictions are coming true.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: To emphasise the hon. Gentleman's point, will he remind the House how many Labour
590
Members were here to vote against the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which implemented parts of the Single European Act?
Mr. Foulkes: I remember speaking and voting a number of times against the Single European Act, but I remember also that the hon. Gentleman's actions were not as brave as his words when we came to the final consideration of that legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton called for consideration of ways in which the House can improve the scrutiny of the increasing volume of European legislation. What has happened to the convention of ministerial statements being made after meetings of the Council of Ministers? Only yesterday, according to the Financial Times, a couple of major issues were discussed. A summit talk on the middle east was urged by Ministers, including the Minister of State, and there were assurances about peripheral and sparsely populated areas. The Opposition would like statements to be made after such meetings so that we can challenge and question any statements to the press. As for the assurances about peripheral and sparsely populated areas, I hae ma doots, to use the veracular. We have not had the opportunity to express our doubts.
Political co-operation is the most important and underestimated part of the report and of the work of the European Community and the one with the greatest. potential. Has the Minister seen the conclusions of the Oxford conference on peace and development in Central America, which calls for concerted European action on human rights, help with the electoral process, support for the setting up of a Central American Parliament, help in alleviating Central America's problems—for example, debt—and aid and development assistance?
We welcome the programme of increased aid to central America which was agree after the Hamburg meeting. It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary did not attend the last couple of meetings. The European Community must become more involved in monitoring human rights in central America, encouraging implementation of the peace plan, assisting in setting up the central American Parliament—we can give some valuable practical advice—and pressing the Americans to stop their support for the Contra terrorists fighting against the elected Government of Nicaragua.
The European Community can use the combined power of 12 nations, with a knowledge and history of involvement in various regions, including Central America, as a power for good, separate from American policy, which is reeling under a series of humiliations. There are divisions among the Contra terrorists. The Americans have been humiliated by General Noriega, as we saw in today's newspapers. Other issues underline the importance of a vigorous separate European Community policy. I hope that the Minister, who winced a little at the thought, will see the great potential in the 12 countries of Europe working together as a new force for good in the world, separate from the foreign policy objectives of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The European Community needs to develop a co-ordinated policy on other foreign policy issues. On Chile, we need to develop a common approach to the plebiscite to ensure that there is free access to the media and to all parts of the electoral process for all opposition parties. We need to develop a common approach to freeing

591
political prisoners and ending the torture and other violations of human rights which continue, as confirmed by the recent Amnesty International reports.
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on South Africa. Unfortunately, the British Government have never been enthusiastic in their support for the European Community special programme to South Africa.
Mrs. Chalker: Nonsense.
Mr. Foulkes: I hope that the right hon. Lady will express her enthusiasm and that she will concede that the promotion of orderly internal politics legislation, currently being considered by the South African Parliament, will kill the European Community special programmes for the victims of apartheid. The Independent said that Britain should fight for the European Community fund. The Minister said, "Nonsense," when I said that the British Government do not support that approach. I hope that she will confirm that they will fight for the fund. I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that, if the route offered by these positive measures is closed, the British Government must recognise that, to bring the South African Government to their senses, the only alternative is to impose sanctions.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has given a list of areas about which the Socialists are especially concerned. I was surprised that he did not mention areas about which European countries are concerned. They have ships in the middle east and four member states are especially involved in that area.
Mr. Foulkes: I was going to mention the middle east, but did not do so because of the lack of time. Through the Vienna treaty, the European Community has played a part in that area, but it could play a much greater part, for example, by encouraging the Israelis to accept the origin marking of goods produced in the Occupied Territories. There is scope to make positive progress. I accept that there are many areas—the middle east is a good example—where the European Community can make a positive contribution.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be a bit daft if the Common Market went round telling Israel to get involved in origin marking given that the Common Market forced us to abolish origin marking altogether through the Consumer Credit Act. Would not that be rather silly?
Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that there might be some consistency on that issue and that it might be a good idea from his point of view as well as from the point of view of those in the occupied territories.
I know that the Minister of State will want to answer all the points that have been raised in the debate, I certainly hope that she will answer some of mine. I am afraid that the Government's attitude to the European Community is somewhat niggardly and mercenary, and there has been criticism from the Conservative Benches in that regard. Abroad, as at home, we see the worship of greed. There is a lack of vision, understanding and appreciation of the potential of Europe and of Europe's global role. Instead, the Government see an opportunity for business men—an
592
opportunity for the City slickers to make even more money. The Labour party is the party which is showing the visionary way forward, both within Europe and for Europe's place in the world.
8.30 pm
Mrs. Chalker: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) can have seen his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) enter the Chamber. I suspect that if he had, he would not have gone on as he did.
The debate has been predictable in some ways, although there have been some interesting contributions. Some right hon. and hon. Members have looked forward. I may not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) in every respect, but he seizes the future possibilities most positively. To hear the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley one would have thought that he had not listened to many of the contributions made tonight.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman has had a good whack. He originally said that he would speak for 10 or 15 minutes. He started at five past and stopped about half past, so he can wait patiently for a moment.
Mr. Foulkes: May I just make one correction?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on their feet at the same time. Mrs. Chalker.
Mrs. Chalker: If it makes the hon. Gentleman any happier, I shall give way to him briefly now, and that is his lot.
Mr. Foulkes: I concede that the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made an excellent and positive contribution. I was saying that the Government were not positive. The right hon. Member for Guildford is one of the many ex-Cabinet Ministers who litter the Conservative Benches.
Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not find any of us lacking in enthusiasm for making Europe as a whole work, which means far more than the single market. I shall come to that issue later on.
My hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made positive contributions to the debate. I am sorry that could not be in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke, but I have had a very reliable note from the Paymaster General. I would not have expected my hon. Friend to address the House in a debate such as this in anything other than his normal fashion. It is good to feel that that, at least, has not changed, even if this debate is about change and the positive developments in the European Community illustrated in the White Paper covering the second six months of last year.
A number of anxieties were expressed. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) asked to be forgiven because he had to leave us on constituency business. He was concerned about farming. We recently had a considerable debate—one of five debates on the European Community this month—in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry

593
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made some interesting and relevant remarks. I shall urge, through the columns of Hansard, that the hon. Gentleman re-read our debate of 5 May because it is appropriate to the present discussions.
No one would disagree that farmers have been at a potential disadvantage and would continue to be if the system of subsidy continued. The system of subsidy lifts the inefficient farmer to the level of the efficient and in doing so removes much of our competitive advantage. Competition is distorted. I agree with those hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who said that competition is distorted by the system of monetary compensatory amounts. That is the very reason why we support the proposal to phase them out by 1992. I believe that a start should be made this year—particularly in the pigmeat sector, where removing the present disadvantage to the United Kingdom would save money in the Community budget. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would welcome that.
Our objective in farming must be to return agriculture to the market place and at the same time, through the guarantee fund and the guidance fund, to help farmers to adapt to the changed circumstances and take advantage of the new opportunities. Far more could be said on that score, but I shall not stray on to the territory of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Budgie seed was bound to he a central point at the beginning of our debate, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) could not resist raising the subject. The Government agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the present proposal, which is one of the Commission's price-fixing proposals, is a rotten one; it is a shocking idea and we are opposing it on the following grounds. First, the Commission has offered us no technical justification for such a change. Secondly, the cost of the change would be borne by the caged bird owners. That would place an extra burden on many elderly, infirm and disabled people and we do not wish that to happen. We shall fight the measure. I gather that there are many budgies in Flanders and in other parts of the Community and I am sure that the Community will not be prepared to accept this thoughtless proposal, which perhaps results from a link with the price of barley.
Enough of the budgie seed—
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is trying to ask me whether it is a matter for qualified majority vote. It is, but I am confident that the budgie owners of Europe will rise together and defeat this ridiculous proposal. Now that some of the other worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East seem to be diminishing, perhaps he will concentrate his efforts on the budgies.
Let me deal with a more long-term problem that the House has discussed—the whole question of the scrutiny of European business. Every time that we have a debate or discussion, concern is expressed about scrutiny, and I for one would never seek to run away from that fact. I fully endorse the requirement for scrutiny, but the precise procedural form that any consideration of changes in our current scrutiny proposals might take must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I know that the matter has been already discussed, and I shall draw hon. Members' remarks to the notice of my
594
right hon. Friend. The Government are already pledged to monitor the implications for scrutiny of the Single European Act, and we shall do that. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon that British Members of the European Parliament have an important role to play. However, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that they cannot replace the efforts of this House, nor should they. Instead, they can complement them.
In that regard, let me pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry at the end of the debate about the ridiculous attitude in the House to the presence of Members of the European Parliament in Westminster, and their involvement in the affairs of this country. Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament both have a role to play. Those roles can be complementary, and how much better it would be if our attitude were positive and that happened.
Mr. George Robertson rose—
Mrs. Chalker: We must remember the time.
Mr. Robertson: The Minister does not have to worry about time. On this of all nights, we do not need to worry about time. One of the major problems about integrating Members of the European Parliament, who I agree could make a valuable contribution to the discussions and the monitoring of European Community business, is the pressure and space in this building. It is long overdue that we do something about the accommodation, so that hon. Members could at least have some of those facilities accorded to Members of the European Parliament in its two locations in Europe. We might then be able to offer them some hospitality and accommodation when they come here to help us.
Mrs. Chalker: I agree with the hon. Member. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the Lord President is endorsing my comments. However, it is not simply a need for space and equipment; there is a need for a change of attitude. That was the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, although we have now taken the issue wider. We have a role to ensure that the scrutiny is as good as it can be. We are keeping it under review. We will look also at the methods used in other countries, because they may have ideas which could be applicable here. Just because they did not start necessarily in this country, that does not mean that the way other people do it would be bad for the scrutiny of Community legislation in this country.
During my absence from the Chamber, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East discussed his anxiety about the Miracle Bus. That is an anxiety that I share. My hon. Friend has been working for years to try and ensure that there was a bus service which went from his constituency to Frankfurt. Along with the Miracle Bus company, he has always said that there need to be fewer regulations. As I said earlier, that is the view of the Government. I know that there have been difficulties and delays, not from the Federal Government of Germany, but from the Laender governments in the areas through which the bus is to go.
I have contacted the chairman of the Miracle Bus company frequently, as have my officials. I shall stand

595
shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East to ensure that the Miracle Bus does happen.
Mr. Robertson: On the bus with the budgie seed.
Mrs. Chalker: Yes, on the bus with the budgie seed.
We must not make fun of a serious and important debate. I believe that the freedom of transportation throughout the Community is something we have entered into far too slowly, not because of a lack of will on the part of this country, but because of a lack of ability for all nations to see the great prize that is there for the taking within Europe. Europe will become stronger if we can make our transport far better linked and far cheaper for the consumers of that transport, which is important.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) made an interesting contribution. He took us into the area which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to. I regard the development of European political co-operation as one of the most important developments in Europe. I did not say it at the beginning because I knew that—with the leave of the House—I would have to have something new and different to say at the end. As it happens, it has fitted in well with the comments of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
If the hon. Gentleman and his party are as enthusiastic as he claimed them to be, I wonder why on earth the Labour party opposed the Single European Act, which put European political co-operation on a treaty basis for the first time. At the end of our 1986 presidency, it enabled us to set up a permanent secretariat to ensure that it worked. That is why it is now working so much better. European political co-operation really started to work when the Government held the presidency of the European Council.
I now come to the questions that were asked during the debate. With regard to European political co-operation, the hon. Member for Bradford, North made a genuine and continuing comment about South Africa. The House is already aware that we have regular exchanges of views among the Twelve on the developments in South Africa. The objectives of the Twelve are the complete dismantling of apartheid and its replacement with a genuinely representative non-racial system of government. We make our views known to the South African Government. As the twelve nations in European political co-operation, we are committed to working actively to promote the process of peaceful change.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North also spoke of the EC code of conduct. The importance that we attach to the code is now being shared by our partners in the Community. We continue to encourage companies to comply with its provisions, and there has been more compliance in recent years than there was two or three years ago. I will not comment on individual company reports, as the hon. Gentleman did, but I will say that there has been positive and helpful development in European political co-operation.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley covered many areas of the world. I think I would try the patience of the House if I went into all those areas of foreign policy. I am glad that the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is completely at
596
one with me, as so often happens. However, if there is a political issue on which the Twelve together have a genuine concern, we shall not hesitate to discuss it, whatever and wherever it may be. We will do all we can through political co-operation to bring greater peace to some of the troubled areas of the world.
I want to return to an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley in his reply for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of opposing improvement in environmental standards and poured cold water on some things that I had said briefly at the beginning of the debate. I will tell the hon. Gentleman one or two things that have happened in this area.
Mr. Foulkes: What about the beaches?
Mrs. Chalker: All right, I will start with the beaches. Last year we brought 264 new beaches under the EC directive. They are bathing beaches, and we have a £70 million a year programme to bring them all up to standard by 1995. The hon. Gentleman need only look at what happens in other parts of the Community. There have been problems with pollution not just in this country but in many others too. We are taking action on that problem.
We are also taking action to ensure full compliance with the directive on drinking water. I was sorry to hear that in the area in which the hon. Gentleman lives there is a problem with lead in pipes. However, he should know that it was this Government who put a major replacement programme for lead pipes into action. It was not the predecessor Labour Government. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we are opposed to improvement in environmental standards.
I could turn to a number of other areas, but I will not detain the House. The hon. Gentleman knows what they are.
Mr. Robertson: What about Mr. David Williamson?
Mrs. Chalker: I shall come to Mr. David Williamson in a moment. How could I deny the House an opportunity to discuss the new Secretary-General of the Commission?
I want to turn to the single market because many hon. Members have referred to its importance. However, one or two hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Hamilton, have expressed their fears about the implications for the development of the single market. He also made some welcome remarks, which I especially noted because they show all the influence that he has had on his party in their new document, which he is now allowed to talk about in the House.
It is interesting to note just how much effort is being made—the hon. Gentleman criticised this—by the Department for enterprise—the Department of Trade and Industry—to make British business men truly aware of the opportunities. If we did not have a campaign and if every other Community country was campaigning for the benefits of the single market, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain, saying, "Why aren't we in there making business men aware? Why aren't we doing exactly what needs to be done to make British industry, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, aware of the opportunities?"
In our campaign about the single market, we have taken up and tried to progress the issues that can be progressed and have cut out some of the lengthy debate in

597
which the people who opposed some of the ideas behind the single market were not opposing it because they opposed the idea, but were using it as a bargaining counter for other issues. That is why we have preserved the requirement in the Single European Act for unanimity where we need it, but have agreed to qualified majority voting where that would advance the interests of the United Kingdom. It is right that we should advance the single market wherever we can, and that is what we are doing.
We can see the impact that qualified majority voting can have. At the end of last year we were able to adopt a significant passage of reforms to liberalise civil aviation. After years of haggling over insurance matters, the advent of qualified majority voting brought us to the point where we are about to adopt measures to enable British insurance firms to compete throughout the Community. Of course, it is a two-way process and other people will compete with British firms, but the areas in which we make the most progress and where the most progress has so far been made are those where Britain is most competitive. We want to take those steps clearly and firmly, so that British business can benefit from advances in the European Community.
British business and industry in the late 1980s is very different from 10 years ago. I am sad that Opposition Members too often draw on their record of failure to make gloomy predictions about the impossibility of success. The Government and the British people have proved them wrong time and time again and we shall do so in the great internal market debate and in the development of the single market, which is giving the people of Europe real and new chances for the future.
I turn now to the Secretary-General of the Commission, David Williamson, who was an excellent civil servant in this country for many years. I suppose that I now have to say that anybody who works for the Commission can afford to take a relaxed view of financial considerations. I am sure that Opposition Members will not have forgotten that we are one of only three net contributors to the EC budget. We owe it to our taxpayers to redress the balance. If that is what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley means when he says that we have a "cash register" approach, so be it. I have more and wider comments to make about the approach of the single market. When we attended the Brussels European Council in February, it was this country that was prepared for a large increase in the structural funds and a balance in benefits for newer members of the Community. This country believes in the regional fund and the social fund.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) mentioned her anxiety about her priority plans for the area that she represents. I cannot accept that when we have worked for improvements in the structural and social funds, we will not benefit, so I looked through the figures. This country can expect to be the largest beneficiary of the social fund this year. That may come as a surprise to some of my hon. Friends, but I can say firmly that our receipts from the social fund will be about £400 million and that our total receipts from all the funds will rise to about £1 billion per year by 1993, from about £750 million now. The special problems of the far-off regions have been recognised—
Mr. Foulkes: The far-off regions?
Mrs. Chalker: The Highlands and Islands, northern Scotland and so on. The special problems of those regions have been recognised in the debates and discussions that are taking place at present.
The areas that have been affected by the decline of the traditional industries will also be remembered through both the regional and the social funds. The resources of the social fund are being used to tackle unemployment, especially youth and long-term unemployment, wherever it occurs. Rural areas that are too prosperous to qualify for support under objective 1 of the regional fund will, because of their remoteness, be included in a different way. That is why we have been pressing for those regions to continue to qualify for support from all three structural funds under objective 5(b) for developing the remote rural areas.
I cannot go into the exact case raised by the hon. Member for Redcar tonight as I want to bring my remarks to a close shortly. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me. She knows that she is free to write to me at any time about the specific problem, which I well understand, coming also from an area that has great deprivation.
The Community has consistently taken the lead, as I said earlier, in promoting employment growth throughout the European Community. It was the December 1986 employment resolution, which was drawn up on the initiative of the United Kingdom, that set the action programme on employment growth in being. We have worked on that and given a practical lead ever since. That is why unemployment in the United Kingdom is below the EC average. We have created nearly 1·7 million jobs since 1983—more than the rest of the Community put together—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) should note that. He should also note that we have just had the 21st successive month in which unemployment has fallen—a fall that includes the Merseyside area which both he and I represent.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North asked me earlier about the youth training scheme. We receive money from the European social fund for that and believe it to be a perfectly proper use for European social fund money.
Whether it be within the European Community or whether it be our wish to work with the nations of EFTA, and wider, the important thing is that the financial growth of the European Community should be sound so that we can help areas of the Third world and areas in our own Community that need our help.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made an interesting speech. I particularly liked the idea, because it is one which is certainly coming, that instead of talking about the Group of Seven, we should take about three main groups in the world—the United States as a trading bloc, Japan as a trading bloc:, and Europe as a trading bloc. That is not to exclude others, but to try to bring about the stability that is so much needed in the world's economy.
I advise my right hon. Friend that the White Paper under debate draws attention to the significant development in strengthening the operating mechanisms of the EMS. We favour measures to encourage greater use of the private ecu and further co-operation between central banks. I do not share his pessimism about the liberalisation of capital movements. Major progress on that has already been made and the Commission and the present German presidency of the council have made the

599
liberalisation of capital movements a top priority; it will be seen to be so in the weeks leading up to the Hanover council.
In any community of sovereign member states committed to vital co-operation on policy issues, there will be continuing negotiation and argument. In the next few years we must argue about what is important to this country, and not about yesterday's issues. We must remain vigilant to ensure that reform of the CAP continues, not because it is some holy crusade but because, as technology continues to improve production techniques, so the need to return to a policy based on market forces will grow.
I welcome the Opposition's commitment to the application of market forces to the CAP. I am sorry that the conversion does not altogether apply to their approach to the single market, but they will have to learn that they cannot decry what happens with the CAP in Brussels and yet commend more Brussels direction for the conduct of the economy.
The Community is moving away from over-centralisation and regulation towards freeing up market forces across national frontiers, which is a hopeful development as we move towards 1992 and way beyond it. The climate of opinion is changing and more and more member states are giving their name and effort to developing the single market and beyond. The White Paper that we have debated tonight records a steady, undramatic process of negotiations. To some the debates may be boring, but in the past six months the negotiations referred to in the White Paper have come to a successful conclusion. There has been a new phase of opening up the development of the Community, which has everything to do with the issues that are essential to the well-being of ordinary people in this country, offering improvements for individuals through combined work within the Community. The Government will continue to argue for their interests, and it is on that basis I hope the House will accept the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community, July-December 1987 (Cm. 336).

European Community

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY
  Resolved,
  That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 5th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

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

    HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) (Scotland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7658–86 and COR 1, the Department of Employment's Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda of 3rd November 1986 and 9th May 1988 and 9928/87 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents, 10662/87 and the Department of Employment's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 16th May 1988 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work, and 4544/88 on the marketing and use of certain substances and preparations; supports the proposed directives in principle as steps towards harmonised standards for controlling harmful substances, preparations and processes; and endorses the Government's endeavour to obtain modifications in negotiations.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    Question agreed to.

Settle-Carlisle Railway
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
9 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: The rules of the House never cease to bamboozle and amaze me. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who had the Adjournment debate, made his speech at 6 am. I came in tonight prepared to wait until at least 10 pm. Not only do I find that it is only 9 o'clock, but I have a hour and a half in which to speak. I have not yet got into the habit of some other hon. Members of making as little as possible stretch as long as possible, and I do not intend to do that. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) would like to speak in the debate, so I shall not take up all the time. If other hon. Members want to contribute they should feel free to do so.
It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that you are in the Chair, because I want first to record my thanks to you for allowing this debate to be held so quickly, this being the first time I have applied for this Adjournment debate. I suspect that you, like me, recognise the significance of the statement made by the Minister for Public Transport on Monday 16 May. It was about the Settle-Carlisle railway, and it would affect not only my constituents but people who live all along the line in Eden valley and north Yorkshire. The statement had significance for the rest of the country, too.
There is a great feeling for the line throughout the length and breadth of the country, as my postbag shows. I have had letters about the line from all over Britain saying that it should not be closed. Significantly, the Minister implied that because the line was tourist-led—more tourists use it than do local residents—it was not really a significant part of British Rail's operations and therefore could well be sent out to the private sector. The significance of that will not be lost on the House. It was said that areas other than commuter areas—for example, those in west and north Wales and in Scotland, particularly the Fort William to Mallaig line—that depend on tourism could find British Rail saying that it does not want to run them. British Rail is always saying that it does not want to run lines, and the Government have said, "But you must run them." The significance of the statement—outwith the suggestion in this week's issue of The Economist that tourist lines could be privatised—was that tourist lines could be abandoned by British Rail but would be supported by the Government. It is important that we should debate the matter tonight.
I shall concentrate on one or two incorrect statements that the Minister made on 16 May. The first is a small matter. Hon. Members will remember that the Minister refused to give way when I challenged him on one point. He said that no members of the public were present at the public meeting in Carlisle. That is perfectly true; I remember it well. But the point that he did not make was that his Department did not advertise the meeting. It is little wonder that nobody attended.
The other point that the Minister failed to make was that he met a large number of city and county councillors from Carlisle, Cumbria and Eden. As Max Boyce would say, I know because I was there. At that meeting, Cumbrian representatives told the Minister, "We want the
602
line kept open and under the British Rail system." There is no doubt that, when he went to Carlisle, the Minister was told that the line should stay open.
The Minister made another inaccurate statement. He said that 80 per cent. of the people travelling on the line were tourists and that that was insignificant. I do not understand why tourists are not people. Perhaps the Minister can explain. Over 30 per cent. of people travelling on the line are local residents and will be greatly affected. It is significant that, in 1983, only 90,000 people travelled on the line. In 1987, 360,000 people travelled on the line. The number of local people using the line has increased tremendously. More local people use the line now than at any time since the war. Since the closure deliberations began, eight stations have been re-opened. Local demand is strong.
The Minister incorrectly quoted the efforts being made by local authorities and the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association to put money into the scheme. He said that local authorities had offered £500,000 as a capital sum, while withdrawing their previous annual support. That is simply not true. Instead of offering £70,000, local authorities are offering £237,000 this year, £237,000 next year, and £166,000 in 1990–91. That is a fact. I have discussed the matter with council officers. It was churlish of the Minister to denigrate the local authorities.
The local authorities feel aggrieved. They understood that the Minister got everything that he asked for. The Minister went along to the local action committee and said, "I need £500,000 to be able to save the line." After some arm-twisting, north Yorkshire local authorities came along with £500,000. The promise was confirmed by Councillor Bill Cameron, who is a great friend of mine. He had a telephone conversation with the Minister on 29 February, when he was told that £500,000 would save the line. The Minister shakes his head, but I talked to someone who was in the room when that was said.
Despite the bad blood that could well have been created by the Minister, the local authority and the action committee met yesterday and decided that they were prepared to keep their offer of £500,000 and the revenue consequences on the table and to give that money to a private organisation provided that there was no reduction in the service being provided. I hope that the Minister will consider that proposal and discuss it with the local authority. The local authority should be applauded. These are difficult times. My county council has just been within half a per cent. of being rate-capped, yet it could find a considerable amount of money for the line.
I want to look briefly at the so-called privatisation plan for the Settle-Carlisle line. Having read the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Secretary of State for Transport, I think that we should call it the Ridley plan. It certainly could not be called the Mitchell plan. Many of us believe that he does not support the views put forward from the Dispatch Box on Monday 16 May. There are those hon. Members who think that he may resign over this matter. I am not one of those who had any confidence in the suggestion that the Minister would resign, but I do believe that he is not too enamoured of the plan that has been put forward.
Let us look at the plan in some detail. How much private money has been committed to it? I understand that Grand Metropolitan Hotels has put forward £25,000 and another £25,000 has been put forward by Scottish and

603
Newcastle Breweries. I cannot find any more money from the private sector in the statement. That makes a total of £50,000 on offer from the private sector.
Let us look at what has been offered by the public sector for the so-called privatisation. English Heritage has offered £1 million of taxpayers' money. The local authority has offered £500,000 of ratepayers' money. The Development Commission has offered £100,000—again, public money. The Countryside Commission has offered another £100,000. Then we come to the most bizarre offer of the lot from British Rail. Usually when an organisation sells something, it expects money for it. But in this case the Minister has said that British Rail is prepared to pay a dowry of, I think, £850,000. In my experience, dowries are only paid at weddings. It seems that on this occasion a dowry is to be paid for a funeral. I have never heard of that before.
Therefore, we have £50,000 from the private sector and over £2·5 million from the public sector. Despite that, there have been no takers.
In the letter dated 8 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
"I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line."
That is despite all the public money that is available.
The fact is that under the scheme that has been outlined the line can never be viable. If it is taken outside the British Rail system, the income from the diversions on that line will be lost. I understand that there have been over 350 since the proposal to close the line was put forward. That means that there will be a loss of income. If the Settle line is lost, it will cause great inconvenience to those who travel on the west coast line. There will also be a loss of freight under the proposals put forward, so there will be a loss of income there. There is also the loss of the parcels service. We are reducing the income without putting any more in. Therefore, there is no doubt that the private sector will not be able to take that line on.
Even supposing a package could be put together, the Minister's time scale for the closure of the line by 31 March next year would mean that no package, whether private or public and private, could be put forward in that time. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South will elaborate later on whether a Bill could allow privatisation to continue.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the timetable and extend it for a year, and that he will allow interested parties an opportunity to work together on a new package. I hope also that he will return for further discussions with the local authorities and with the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association. Finally, I shall be grateful if the Minister can persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who will ultimately take the decision about the line's closure, to journey from the south of England and travel on the Settle-Carlisle line. Answers to parliamentary questions that I have seen show that since becoming a Minister—I do not know about before—he has not travelled on the line, even though he may ultimately take the decision for its closure.
I have not been too belligerent this evening. I hope that the Minister will accept the points that I have made about the time scale and about further discussions with the local authorities, and will say that the Secretary of State for Transport will be on the first train on Monday morning.
9.15 pm
Mr. David Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is at the northern end of the Settle-Carlisle railway, for allowing me time to speak in his debate. He will agree with me that those of us who wish to see the line remain in existence do so not out of any party political motives. We all have links with the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association and with the various support groups that have tried to sustain the line and find solutions to its problems. They have all placed their activities on a non-party political footing. I am a vice-president of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association and I know that several Opposition Members share that distinction. In our debate on how to save the railway, it is perfectly possible to have a legitimate disagreement, but not about the motives of one side or another.
I confess that, like many others, I was once a train spotter. When my family moved from the midlands to Ripon, I train-spotted at Ripon station. That was almost a definition of optimism, because almost nothing went through Ripon station—even when there was a railway line there. The one time that a Mallard went through, I missed it because I was in the waiting room at the time, to my great regret. Ripon station has now disappeared and will shortly become part of the Ripon ring road.
Everyone would acknowledge the very special status of the Settle-Carlisle railway. I must say to my hon. Friend in all honesty that I do not believe that it is useful to make comparisons between it and other railways in the United Kingdom. The Settle-Carlisle line goes through some very beautiful scenery, it is an impressive engineering achievement, and it represents a unique journey for those who make it. That journey is made through one of the United Kingdom's most dramatic industrial landscapes, and when some of the great steam engines are to be seen pulling trains across that landscape, the scene one witnesses is almost poetic.
All of us are committed to maintaining the railway, and we are all concerned about the fate of the people who work for it. In the case of my own constituents, those who work on a stretch of the line between Settle and to the north, to the Cumbrian border, are affected. We are anxious that the voluntary work undertaken at the stations on that line by the friends of the railway and by other organisations should be justified and that those people will see a return for their efforts—not in financial terms but in the sense of the line remaining in existence.
In making those comments, I speak not only for myself but for right hon. and hon. Friends representing constituencies in the north-west. They include my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), and my hon. Friends the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller). They all have a keen interest in the line and will continue working at making a success of the Government's proposals.
We must remember one salient factor, which is that British Rail wants to close the line. Sometimes, I get the impression that the Government are seeking to force a closure down the throat of a reluctant British Rail. All the arguments about the diversion of traffic from the main west coast line suggest that British Rail was anxious to

605
keep the line open and that the Government were hostile, but the debate starts from the point that this is a line that British Rail applied to close.
Only four options are open. The first is simply to close the line: plenty of other railways have been closed. Why not close it, take the political flak, put our heads over the parapet and be done with it, hoping that after a while people will no longer remember? After all, the A65 in my constituency, which follows the course of the Settle-Carlisle railway, is being improved substantially, so the possibility of alternative transport is real enough. That, however, is not an option that I favour, and I shall fight it, because I believe that it would renege on the character of the railway and of part of the United Kingdom's heritage.
If it were merely a question of heritage, I should be less concerned, but this is a heritage that can still be profitable as an educational, tourist and economic tool for a part of the world that is losing its traditional economic activity. Agriculture is under pressure, and tourism is now its life blood. The saving of the line is linked with other issues, such as Sunday trading, which are essential to the economic welfare of my constituency.
The second solution would be to subsidise the line. Let us simply leave it with British Rail and give British Rail some money. That would make life extremely easy for me, and for my hon. Friends. We could all defend it. After all, money is being spent to restore the Albert memorial, a piece of masonry that does not serve much purpose for anyone. The Settle-Carlisle line actually forms a useful function.
The trouble is whether it could be guaranteed that, even with the money, British Rail would continue to operate the service with good will and enthusiasm. When I have travelled on the line I have gained about as much information, and about as much sense of its uniqueness, as I did when travelling into Liverpool street from Bishop's Stortford this morning. The train was 15 minutes late, of course.
British Rail is not developing the line for tourist purposes. Passengers do not receive a scrap of information about what they are passing through. As has been said, that is not the function of the line, but perhaps it ought to be. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to allow British Rail to exploit some of its resources. Certainly it is not doing so now. Travelling on the line is about as exciting as a suburban railway journey.
The local authorities have made offers, but they have attached conditions to them, two of which I consider unfortunate. The first is that the line should continue to exist for 20 years. That is a long time, which it would be difficult to guarantee in almost any sphere of economic activity. The second is that the line should remain in the sole ownership of British Rail. In other words, that solution consists of thrusting money into British Rail and asking it to sustain a service which it has said repeatedly that it does not want to maintain. I do not think that that is a genuine solution either.
The third option is partnership between British Rail and private enterprise. But what private company will join forces with British Rail knowing that it wants to close the railway—that its heart is not in it?
So I come to the fourth solution, which is genuinely to seek to exploit the tourist potential of the line: to refound it on an entirely new basis, which means finding entirely new capital. This is why I adopt the solution of privatisation. I do not adopt it out of any sense of
606
ideology, or because I assume that the line must come into the private sector, or because I feel any instinctive hostility to the public sector. I do so because I think that in these circumstances privatisation offers the best long-term future for the line to exploit its tourist potential and the various stations and other assets associated with it.
I should like to make several points very forcefully to the Minister. First, the passenger traffic figures have been improving consistently, and I am not convinced by British Rail's argument that there is bound to be some ceiling on that traffic. That depends on the facility and the frequency of the service which it provides on that railway. If it was operated with a view to its potential, there would be more traffic.
Secondly, what happens now? Is the Minister sitting at his office waiting for people to knock on the door and ask to buy the line? It is not clear what is to happen now. I have not had outlined—at least to my satisfaction—a structure of welcome for private investment. Given the time scale put forward, it is incumbent on the Government to outline what structures for the reception of private capital and for privatisation are envisaged. Otherwise, people will not know what they are bidding for or in what they are being asked to become involved.
In other privatisations certain dowries have been given. One recalls the recent merger between Rover and British Aerospace in which there was a significant write-off of debt which can only be described as a dowry. There was a similar massive write-off of debt in the privatisation of British Airways.
I hope that there will be no ideological opposition to the proposal. If things are ready to go but require a little assistance, I hope that there will be no ideological opposition to finding that little bit extra to get the railway line up and running as a private enterprise.
I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle that the time scale is short. I impress on the Minister the urgent need to extend the deadlines so that there is genuinely sufficient time to discuss the structures of the privatised operation so that the first bidder will not be the only bidder and that we can genuinely try to get this bold scheme off the ground.
Above all, we need the Government's active proselytisation of the project. I understand that up to now the Minister has been occupying a quasi-judicial role in adjudicating British Rail's application for closure, and that he could not simultaneously canvass for private enterprise capital. That would have been at odds with the function which he had to fulfil. However, now we know the direction in which we are going, unless the Government are willing to sell the project and to canvass for it along with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who will be doing the same, how will potential buyers have the confidence that we have our hearts in the project and that we are determined to set up this line with a new future rather than see it condemned to a lingering demise?
I say most forcefully that in the north-west we are committed to saving the railway. We attach not only a psychological value to the railway—although one should never underestimate psychology in political and economic affairs. We attach a material importance to it. We believe that it can become the spinal column of the tourist development of the north-west route through the dales and into the Lake District. We consider that it is an asset waiting to be developed and used. We call urgently upon the Government to put their shoulder to that very

607
adventurous project so that we have a Settle-Carlisle railway which has a future and which can serve local people and be a catalyst to the economic development of that region. If that happens, I and my children will live to see the Mallard and the Sir Nigel Gresham hauling those trains across the Ribblehead viaduct, and train spotters of the future will be able to watch the great engineering achievements of this country in action.
9.28 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). When the Minister announced that he was minded to close the line, the hon. Member welcomed that announcement. That seems at odds with his avowed claim to want the railway to run. It is also extraordinary that he rejects all forms of subsidy, but he does not mind the commuter lines in London and the south-east and virtually every other public passenger service that British Railways operates being subsidised.
The line is not the private pleasure railway that the Minister suggested in his announcement on 16 May. It is the last main line to Scotland. It is a major part of the main line route comprising 72 miles of double track. To close it would be an act of organised corporate vandalism as a result of a conspiracy between British Rail management and the Government, who are holding a pistol to British Rail's head.
The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that if British Rail wants to close a line, we should accede to its request. That would be a dangerous precedent. There are other railways that British Rail management might find it inconvenient to run. If it goes along to the Minister and says that it wants to close a line, the Minister is supposed to have a duty to look at considerations other than the convenience of British Rail management.
The Settle-Carlisle railway should be retained as part of British Rail. As I have said, criticisms can be advanced against British Rail, but if the Government refuse closure and require it to operate the line and to provide money for some of the structures, it is the only body with the expertise and competence necessary to operate a line of such length and complexity and with such massive structures.
The Minister says that British Rail cannot promote tourism—although it promotes railway services for tourists year in, year out—yet the fact is that, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon conceded, since 1983 passenger journeys have soared from 93,000 to 300,000 per annum. The reason for that is that British Rail appointed a man to organise the closure of the line. In fact, he was enthusiastic about keeping it and he promoted it with vigour and verve.
I wish that British Rail had used some of the £250,000 that it spent on Filofaxes and free British Rail car park passes for hon. Members on promoting the Settle-Carlisle line. Hon. Members are cosseted enough. That money would have been a real boon to tourism. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon objects to the subsidy from British Rail that has been handed to him in the form of a free car park pass and a £70 Filofax.
Mr. Curry: I have not had them.
Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman has not received his car park pass and Filofax, they are probably on their way, because my understanding is that every hon. Member will receive them.
If British Rail has the resources, it can promote railway lines extremely effectively in conjunction with such sympathetic bodies as the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association. I should like to pay tribute to that association because over the years, as a voluntary unpaid organisation, it has given up untold hours to organise meetings to promote the line and to keep it in the front of people's minds. It helped the development of increased passenger revenue and increased use of the line. Such an association is not unique to the Settle-Carlisle railway. Such bodies operate on other lines and it is a way in which people can become involved and help British Rail. That association has helped to promote a magnificent railway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has mentioned the difficulties of the Government in finding a private body to take over the line. The Secretary of State for the Environment wrote a confidential letter on 8 March which has been a boon to those who want to retain the line. In the letter he said:
"I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line."
Therefore, the Government have been looking. At least one major civil engineering firm has been involved in some sort of negotiation with British Rail midland region over the past few years.
On 16 May the Minister claimed that the revenue under British Rail was about £1 million per annum and that operating costs were £2·7 million. He said that the railway was costing a lot of money and that the Secretary of State was minded to close it. The revenue estimated by the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association is £1·725 million, which is rather different from the figure that British Rail has produced. BR excludes revenue from diversions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has pointed out, there were more than 300 in the past fiscal year. Again, BR disputes the figure, but BR has not been watching the trains from its management suite. The members of the association have done that scrupulously.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): So that I have the figure correctly, could the hon. Gentleman repeat the level of expenditure that is claimed?
Mr. Cryer: Yes. The association says that the revenue is £1·725 million. BR excludes revenue from diversions. There were more than 300 of them in the previous fiscal year. I am told, although I think it is incredible, that the figure also excludes revenue collected by guards from tickets sold on trains. I have no confirmation of that, although I understand that the revenue is put into the general pool of BR revenue.
Revenue from other BR regions has not been satisfactorily defined by BR. For example, fares paid by passengers travelling from London to Leeds are not credited if the passengers go on to the Settle-Carlisle railway by joining a Carlisle train at Leeds. The fares are not suitably credited by BR in order to increase the revenue of the line. The friends association says that they should be allotted to the Settle-Carlisle railway because they stimulate traffic to and from the line from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is agreed by all of us, but how much revenue is in issue? BR has the figures. An

609
expert of the Settle-Carlisle association has asked BR for the details, and provided information, but BR has been somewhat reluctant to give such figures.
The Minister would do well to remember that the story of the line starts from the attitude of British Rail. We understand that BR is under financial pressure, and is therefore looking for some service that it can cut out to diminish costs. BR diverted the London to Glasgow express several years ago and ran them from Nottingham to Glasgow. Then BR stopped those routes and diverted trains away from Leeds and through Manchester. The largest source of revenue from the Nottingham to Glasgow express run was via Leeds. That source of revenue is no longer available to BR.
The diversion of freight trains is done to remove revenue and not, as BR claims in its financial case, to close the Settle-Carlisle railway, because of air brake train load operation. That factor does not make very much difference, because the Settle-Carlisle line is able to take all classes of trains, air brake-operated as well as unfitted and fitted freights. They can all operate well over the line.
BR says that the access Blackburn to Hellifield route has a long-term future for freight traffic. It would have an even better future if it was linked to a long-term freight future for the Settle-Carlisle line.
The Minister gave the operating costs as £2·7 million, whereas in its December 1986 financial case for the closure of the line BR gave a figure of £778,600. I dare say that the Minister has incorporated in his figure an annual allowance for replacement or maintenance of track and structures.
The comparison with other railways that the Minister quoted on 16 May was fallacious. The North York moors and the Severn valley railways are roughly 15 miles long apiece. They are operated largely by volunteers with only a skeleton paid staff. Both lines operate under a light railway order. The Minister does not yet know, although I have questioned him extensively, whether the privatised Settle-Carlisle line will operate under a light railway order or a Private Bill that is promoted through the House. If he is making the comparison with the North York moors railway, say, and proposing that it should be considered for light railway operation, that means that he is considering a 140-mile round trip at an average speed of about 24 miles an hour—not exactly the most stimulating of journeys for a day out for a family.
The Settle-Carlisle is a 144-mile round trip railway and any prospective purchaser will obtain 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges. They take some maintaining. As part of the national network, with diverted traffic and through traffic, that can be justified, but I beg leave to doubt that any private organisation would be willing to take over a total of 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges. It is something of a tall order
I know something about operating railways. I was the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway. I have done every job on a railway, from cleaning out the toilets to plate laying to driving an engine such as the Evening Star. There simply is no comparison between operating a 10-mile round trip, even on a full-scale main line standard railway, and a 150-mile round trip on a railway that is notorious for its gradient up the summit at Aisgill. That sort of arrangement, it seems to me, cannot possibly be carried out under the amateur status of the railways that the Minister has proposed.
610
If this fanciful notion were adopted, the Settle-Carlisle could take men and women, materials and locomotives on to its track at the expense of existing established preserved railways such as the one between Keighley and Oxenhope, the one near Skipton, the North York Moors railway, and so on. There simply are not the locomotives and the experienced personnel to go round for the sort of scheme that the Minister has in mind.
From his answers to questions, the Minister does not seem to have a structured plan for the operating method, the track provision and the running rights connected with the privatisation. There is the notion, for instance, of British Rail taking out all the long-welded track. That would have to be replaced, so the proposed dowry from British Rail is not all that good. The Minister has a department, the railway inspectorate, which looks at track, because the weight of the track determines the running speed of the line and the axle load of the locomotives that go over it. If the weight of the rail is diminished, that places a permanent way restriction on the railway and means that the running speed of trains is reduced, which makes the journey potentially rather boring, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon says he has experienced.
Where would the locomotives, for example, be maintained? The Department of Transport and the railway inspectorate rightly demand high standards of safety, and that means locornotive maintenance, carriage sheds and workshops. The Minister's own departmental inspectorate would not allow steam locomotives to operate into Carlisle under the electrified system because steam locomotives and overhead wires are kept separate.
So there are all these enormous operating problems, which do not exist if the line stays part of British Rail, because British Rail has the operating facilities and it is part of a through network. The enormous investment in maintenance facilities and locomotives that would be required in a privatisation scheme is not, of course, required for operation by British Rail.
We are talking about a railway that is providing about 300,000 or 350,000 passenger journeys each year. We agree that the railway has been used extensively for diversions when the west coast route has been closed for repairs, maintenance or blockages. I understand that the proposal to widen the west Cumbria line for diversions has been scrapped by British Rail. British Rail has tried desperately not to use the Settle-Carlisle line for diversions, but I have in my mind a timetable of diversions over the Settle-Carlisle line because of work on the west coast route, which was expensively electrified several years ago. If the Settle-Carlisle line is closed, passengers can expect to spend a minimum of one and a half to two hours on a bus journey between Carlisle and Preston. If it is a busy period, such as holiday time, and there is a breakdown, they can look forward to spending many more hours in a bus on the M6 between Carlisle and Preston.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that more time is needed to consider the hardship circumstances, about which the Minister has said that he is returning to the transport users consultative committee to obtain further evidence. Since the TUCC hearings commenced, there has been a change in the pattern of diesel multiple unit provision, which has been helped by local authorities. As the figures show, more people are using the trains, which means that there is potential for more hardship

611
arising from closure. I hope that the Minister will say that he is willing to give more time to the TUCC, if it requires it, to ensure that it obtains correct and adequate information.
The local authorities are interested, deeply involved and want the line to be retained. They are governed by financial considerations, but have, as the Minister rather scathingly acknowledged on 16 May, said that they are prepared to help by giving £500,000. As I understand it, there have been no negotiations about whether the local authorities were prepared to modify the conditions that they attached to the giving of that £500,000. They are willing to consider conditions such as an all-year-round service, frequency of services to be at least the same, journey times to be approximately the same, and any altered railway ownership to be subject to proper TUCC procedures, with the line remaining an integral part of the national railway service, with no separation and division. The local authorities have spent many hours and much money promoting the railway and are willing to enter into negotiations with the Department of Transport to consider what developments can be made, bearing in mind the amount of money that they can provide is limited.
If the Minister is saying that the Settle-Carlisle line is predominately a tourist one, that therefore it is subject to different criteria and should be closed if we cannot get a body to promote tourism more effectively than British Rail, I warn hon. Members representing other constituencies that there are lines with greater tourist participation than the Settle-Carlisle line. About 90 per cent. of the passengers carried on the Kyle of Lochalsh-Inverness line are tourists. According to the Yorkshire Post, other routes in north Wales, Devon and Cornwall carry more tourists than the Settle-Carlisle line. What will happen if British Rail says that it does not like running those lines because they carry tourists—who, after all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said, are people? The Minister and the Government are supposed to be promoting tourism and leisure. They keep saying that we are receiving increased overseas earnings from tourism. Here is an opportunity to retain a railway that is enjoyed by a number of tourists, but between 30 and 40 per cent. of its passengers are local people.
The Minister said that only 20 per cent. of the passengers were local and therefore subject to hardship. The Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association believes that the figure is much closer to 30 per cent. and, indeed, on the top side of that. As the Minister knows, people who travelled on the now successful Dales Rail trains, which were introduced in 1975, were included—after considerable argument—in the category of those who were entitled to object on the grounds of hardship.
We must bear in mind that the Settle-Carlisle railway runs through some wild and beautiful country, from the Aisgill summit into the softer country in the Eden valley. If that railway is closed, the number of cars and buses will increase, to the point where the very countryside which people visit to enjoy is changed. People do not want that to happen. The car has given people great freedom and enjoyment but they recognise that it causes enormous problems. One problem is the changing shape of the countryside because of the needs of the motor car, which,
612
incidentally, are extremely expensive. Access by rail is speedy and unobtrusive and will not destroy the countryside that people want to see.
As the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out, people travel on the Settle-Carlisle line and enjoy it. What is wrong with that? The Minister spoke with a light sneer as though it were just a railway for archaelogical historians. It is a beautiful and entrancing line. We spend much money on retaining artistic treasures. The magnificent Tate gallery is down the road and the national gallery and national portrait gallery are at the end of Whitehall. They cost a lot of money and are subsidised. Every local authority has a subsidised museum because such museums contain things created by men and women that we like to enjoy. The Settle-Carlisle line is in that category.
Thousands of people helped to build the line and run it and devoted their lives to it. It is a thing of beauty. We should not be afraid of saying that people who ride on the line enjoy the sensation. We should welcome that and say that, for that reason and because of vandalism in the 1950s and 1960s, when anything vaguely Victorian in construction was replaced, it should be preserved. We recognise the achievements of many of our forebears, and the Settle-Carlisle line certainly falls into that category.
The Department of Transport—some would call it the Department of Road Transport because of its apparently careless attitude towards railways—is prepared to spend £750 million to allow increased lorry weights, which are soon to be demanded by the EEC as we move towards the internal market of 1992. Apparently, the Department baulks at a relatively small sum for the Settle-Carlisle line. British Rail's financial case for closure put at £420,000 a year the cost for renewal of track and structures.
I emphasise the fact that this railway provides for local people and for tourists. It is a spendid, beautiful railway. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and I were downcast by the thought that this railway could come to an end, abandoned, a wilderness, without any use beyond a few photographs of what once was. This country has abandoned 13,000 route miles of passenger railway. This has gone too far. The Minister talks about a major main line railway being up for closure. I believe that the railway can have a useful place.
British Rail is the best body to operate the line. I accept that there is a case for other bodies to develop and promote the railway in conjunction with British Rail, so I accept that the Minister has a point when he says that other organisations can assist. The line must be part of British Rail; I have mentioned many of the operational difficulties that would arise otherwise.
I believe that together, the local authorities, the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association and British Rail can make the future of this magnificent railway something worth looking forward to. The Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association has offered to help develop a scheme, and I think it has much merit.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible to suggest a longer period to consider the problems and the retention of the railway. I hope that he will say that he wants to keep the railway and that he agrees that, given time, good will and proper negotiations with the local authorities, that aim can be achieved.
10.1 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The time constraints on Adjournment debates are usually much tighter than they are tonight. I had certainly intended to attend the debate but I had not expected to have an opportunity to speak, and I am grateful for that.
It is significant that the Government Whip who has been there throughout our proceedings, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), has a considerable interest in the line. Furthermore, the Government Chief Whip, who also sat through most of the debate, has an indirect interest in the subject, as his constituency is on the Blackburn-Hellifield line.
When the Minister made his statement, I said that people would be more than disappointed by it. I thought that to use that word would be to understate the feelings of those interested in the line and in railways in general, and I was absolutely right. Many people have expressed their views to me in very strong terms. Many believe that in his statement the Minister was really saying that the line would close, although he did not put it so bluntly, and that he was proposing an option that might not be realised. I do not believe that that is what he was doing; I hope it was not.
The package could perhaps work, but I do not believe that it is the right or the best solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who has a great knowledge of these matters, have explained clearly why it is not the best option to pursue. I have written to the Minister on the subject many times in the past few years because it is a matter of great concern and interest in Lancashire. STELLA—the Support the East Lancashire Line Association—which has a considerable interest in that line and now in the Roses line connecting Preston with Yorkshire, also strongly supports the Settle-Carlisle Line.
I hope that the Minister will think again and come forward with more positive proposals. I hope that he will place a requirement on British Rail to maintain the line and provide it with assistance to do so. We must consider the needs of those who live along the line. I do not believe that bus substitution would be the right solution—at least at certain times of the year. For those who live along it, the railway is a lifeline, and they have a right to ask that it be maintained.
My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South mentioned diversions, as I did when I questioned the Minister earlier this month. We know that it does happen on occasions. We know that the figure of 300 diversions has been disputed by British Rail. However, whatever the figure is, it is clear that, if that diversion is not available, the west coast line at certain times of the year will have major problems—the failure of power lines or the weather over Shap or other things—which will cause difficulties without a diversion.
The Minister said that that would be a matter for negotiation, but it depended on the right track being available to run the rolling stock that British Rail would have available. I do not believe that that is an adequate solution, because we need to be sure that British Rail has that diversion available in its ownership to use when it needs it. Those are two important points.
The other important point is tourism.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
Mr. Pike: All the areas in the north are becoming much more tourist-oriented. It is an area of potential. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, we believe that it is something that we can develop to create jobs and prosperity in the area. We must also accept, because of our weather and other things, that we are not talking in the main of people coming for long-stay holidays, but are examining targeted package holidays—for example, to Bronte land in Haworth, which is not far from the Settle-Carlisle line and my constituency. Many other industrial heritage sites in Yorkshire and Lancashire could attract tourism. Withou.t any doubt, the Settle-Carlisle line can be one of those attractions. It is a remarkable engineering feat of the Victorian era. It passes through beautiful scenery. We should develop it to its full potential.
The Minister trod a dangerous path when he implied that British Rail was not the appropriate body to be involved in developing a tourist attraction and was riot interested in tourism. Hon. Members have said that there are other lines to which that argument could be directed. I believe that we must tell British Rail that it has a job to make that line and develop its tourist potential to the full. It could form a vital part of the attractions in the north-west regions, in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cumbria. It could at the same time provide that vital fallback of a diversionary route. It would also play an essential role as a lifeline for the people who live on the route through which it passes.
10.3 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am glad we have had the opportunity to discuss the Settle-Carlisle line. As a number of points have been made during the course of the debate, I will deal with them in the sequence in which they were raised.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, who used to sit frequently at that end of the Chamber and constantly raise with me the question of the Carlisle-Settle line, rather than the Settle-Carlisle line. I understand why he should follow in his predecessor's footsteps in that way.
The hon. Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the number of tourists using the line, and various references that I had made to the fact that they exceed local transport needs. They suggested that that meant that all the rural lines were at risk, and especially mentioned lines in Scotland. I shall give them some reassurance. First, I have recently talked to the general manager of ScotRail, who tells me that he has no proposals to bring forward any long rural lines to be closed in Scotland. I was up there last week and know that. that is the latest news on that situation.
I should add that I went to the west Highland line for the signing of a contract between Alcan and British Rail, which flowed from section 8 payments in excess of El million which I had sanctioned. The fact that that investment has been made in that line and, moreover, in new sidings and rolling stock, and that radio signalling has, just been installed on the line involving considerable investment, is as good an indication of the long-term security of that line as it is possible to give. I hope that hon.

615
Members will not wish to frighten people in other parts of the country by suggesting that there are any parallels. I give that assurance in relation to Scotland.
Mr. Cryer: The line that the Minister is talking about was considered for closure by British Rail, which shows how wrong it was about that line. I hope that that is a parallel for the Settle-Carlisle line.
Mr. Mitchell: As a debating point, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that, but I do not think that it takes us much further forward.
Mr. Martlew: The Minister has given an assurance about Scotland, but two other areas have been mentioned in the debate. One is the west country—Devon and Cornwall—and the other is north and west Wales, and their problems. Will the Minister give that assurance to those two areas also?
Mr. Mitchell: I can only say that I have no proposals from British Rail for closures in those areas. I just happened to make it my business while I was in Scotland to find out whether there are any such proposals. Therefore, I can give a positive assurance in that respect. I am perfectly open and frank with the House, that such matters are for British Rail to bring forward if it feels that a line does not warrant being kept open. I am not aware of any proposals in the Department at present in respect of Wales or Devon.
In relation to the meeting in Carlisle to which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred, I should reply that nobody turned up. If my recollection is correct, the meeting was called by the local authority. It was certainly not called by my Department. The other meetings which were called in the same way and on the same day at the moot hall in Appleby, and in Settle, were well attended. I have vivid recollections of the extremely careful and well organised way in which the meeting at the moot hall in Appleby was conducted by the town's mayor, with each section of the community having a spokesman brought forward to explain the effect that the closure of the line would have on that part of the local community—whether young people, the middle-aged, the elderly, and so on. That was part of the consultation process at an early stage. My recollection is that the interest in Carlisle was not as great along the line, but perhaps that is not wholly surprising.
The hon. Member for Carlisle claimed that I was inaccurate in my assertion that 80 per cent. of the users of the line were not using it for normal transport purposes. I refer him to the information provided as a result of researches by Cumbria county council. Table 8 refers to "journey purposes for all trains" and shows 1·4 per cent. using it to and from work; during work, 2·1 per cent.; to and from education 2·4 per cent.; shopping and personal reasons, 6·4 per cent.; and social visits, 7·5 per cent. I make that 19·8 per cent. So perhaps I should not have said that 80 per cent. of those who use the line are leisure travellers because those using it for other purposes—to and from holiday, for instance—all add up to the 80 per cent. I am perhaps slightly inaccurate—there is a 0·9 per cent. figure for other purposes. I cannot know exactly what those are—
Mr. Martlew: The point I was making was that the latest figures show that 30 per cent. are local. I said that, since the closure debate began, eight stations had been reopened and were used by local people.
Mr. Mitchell: I am very much aware of that. It is one reason why we have asked for a restatement by British Rail of the financial case up until November and the TUCC is to consider any new evidence of hardship. That would give an up-to-date position. The hon. Member for Carlisle is perfectly correct, that we must presume that the figures have changed since the closure was first proposed. It is right that the case should be updated by British Rail.
I turn next to the local authorities' offer. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South for saying that the local authorities are prepared to be more flexible than they were when they announced their position. As yet, they have not come to me, so I do not know the degree of flexibility to which the hon. Member for Carlisle is privy. However, in due course we shall learn more about that and there will be time for the Secretary of State to take it into account, along with other matters.
I understand why the local authorities feel aggrieved. The following are the stringent conditions on their contribution:
"that British Rail continue to maintain and operate the line; that the line's future be guaranteed for … at least 20 years: that the contributions are a 'one off' payment and that no further requests for financial support should be made; that the Revenue Support contributions already agreed for the next two years will not be extended beyond that period."
It is significant that the local authorities' generosity was watered down by these conditions, but it would not be fair to say that their restrictions were the determining factor.
The contributions from the private sector have not been as great as we had expected at one time, so we must take into account both the fact that the local authorities hedged their terms with such severe conditions and the fact that the number of contributions that it was thought at one time would come from the private sector have not done so. I should take this opportunity of saying that there has been more generosity in this respect than the hon. Member for Carlisle allowed. He said that there had been two offers of £25,000, but Hansard for 16 May shows that there were generous offers from

"BACMI Members:

ARC Ltd., Chipping Sodbury, Avon

Tilcon Ltd., Knaresborough, North Yorkshire

Hargreaves Quarries Ltd., Pickering, North Yorkshire

Castle Cement Ltd., Peterborough, Cambridgeshire".

—[Official Report, 16 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 684.]

A large number of members of FeRFA, too, are in the business of supplying a form of material that is significantly involved in structural renovation. In addition to that, there are contributions from BarFab Reinforcement of Smethwick, British Steel Corporation, Redcar in Cleveland, and Servicised Ltd. of Slough, Berkshire. There is a long list. I pay tribute to them and the members of FeRFA which are prepared to provide materials at reduced cost towards repair of the Ribblehead viaduct. That significant capital expenditure led British Rail to bring forward the closure proposal in the first place.
We are inviting the TUCCs to give us up-to-date information on hardship during the course of the summer and to state how they think that guaranteed alternative bus routes can best be provided. It may be that the provision of a bus service from Settle to Giggleswick, which is not far—I have walked it—would be one way of helping at the Settle

617
end of the line, and that a service from Appleby to Penrith, where one picks up the fast electric trains on the west coast main line to Carlisle, would be a considerable help to Appleby. The length of journey time—part of the way by bus and then by the high-speed train—from Penrith to Carlisle is not much different from the slow journey time on the Settle-Carlisle line from Appleby into Carlisle.
There are options. I inform my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and those who are involved in journeys between Appleby and Settle that there may well be some difficulties in finding any suitable alternative, but, on average, only about half a dozen people a day make that journey. It is difficult to justify spending well over £1 million on that item of hardship. I have received several letters, and I shall of course carefully examine the cases in which hardship is involved.
The hon. Member for Carlisle referred to the British Rail dowry. He suggested that it was normally given at weddings and that this matter sounded more like a funeral. I could not disagree more. It appears to me that there is a prospect—I go no further, because these are early days—of a wedding between the private and public sectors. The House would welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about loss of income from British Rail diversioons. That matter is yet to be played for. If the line is useful to British Rail as a diversionary route—it says that it is not essential to it—presumably it has a price. That price could be negotiated between a private sector successor company and British Rail for the availability of the line for diversion purposes.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to freight. A freight service currently operates to the gypsum private siding at Newbiggin and the Ministry of Defence siding at Warcop near Appleby. They are served from Carlisle.
As long as British Rail Freight has a use for those sidings and for that service on that line, and as long as that is a viable proposition for British Rail Freight, there is no reason why, if Cumbria county council wishes to negotiate with British Rail for the running of a service at its own cost between Carlisle and virtually Appleby, which is where those sidings come to, there is no reason why it should not do so. But that is not a matter where the generality of taxpayers should be asked to foot the bill if it is shown—studies are to be provided by the TUCC—that another alternative by bus and train is equally good. The county council may not find such a proposition attractive, but at least the opportunity is there, and the hon. Gentleman would wish me to draw attention to it.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have asked me for my view about the line. Each of us has a heart and a head. My heart is with those hon. Members who would like to see the line kept open because of its scenic beauty, because of all it holds historically and because of the opportunities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred, of great engines going on it and the emotion that that generates.
But at the same time one has to be hard-headed about an expenditure by British Rail of about £2·7 million a year and an income of only £1 million a year, or just under. I think that what we have proposed is the right mix of heart and head and I hope that time will demonstrate that to be the case.
Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has an obvious affection for the glorious scenery through which the line runs and the fact that it is the last great main line in Britain to be built with pick and shovel. Its history is remarkable, not least because when the
618
House passed the Bill to ensure that it was built, those who promoted it decided they did not want to go ahead with it because they could do a deal with what is now the west coast main line and did not want to duplicate it. But they then found that they had to go ahead because of the procedures of the House at that time.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the Government were forcing British Rail to close the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said that it almost sounded as if the debate was about the Government forcing British Rail to close the line. I could not deny that suggestion more forcefully. British Rail wants to close the line. My hon. Friend is right when he says that British Rail is not interested in running the line. It is not part of its network in terms of its long-distance work. It is a loss maker with a huge potential liability in the Ribblehead viaduct and with local services, demand for which is wholly inadequate to maintain the line. There is also tourism, to which I shall return.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister acknowledge that while British Rail management might be looking through the accountants' books to save every penny, the people who operate the line are dearly attached to it, spend their lives on and want to see it kept open?
Mr. Mitchell: I do not doubt that, but the reality is that those who are running British Rail do not see the line as part of their network. They have electrified the west coast main line to give a fast low-cost operation which runs broadly parallel with the line. It enables them to provide services at much lower costs than they ever could on the Settle-Carlisle line because of the low cost of operating electrified services once the high capital costs have been paid up front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly referred to the various options. One was to close the line out of hand, which we have not done. Another was just to give the line the money—but it is very difficult to justify the level of expenditure involved against the local need. My hon. Friend also made the point that British Rail was not successfully developing the line for tourism and that it was about as exciting as a suburban ride. I have to say that I think he is right. There is enormous potential for a specialist operator.
Mr. Cryer indicated dissent.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Bradford, South may shake his head, but he referred to the amateur efforts of lines such as that with which he has been associated. However, many lines—such as the North Yorks Moors line and the Severn Valley line—show a degree of professionalism in attracting visitors, and the hon. Gentleman should not mock them for being amateur.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No, I have done so several times. I have a lot of ground to cover.
Mr. Cryer: I did not say what the Minister claims.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order—it is a disagreement.
Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will return to the content of his speech in a moment. I must finish dealing with the comments of my hon. Friend first—[Interruption.] I certainly did not intend to offend the hon. Gentleman, and I shall return to his comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was saying that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. One can give the line to British Rail but one cannot make it develop the line as a tourist attraction when British Rail does not have that skill. British Rail is in the business of conveying people from A to B, which it does increasingly effectively and efficiently. It requires a totally different skill to develop a tourist attraction—a day out for the family during which they can ride on the line and see what goes on.
My hon. Friend also asked what will happen now. He wondered whether I am just going to sit on my hands. British Rail has promised to be positive and helpful to any private sector operator coming forward with sound proposals for keeping the line open. A special project manager for that purpose will be appointed by British Rail in the next few weeks. I hope that anyone thinking of coming forward in that way will make themselves known to the project manager at the British Rail Board, Euston house, Eversholt street, London.
As to the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, unfortunately the amount of time I have left does not allow me to give as much attention as I would like to the matters he raised, but I shall do my best. He queried certain figures I gave relating to revenue. British Rail says that it is currently running at just under £1 million, whereas the line's local supporters say that revenue is £1·725 million. It is that kind of detail which needs to be clarified. That is a principal reason why the Secretary of State for Transport is allowing a further
620
period, until the autumn, for the updating of figures, so that we may be sure what the latest position is and that a decision is not taken on figures which are out of date.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South, also claimed that fares collected by ticket collectors on the trains were not included in the revenue figure. We shall cover that point, together with the question of diversions. As to contributory revenue, British Rail takes the view that the amount of contributory revenue for conveying passengers from London, say, to Leeds before they travel on the Settle-Carlisle line is about offset by the costs which British Rail will incur in the longer term in carrying those additional passengers. The hon. Gentleman may or may not warm to that view, but it is one to which British Rail adheres very strongly.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no comparison with the private sector operated and preserved lines. I wish to make the point absolutely clear. What British Rail identifies as the future operating costs of the line, if it is radio-signalled or single-tracked, is £2·1 million a year, less whatever contributions come in towards the Ribblehead viaduct. Let us call it £2 million a year. That is the revenue already achieved on the Severn valley line—[interruption.] We are not talking about the operating costs. British Rail can run the line with £2 million income, and Severn Valley alone can generate that sum in the private sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider what lies behind that, and the specialised skills that people who run the—
The Motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Canary Wharf
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Prime Minister why the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar was not informed(a) by her Office of her visit to Bow and Poplar on 11 May and (b) by the Department of Trade and Industry of Lord Young's visit on 4 November 1987, in connection with the Canary Wharf development; and if she will ensure that in future Ministers visiting Canary Wharf inform the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar in advance.

  The Prime Minister
  As my Office explained to the hon. Lady on 11 May, I regret that she was not informed in advance of my visit. My usual practice in such matters is set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 11 May 1988 at column 121. I have drawn the hon. Lady's concern to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Rogerstone, Newport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, if she has any plans to visit Rogerstone, Newport, Gwent.

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

  Community Care
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will consider the appointment of a Minister for community care, in the light of the recommendations in the recent report by Sir Roy Griffiths.

  The Prime Minister
  We are considering carefully all Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendations for community care, and shall bring forward proposals in due course.

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will appoint the Secretary of State for Wales to represent the United Kingdom in the European Community Council of Agriculture Ministers' discussions on the sheepmeat regime; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend works in close collaboration with the Minister of Agriculture on all matters of importance to agriculture, including the sheepmeat regime.

  Engagements
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.
  230
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  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.

ENERGY

  Energy Prices
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has received from manufacturing industries in the last 12 months regarding(a) electricity price increases, and (b) gas prices; what industrial categories such representations have been received from; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have received a large number of representations about industrial electricity prices, covering most sectors of manufacturing industry: such prices are primarily a matter for the electricity supply industry to decide within the financial framework agreed with Government. Industrial gas prices are a matter for British Gas plc and the Office of Fair Trading.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report a table, covering the period 1979–80 to 1988–89, showing the aggregate external financing limit for the electricity supply industry in England and Wales; the ex ante composition of this aggregate between the Central Electricity Generating Board, individiual area boards and the Electricity Council itself; and a comparable ex post composition.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The aggregate external financing limit (EFL) for the electricity supply industry in England and Wales is published in the annual public expenditure White Paper. The table shows (i) the initial forecast of the EFL taking no account of agreed revisions during the year and (ii) the outturn. The EFL is set for the industry as a whole; and the required contribution by individual boards is a matter for the industry. The actual contributions by boards are stated in their annual reports and accounts.

  Financial year

  Initial EFL forecast

  Outturn EFL

  £ million

  £ million

  1979–80

  -10

  + 189

  1980–81

  + 187

  + 140

  1981–82

  -165

  -221

  1982–83

  -232

  -154

  1983–84

  -312

  -485

  1984–85

  -740

  + 523

  231

  Financial year

  Initial EFL forecast

  Outturn EFL

  £ million

  £ million

  1985–86

  -1,128

  -468

  1986–87

  -1,416

  -1,325

  1987–88

  -1,305

  1-1,261

  1988–89

  -1,040

  —

  1 Estimated.

  Ceramic Industry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from(a) firms in the ceramic industry and (b) firms from north Staffordshire with regard to the privatisation of electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received representations on privatisation from many sectors of industry, and from many parts of the country.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much energy was consumed in the United Kingdom for

  Phasing of deficit grant payments

  £ million

  Accrued in respect of

  Total

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1979–80

  159

  150

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  149

  —

  134

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  428

  —

  —

  210

  218

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  374

  —

  —

  —

  357

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  875

  —

  —

  —

  —

  581

  294

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  2,225

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,108

  695

  422

  —

  1985–86

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  —

  1986–87

  288

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  214

  1987–88

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  Total

  4,748

  150

  143

  225

  575

  598

  1,402

  695

  546

  414

  The Coal Industry Act 1987 provided that up to £200 million might be paid in respect of deficits arising in 1987–88 and 1988–89. The full £200 million was paid in 1987–88 to defray that year's deficit. The Government have no plans to seek to increase or extend the statutory powers to pay deficit grant.

  Mr. Kenneth Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what financial support the Government expect to give British Coal in 1988–89.

  Mr. Parkinson
  British Coal's external financing limit for 1988–89 has been set at £670 million. As announced to the House on 28 March, at column 295, planned financing was made up as follows:

  £ million

  Restructuring Grant

  116·0

  Other non-deficit grants

  273·5

  Net Borrowing

  280·5

  670·0

  The requirement for restructuring grant in 1988–89 is being reviewed following the substantially increased number of redundancies in the closing days of 1987–88, which has resulted in higher than expected expenditure on redundancy lump sums early in 1988–89. A summer Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to seek
  232
  non-transport purposes during 1987; and what is his assessment of the effect the energy efficiency office had on this figure.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Provisional figures for 1987 suggest that 41,636 million therms of energy were consumed for non-transport purposes. It is estimated that the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office contributed to the reduction of some 4 per cent. in (non-transport) energy consumption per unit of GDP compared to the previous year.

  British Coal
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what deficit grant to British Coal was accrued in the corporation's accounts in each financial year since 1979; when it was paid; and what further deficit grant the Government intend to pay.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Deficit grant to the British Coal Corporation was accrued and paid as shown in the table.

  approval for the additional grant. I am also considering the implications for the corporation's external finance limit. I will make an announcement to the House in due course.

  The Government have agreed that, subject to Parliament's approving any necessary provisions, adequate funds will continue to be made available to enable the corporation to meet its financial obligations as they fall due during the corporation's financial year ending 25 March 1989. The Government have also renewed their guarantee in respect of limited overdraft facilities at United Kingdom clearing banks for 1988–89.

  The House was told on 8 March that the loss for 1987–88 (after net restructuring charges) was likely to be higher than originally expected. Following the extra redundancies late in the year referred to above; the loss will be still greater.

  As the House was told on 2 March, at column 1075, British Coal has for some months been precluded from access to longer-term funds from the national loans fund (NLF). The corporation's current financial position and uncertain business prospects make it inappropriate for the NLF to continue to make new loans of any duration to it. It is therefore proposed, subject to approval of the necessary Supply Estimate, to refinance from loans on vote under section 2 of the Coal Industry Act 1980, the whole of the short-term and overnight NLF debt expected to be outstanding at the time of approval of the Estimate,

  233
  together with longer-term debt maturing in, and net new borrowing requirement for, the remainder of 1988–89. A Supplementary Estimate for a sum expected to be of the order of £1·8 billion will accordingly be submitted in due course. Of this, only the projected £280·5 million mentioned above represents net new borrowing in 1988–89; the remainder is to refinance existing NFL debt. The £280·5 million is already within the current EFL, and therefore the new arrangements do not represent an increase in public expenditure.

  The Coal Industry Act 1980 provides that the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may issue directions as to the rates of interest payable on loans on vote; and that the interest may be deferred. It is intended that the rate of interest, at least initially, shall be at the same rate, and paid at the same time, as would be due on equivalent NLF loans. This will be kept under review in the light of British Coal's developing financial position. I would inform the House of any decision to soften the terms of future loans or defer the payment of interest.

  The corporation remains committed to the objective of achieving breakeven for 1988–89 after full interest charges and net restructuring costs; achieving an increasing surplus on revenue account in following years; and contributing increasingly to self-financing. These represent challenging targets, but are attainable provided the industry continues its drive towards greater flexibility and competitiveness and avoids damaging industrial action.

  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the disposal of the radioactive wastes prepared for sea disposal in 1983.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government have decided not to resume sea dumping of drummed radioactive wastes. Instead, these will be prepared for eventual disposal in the deep facility for low and intermediate-level wastes which Nirex has been asked to develop.

  The Government nevertheless remain in no doubt that sea disposal makes good sense for some categories of waste, and intend to keep open this option for large items arising from decommissioning operations.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits for 1988–89.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class VI, vote 7, will be increased by £3,500,000 to £6 million. This increase reflects a revision of the amount of work to be undertaken in 1988–89 in connection with the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales now that a number of decisions have been taken and published in the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" (Cm 322).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Multinational Companies (Third World)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his 234
  Department has to increase the role of multinational companies in fostering economic development in the Third world.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The bilateral and multilateral aid programmes provide substantial opportunities for British-based multinational companies to assist with approved projects in the Third world. Now that the aid programme is growing in real terms the scope for such assistance will increase. Through our support for structural adjustment we are also seeking to promote a better policy environment within developing countries, and one that is more conducive to direct foreign investment. The Commonwealth Development Corporation often invests in projects overseas in partnership with British private investors.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has now considered the views expressed by the local authority employers and the teacher unions on his proposals following the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  After careful consideration of the representations I have received, following the publication of the report from the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions, I have decided. to accept the committee's recommendations on pay rates. Drafts of amendments to the "School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1987," an order which will give effect to the 1988 document, and a circular to local education authorities, are being sent today to the relevant local authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools inviting any comments by Wednesday 8 June

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department:, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has reviewed the range of employment practices over the last few years in the light of Civil Service policy on equal opportunities. This has led to such developments as the introduction of "keeping in touch" arrangements for those who resign for domestic reasons, and the provision of women-only development training courses. Guidance on equal opportunity policies is included in the training provided for those involved in staff appraisal, recruitment and promotion interviewing. Ethnic monitoring is being used in sample recruitment surveys to measure the number of white and ethnic minority applicants and to identify significant variations in their success rates throughout the competition.

  Free School Milk and Meals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many schoolchildren in the county of
  235
  Leicestershire received discretionary free milk in 1987; how many such children now receive discretionary free milk; and how many and what percentage of such children were or are, respectively, in schools for children with special needs;

  (2) how many children in the county of Leicestershire received discretionary free milk at school under supplementary benefit or family income supplement rules but are no longer receiving the same under the new income support rules;

  (3) how many schoolchildren in Leicestershire in 1987 received free school meals and milk; how many now receive the same; and what percentage have lost such entitlement;

  (4) how many special schools in the city of Leicester have been affected by the removal of discretionary free school milk; which schools are so affected; and how many and what percentage of children attending each of those schools have lost that entitlement;

  (5) how many and what percentage of children in special schools in the city of Leicester and in the county of Leicestershire, respectively, received school meals before the recent changes in entitlement to free school meals; and how many such pupils no longer receive school meals.

  Mr. Dunn
  In October 1987, the latest date for which data are available, about 18,751 pupils (or 16 per cent.) in Leicestershire received free school meals, of whom 330 pupils (or 0·3 per cent.) attended special schools. Information in respect of the city of Leicester is not separately available. For further information on school meals I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 25 May.

  Information on the take-up of discretionary free school milk is not collected centrally. Children whose families are in receipt of income support continue to be eligible to receive free milk at midday.

  Palterton Primary School
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to allocate additional funds to Palterton primary school, Palterton, near Chesterfield for the construction of an extension for teaching accommodation.

  Mr. Dunn
  Capital allocations are made annually to local education authorities on the basis of plans submitted by the authority. The project at Palterton county primary school was not included in Derbyshire LEA's plans for 1988–89. Allocations in respect of prescribed expenditure are unhypothecated; it is accordingly for the authority to determine how to deploy its resources.

  Zoological Society of London
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what addition he proposes to make to the Universities Funding Council budget in respect of the switch of responsibility for the research role of the Zoological Society of London from the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Jackson
  The transfer of responsibility for the funding of the Institute of Zoology will be accompanied by an increase in the public funding of the universities by a sum equivalent to the institute's core funding requirement.

  "Shouldn't You Become a School Governor?"
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the leaflet entitled "Shouldn't You Become a School Governor?" is being circulated in Scotland by his Department and by the Central Office of Information; and if he will indicate the cost of providing copies of this leaflet in Scotland.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department has made no arrangements for the distribution of this leaflet in Scotland, since the provisions to which it relates apply only to England and Wales.

  City Technology College, Lincoln
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) on what basis his Department has held any discussions with members or officials of Lincolnshire county council education committee about the possible use of(a) South Park school, Lincoln and (b) any other local education authority school in Lincoln as a city technology college; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether his Department has held any discussions about the possibility of establishing a city technology college in Lincoln; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department has had no discussions with members or officials of the Lincolnshire LEA concerning the use of any specific LEA school as a city technology college. Discussions have taken place, on three occasions in the period between November 1986 and February 1988, to give the local authority and the business community general information on the establishment of CTCs.

  Primary School Teachers
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to his Department regarding the number and distribution of primary school teachers in the maintained sector with formal qualifications or training in(a) mathematics and (b) science, beyond GCE O-level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In March 1987, there were an estimated 17,500 full-time and 2,200 part-time teachers in maintained nursery and primary schools in England, who had a post-A-level qualification in which mathematics was a main or second subject, or who had in the previous five years attended an in-service course in mathematics of at least one term's full-time equivalent duration. In addition, a further 4,300 full-time and 900 part-time teachers had A-level mathematics or equivalent.

  The corresponding figures for science were 22,700 full-time and 3,500 part-time with a post-A-level qualification, and a further 8,900 full-time and 2,000 part-time teachers with a science A-level or equivalent.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the number and proportion of primary schools in the maintained sector that have a member of the teaching staff with identifiable knowledge or experience in(a) mathematics and (b) science; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In March 1987 an estimated 11,400 primary schools in England—57 per cent.—had at least
  237
  one teacher with a post-A-level qualification that had mathematics as the main or second subject or who had attended, in the previous five years, an in-service course in mathematics of at least one term's full-time duration or equivalent. The corresponding figure for science was 13,800–69 per cent.

  All primary schools teach mathematics and almost all teach science and must therefore have at least one teacher with experience of teaching those subjects.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to his Department as to the numbers or approximate numbers of primary school teachers in the maintained sector who have undertaken in-service training wholly or largely in(a) mathematics and (b) science, in recent years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Estimates based on a 1987 survey sample of full-time and part-time teachers in maintained nursery and primary schools in England, who identified themselves as having attended courses, are as follows:

  Mathematics

  Science

  Teachers who attended a course of at least 20 days full-time equivalent duration in the years 1982–1986.

  5,200

  2,900

  Teachers who had had attended a course of less than 20 days full-time equivalent duration in the months September-December 1986.

  17,200

  11,600

  Teachers in either or both of the above categories.

  21,400

  14,100

  Primary Schools (Mathematics and Science)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to Her Majesty's inspectors as to the provision of advisory services, support and in-service training in each local education authority for(a) mathematics in primary schools and (b) science in primary schools; whether such provision is earmarked or specifically identifiable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information available to the inspectorate indicates that the provision of all these services varies widely in extent and quality. The vast majority of LEAs have advisers both for primary schools and for mathematics and science. Some have funds at their disposal and a small but growing number have the support of advisory teachers.

  The practice of earmarking funds for the support of mathematics and science in primary schools also varies. It is for each LEA to decide how best to utilise the resources at its disposal, and to determine whether the provision is of appropriate quality.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate is monitoring the operation of the LEA training grant scheme, and will report in due course upon specific aspects, including the extent to which it serves the needs of the national curriculum and makes reference to mathematics and science provision for primary schools.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what specific grant provision has been made in each recent year to support provision or training related to(a) mathematics in primary schools and (b) science in
  238
  primary schools; and if he will publish a table showing the amount of such grants and the local education authorities involved in each year.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Specific grant has been available to support local education authorities' expenditure on the in-service training of teachers of mathematics since 1983, and of science since 1984. Total amounts of grant. which cover the training of teachers in primary and secondary schools, are as follows:

  Mathematics teachers

  Science teachers

  DES circular

  £ million

  £ million

  1983–84

  2·1

  —

  3/83

  1984–85

  1·98

  1·98

  4/84

  1985–86

  1·98

  1·98

  3/85

  1986–87

  1·763

  1·763

  1/86

  1987–88

  3·85

  3·85

  6/86

  11988–89

  4·4

  4·4

  9/87

  1 Estimated.

  Since the introduction of the LEA training grants scheme in 1987–88, LEAs have had discretion to supplement these amounts with grant from their allocations for local priorities. Allocations to individual authorities and details of the types of training attracting grant are included in the Department's circulars referred to above, copies of which are in the Library.

  Universities Funding Council
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the appointment of the chairman and chief executive of the proposed Universities Funding Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am pleased to announce appointments to both posts: Lord Chilver FRS Fling, currently vice-chancellor of Cranfield Institute of Technology, and soon to return to private industry. will be the first chairman; and Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer KBE FRS, currently chairman of the University Grants Committee, the first chief executive. The Universities Funding Council and the universities will be well served by this formidable team.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lebanon
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations have been made regarding United Kingdom citizens kidnapped in Lebanon.

  Mr. Mellor
  We continue to call on those Governments or organisations with influence over the hostage takers to use their influence to secure the unconditional release of those concerned.

  In the gathering of information about our hostages, every lead is being followed up. Her Majesty's Embassy in Beirut is doing all it can, in very difficult circumstances. We also remain in touch with middle eastern and other Governments.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to
  239
  remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is an equal opportunity employer and is pursuing the 1984 programme of action for equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service. Equal opportunity officers were appoined in the diplomatic and aid wings in 1984.

  The diplomatic wing has adopted a number of measures to allow officers to combine career interests with domestic responsibilities. Flexible working hours were formally introduced in 1987. Provision has been made for part-time work, and job sharing. A more flexible approach has been adopted to requests for special unpaid leave for domestic reasons. Subject to operational requirements joint postings are arranged whenever possible where both partners in a marriage are members of the diplomatic service. Further details of these arrangements are given in the booklet "How to Cope with Changes in Domestic Responsibility … and still have a job", a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House.

  We are updating our programme of voluntary ethnic monitoring of staff in post. We also monitor recruitment and training. We recruit nationally and from all sectors of society. We advertise in the ethnic minority press in addition to the national and regional press and in inner-city jobcentres in London. Our recruitment literature stresses that we are an equal opportunity employer. We work with the national and regional press on articles about the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We issue guidance to officers on aspects of equal opportunities (eg sexual harassment). Special courses on equal opportunities are arranged for officers dealing with personal management. Equal opportunities is included in all management courses.

  Similar arrangements have been made in the aid wing, which in addition promotes attendance on internal and external women-only courses, and trains members of promotion boards on equal opportunities.

  Japan
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of Japan; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Mr. Uno in the margins of the OECD ministerial council meeting in Paris on 18 May. They discussed political and economic subjects of mutual interest.

  Cuba
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Cuba.

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

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 24–25 May.
  240
  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 May. There was a useful discussion of outstanding points on detailed follow-up to the European Council. Some were resolved: others were referred for further discussion and resolution at the June Foreign Affairs Council.

  The Council agreed to establish a 15 million ecu programme to support Community-wide exchanges involving young people between the ages of 15 and 25. The programme will run for three years from 1 January 1989: the Commission also has authority to spend up to 3·55 mecu this year on such exchanges.

  The Council endorsed the text of the EC/CMEA joint declaration which, when signed later this month, will open the way for improved co-operation in various fields between the Community and CMEA member states.

  The Council discussed dates for the 1989 European Parliament elections, and the Foreign Ministers, meeting as a Committee of Representatives of the Member States, discussed nominations to the European Court of Justice; they will return to both topics.

  The sixth EC/Israel Co-operation Council, held in the margins of the FAC, reviewed the working of the EC/Israel co-operation agreement, and considered outstanding trade and tax difficulties. The Community also stressed its concern that agreed measures giving preferential access to EC markets to Palestinian producers in the occupied territories should be implemented without further delay. Prospects for the middle east peace process were discussed separately.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The usual forecast was deposited in the House earlier today. At present, 14 meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for June.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 6 June to discuss the Commission's proposals on the liberalisation of capital movements.

  Agriculture Ministers will meet informally on 6–7 June for bilateral discussions on the 1988–89 price-fixing proposals and income aids. These discussions will continue at a formal Council on 13–14 June whose agenda also includes veterinary inspection fees; quick frozen foodstuffs; materials and articles in contact with food; control of food additives; extraction solvents; and health problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products.

  The Internal Market Councils on 7 and 22 June will discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market.

  The Social Affairs Council which meets on 9 June is expected to adopt the directive proscribing four specified carcinogens and will consider common positions, under the cooperation procedure, on the draft directives on benzene and exposure limits. The Council will also discuss the draft directives on carcinogens (framework); health and safety at the workplace; minimum workplace requirements; and equal treatment in social security.

  The Energy Council will meet on 9 June and will consider the Commission's analysis of potential obstacles

  241
  to the creation of an internal market in energy; a paper on co-operation between major electricity utilities and private generators based on renewable energy sources, waste energy, and combined heat and power; and a report on the implementation by member states of Council recommendations on encouragement of investment in solid fuels in the industrial, public building and district heating sectors.

  There will also be discussion of possible acceleration of discrete energy efficiency investments by means of third party financing, and of the Commission's review of member states' energy policies in the context of the Community's energy objectives agreed to 1995.

  The Foreign Affairs Council meets on 13/14 June. The Council will discuss the implementation of the European Council Conclusions on financing the Community. It will also discuss a Commission paper setting out possible broad guidelines for the approach to the forthcoming renegotiation of the Lomé convention, and will have a further meeting with the European Parliament on the extension of the Food Aid Framework Regulation. Discussions are also expected to cover progress made in negotiations with Hungary on a trade and co-operation agreement; relations between the Community and the United States; and the dates of the 1989 European Parliament elections.

  The Environment Council meets on 16 June to discuss Commission proposals on large combustion plants; the protection of the ozone layer; major accident hazards; vehicle emissions (small cars); the reduction of wastes from the production of titanium oxide; and the five year programme illustrating the favourable impact of environmental projects on employment.

  The Transport Council will meet on 20/21 June to discuss a number of important outstanding transport issues, including road haulage market access, vehicle weights and dimensions, vehicle taxation, transport infrastructure, shipping, through-transit problems, drivers' hours and combined transport. Other subjects that may also be added to the agenda for this meeting are; access to road haulage profession; vehicle testing and relations with IACO (aviation).

  The Fisheries Council is expected to meet on 1 June to discuss the tuna market regime; control-reporting of Member States; technical conservation in the Baltic sea; additional catch quotas for Greenland; change in migration of western mackerel stock; and relations with third countries.

  The Industry Council meets on 24 June to consider the future of ECSC steel production quotas, and rules on providing state aid for the Community steel industry.

  The European Council to be held in Hanover on 27/28 June is expected to concentrate on the progress being made towards the completion of the single market and setting guidelines for future priorities.

  The Research Council will meet on 29 June. The provisional agenda anticipates the formal adoption of the Drive, Delta, Bureau of Community Reference and science programmes and an extension of the biotechnology programme. The Council will discuss the fusion programme and the extension to the JET statutes and will consider a common position and common orientations for the 1988–91 programme of work of the joint research centre.

  It may also be possible for the Council to adopt common positions on the AIM programme and the
  242
  ECLAIR programme. There will be discussion of the relationship between EC and EUREKA programmes, of the relationship of Community research activity to technical norms and standards, and of bioethical issues on the basis of communications from the Commission, Some discussion is also possible of the Japanese ideas for a human frontier science programme.

  The Telecommunications Council on 30 June is likely to discuss the Commission's Green Paper on the development of the Common Market for telecommunications services and equipment; a proposed Council directive which the Commission is expected to submit shortly on the opening up of public purchasing in telecommunications; and a possible agreement on a common European emergency number. It may also discuss satellite high definition television standards.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Swiss Companies
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has to how many acquisitions by United Kingdom companies of Swiss companies of a significant size were made in 1987; how many of these were contested bids; and how many were agreed.

  Mr. Maude
  United Kingdom companies are not required to register overseas acquisitions of companies. However, transactions identified from published sources involving United Kingdom companies acquiring Swiss companies during 1987 are as follows. There is no available information on whether any of these acquisitions were contested, or whether there were other bids which were contested and failed.

  Acquiring company

  Swiss company acquired

  John Crowther

  Wollimex AG

  Queen's Moat Houses

  Hotel Admiral

  This list does not include purchase of minority stakes or assets in Swiss companies.

  Switzerland (Departmental Discussions)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions have been held by his Department with the Swiss authorities since 1982; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department holds regular discussions with the Swiss authorities at both ministerial and official level. A wide range of matters of mutual interest are discussed including international trade policy, European trade and industrial issues and bilateral trade relations.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which five business schools have been asked to meet Ministers to discuss the need for extra courses tailored for the single market in 1992; and what additional resources will be offered for these courses.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble friend has written to: Ashridge management college; Cranfield school of
  243
  management; Henley management college; Manchester business school; London business school and City university. The purpose of the meeting is to consider what preparations they are making for 1992. The question of additional resources does not arise at this stage.

  South Africa
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the level of British disinvestment from South Africa since January 1983.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The latest available information in complete detail, on United Kingdom net direct investment in South Africa since 1983, is as follows. There is no information on United Kingdom portfolio investment abroad, by country.

  United Kingdom investment in South Africa (1983–86) by component

  £ million

  19831

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Unremitted profits

  362

  180

  174

  73

  Acquisition of overseas companies share and loan capital

  11

  6

  22

  16

  Disposal of overseas companies share and loan capital

  91

  42

  8

  47

  Net change in inter-company and branch/head office accounts

  15

  -24

  12

  43

  Net direct investment

  296

  120

  199

  86

  Source: Overseas Transactions Inquiry.

  1Excludes oil companies.

  Note: Components may not sum to the total because of rounding.

  Ceramic Industry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives from the ceramic industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I last met representatives of the ceramic industry at a reception for the British Ceramic Confederation on 28 October 1987 at the House of Commons.

  As the hon. Member knows, my Department is concerned only with the domestic pottery section of the ceramic industry. The remaining sectors are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Intermediaries (Commission)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in requiring company representatives and tied agents to disclose remuneration following his decision to require LAUTRO to require full disclosure of commission by intermediaries.

  Mr. Maude
  It is for the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations to draw up rules on investment business under the Financial Services Act, but I am confident that, in the period before automatic full disclosure of commissions by intermediaries is required, they will work to develop a system of disclosure of expenses of selling through company representatives.

  The Secretary of State's decision on LAUTRO was whether or not to give leave to its recognition by the board. LAUTRO amended its rules so as to require full disclosure
  244
  of commissions from January 1 1990. The Secretary of State concluded that, as amended, LAUTRO's rules were not significantly anti-competitive, and accordingly gave leave.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he received a copy of the report by Peat Marwick, commissioned by the Securities and Investments Board on the disclosure of remuneration and expenses of company representatives and tied agents; whether he has met the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss its recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I received a copy of this report when it was published by the Securities and Investments Board on May 17 1988, and expect to discuss it with the chairman of the board shortly.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the number of intermediaries who will, as a result of his decision on the LAUTRO rules regarding commission disclosure, apply to become tied agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have made no estimate. It is for intermediaries themselves to decide whether to be independent or to become tied agents.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if it remains his policy to ensure equivalence of disclosure of remuneration by independent intermediaries and company representatives; what form will this take; and if he will make a statement as to when he expects the full details to be known.

  Mr. Maude
  Under the rules made under the Financial Services Act, independent intermediaries will be required to disclose fully their commission to all investors from January 1 1990. The regulatory bodies under the Act will use the intervening period to prepare the way for disclosure of expenses of selling through company representatives.

  Travel Companies (Exchange Rate)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether any estimate is available to him of the amount which holiday travel companies will gain as a result of movements in the exchange rate of the pound sterling in recent months;

  (2) if he will seek powers to compel holiday travel companies to refund to customers any excess profit arising from the movement in the exchange rate of the pound sterling in recent months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  No estimates are available of the benefits to the travel industry of recent favourable movements in the sterling exchange rate. Whether or not a refund can be expected by a consumer in any particular case is entirely a civil matter and not for Government intervention. The terms of the consumer's contract with the tour operator will indicate whether or not he is entitled to a refund in these circumstances, and it will be for him to pursue the matter with the company concerned.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the likely effect of
  245
  the new furniture fire safety regulations on inventory charges to suppliers of furnishing fabrics arising from dual stocking for domestic and foreign markets.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is not practicable to provide a worthwhile estimate of the possible effect of the draft furniture fire safety regulations on inventory changes arising from dual stocking although if manufacturers and wholesalers adopt this course there will undoubtedly be some additional cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the effect on United Kingdom exports of fabrics to Australia arising from the 40 per cent. import duty rate on heavier grades instead of 2 per cent. following implementation of the proposed new furniture fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  No estimate has been made of the effects on exports to any particular country, either in respect of tariffs or non-tariff harriers, of the proposed new furniture fire safety regulations. The regulations will not apply to exports.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he gave in formulating the new furniture fire safety regulations to the effect of fire retardant treatments on the weight of fabrics for export.

  Mr. Butcher
  The draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations will exclude exports. Any effect on the weight of fabrics resulting from fire retardant treatment from the United Kingdom market has not been a major consideration in drafting these regulations.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the impact of the new furniture fire safety regulations on exports to non-EEC countries.

  Mr. Butcher
  No such estimate has been made.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in implementing the current programme of references of nationalised industries to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and what further references are planned.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The commission's report on the Welsh water authority was published on 18 May, and I expect to publish the report on the Post Office Counters services shortly. The Commission are currently investigating British Coal's capital investment and British Rail's provincial services.

  Scottish Health Boards' expenditure on mental illness

  (£'000 at 1981–82 prices1)

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Argyll and Clyde

  7,845

  7,782

  7,953

  7,864

  7,581

  7,585

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,435

  3,318

  3,673

  4,081

  4,179

  4,424

  Borders

  1,191

  1,104

  1,074

  1,095

  1,106

  1,174

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,866

  4,753

  4,925

  4,625

  4,513

  4,335

  Fife

  3,641

  4,096

  3,939

  4,047

  3,918

  4,187

  Forth Valley

  45,189

  45,121

  4,827

  4,328

  4,695

  5,735

  Grampian

  9,793

  9,576

  8,950

  8,732

  8,894

  8,897

  Greater Glasgow

  423,493

  22,413

  22,445

  22,700

  23,342

  22,754

  Highland

  5,554

  5,033

  5,055

  5,134

  5,079

  5,074

  Lanarkshire2

  10,857

  10,976

  11,065

  11,878

  11,895

  12,033

  246
  Further references will relate to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and, once the King's Cross investigation is completed, London Underground.

SCOTLAND

  Health Boards (Expenditure)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the main areas of health spending in health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards' summarised accounts for 1986–87 show main areas of spending as follows:

  £ million

  Recurrent

  Hospital services

  1,264

  Community health services

  131

  Family practitioner services

  437

  Headquarters administration

  59

  Associated services (eg nurse training, local health councils etc)

  19

  Capital

  Hospital and community health

  99

  Total

  2,009

  Forestry
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the overall target for afforestation of upland areas in Britain; and when he expects this target to be reached.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The present target for afforestation in Great Britain, excluding planting under the proposed farm woodland scheme, is 33,000 hectares a year. There is no separate target for afforestation in upland areas.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the amount spent on mental illness in each health board for each year since 1979 at 1979 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table shows health boards' expenditure on mental illness in each year from 1981–82 to 1986–87. Information is not available for years before 1981–82.
  247

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Lothian

  18,965

  18,602

  18,301

  17,974

  17,704

  18,950

  Orkney3

  11

  16

  15

  15

  16

  17

  Shetland

  4

  5

  2

  3

  2

  25

  Tayside

  11,470

  9,534

  9,519

  10,226

  9,723

  9,060

  Western Isles

  38

  21

  38

  42

  48

  n.a.

  Total

  4106,352

  4102,350

  101,781

  102,744

  101,695

  5104,250

  1 Measured using the GDP deflator.

  2 Includes elderly with mental disability.

  3 Includes mentally handicapped.

  4 On a different basis from later years.

  5 Excludes Western Isles.

  n.a. Not available.

  In the early years of the survey of expenditure, some anomalies in recording were present, which were subsequently corrected. These are noted in the footnotes.

  Local Authorities (Statistics)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total rateable value, needs assessments,

  Total rateable value

  Needs assessments

  Total population at 30 June

  Relevant expenditure

  Rateable value per head

  Relevant expenditure per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £

  £

  1979–80

  1,218

  n/a

  5,167,000

  2,112

  236

  409

  1980–81

  1,255

  n/a

  5,153,300

  2,520

  244

  489

  1981–82

  1,281

  n/a

  5,149,500

  2,799

  249

  544

  1982–83

  1,296

  2,448

  5,166,557

  3,010

  251

  583

  1983–84

  1,321

  2,531

  5,150,405

  3,190

  256

  619

  1984–85

  1,325

  2,658

  5,145,722

  3,340

  258

  649

  1985–86

  3,121

  2,795

  5,136,509

  3,495

  608

  680

  1986–87

  3,190

  2,972

  5,121,013

  3,731

  623

  729

  1987–88

  3,220

  3,205

  5,112,129

  4,054

  630

  793

  1988–89

  3,220

  3,566

  n/a

  4,464

  630

  873

  Notes:

  (1) 1982–83 was the first year in which client group assessments of relative expenditure need were used.

  (2) The change in total rateable value in 1985–86 was caused by a revaluation.

  (3) The population estimates for 1988–89 are not yet available. The population as at 30 June 1987 has therefore been used.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of local authorities which spent, respectively, above or below(a) their assessed spending need and (b) any expenditure guidance issued in each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, estimate.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of authorities

  Above assessed need

  On or below assessed need

  Above guideline

  On or below guideline

  1981–82

  n.a.

  n.a.

  55

  10

  1982–83

  33

  32

  37

  28

  1983–84

  39

  26

  58

  7

  1984–85

  36

  29

  28

  37

  1985–86

  32

  33

  29

  36

  1986–87

  26

  39

  24

  41

  1987–88

  34

  31

  35

  30

  1988–89

  30

  35

  31

  34

  Notes:

  (1) Client group assessments of relative expenditure need were not used prior to 1982–83.

  (2) The latest figures available about authorities actual or planned expenditure have been used.

  Language Assistants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many language assistants went to which
  248
  population, total expenditure and rateable value per head in total, for local authorities in Scotland, in each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89, estimate.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  countries under the auspices of the exchange of language assistants scheme in the last year for which figures are available; and how many come from which countries in each exchange.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The language assistants scheme administered on behalf of my Department by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges does not operate on the basis of exchanges but of individual appointments arranged with reciprocating countries. In 1987–88 the central bureau made the following Scottish appointments:

  Country

  Outgoing assistants

  Incoming assistants

  France

  199

  192

  West Germany

  56

  63

  Spain

  35

  13

  Austria

  29

  9

  Italy

  10

  6

  Switzerland

  3

  7

  Columbia

  3

  2

  Sweden

  1

  1

  USSR

  1

  1

  Canada

  3

  —

  East Germany

  3

  —

  Ivory Coast

  —

  2

  Lebanon

  —

  1

  Morocco

  —

  8

  Senegal

  —

  1

  249

  Country

  Outgoing assistants

  Incoming assistants

  Tunisia

  —

  4

  Costa Rica

  —

  1

  Total

  343

  311

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr.Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department has recently completed a survey of the ethnic origins of staff in the Scottish Office and associated Departments as part of the nationwide survey of civil servants. This information is being kept up to date by asking new entrants to the Department to complete a questionnaire showing their ethnic origin. It is my Department's intention to review the results of the survey with a view to determining what future action should be taken to encourage applications from ethnic minorities for posts in the Scottish Office.

  In compliance with the Equal Opportunities Commission code of practice, facilities are offered to Scottish Office staff to enable them to combine a career with domestic responsibilities and to provide continuity of employment in such circumstances. These facilities include flexible working hours, special leave, reinstatement, re-employment and part-time working. Further opportunity for part-time working should be created as a result of a formal job sharing agreement which has recently been concluded between the Department and the trade union side.

  In addition, there are developmental training courses exclusively for female officers which they can attend at the Civil Service College. The Department maintains a record, to which staff have access, of child care facilities available from local government.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average length of custodial sentence of female prisoners in Scotland in 1986 and 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average length of custodial sentence imposed on female offenders in 1986 was 111 days and the provisional figure for 1987 is 115 days. Females sentenced to life imprisonment or indeterminate detention are not included in the above calculation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners were transferred from(a) Scotland to Northern Ireland and (b) Northern Ireland to Scotland in 1987; and under which section of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 such transfers were carried out.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have been(a) killed and (b) injured in Scotland in 1987 as a result of paramilitary
  250
  activity; and if he will break down the figures specifying whether the paramilitaries were (i) from Western Europe, (ii) from Northern Ireland, (iii) from the Republicof Ireland, (iv) from other parts of the world and (v) of unknown origin.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such deaths or injuries occurred in Scotland during 1987.

  Planned Maintenance Programme (Lothian)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the deterioration in the fabric of Linlithgow primary school, he will make funds available to Lothian region council's planned maintenance programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Substantial resources have been made available to Lothian regional council for both current and capital expenditure on the maintenance of school buildings in the current financial year. It is for the regional council itself to determine its own priorities for allocating these resources, and I understand that the council is now making arrangements for necessary repairs to be carried out at Linlithgow primary school.

  Scottish Office, Edinburgh
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the cost of providing office accommodation for him and other Ministers in his Department and their associated offices in Old St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, and (b) the cost of removal there.

  Mr. Rifkind
  As regards capital expenditure, the final costs are not yet available, and I therefore cannot add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) on 9 March 1988. The approximate cost of the removal is £2,000.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each region and island authority in Scotland the current state of registration of persons for collection of the community charge including(a) number of forms issued, (b) percentage of forms issued, (c) numbers of completed forms returned and (d) percentage of completed forms returned.

  Mr. Lang
  Detailed information on the progress of community charge registration is not available centrally, but it is clear that in many areas very high rates of return of forms have been achieved in the initial canvass.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to give a substantive reply to the question about new towns tabled by the hon. Member for East Kilbride for priority written answer on 28 April.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 May.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each of the Scottish new towns for the period 1974–75 to 1989–90, inclusive, the actual or estimated (a) capital expenditure, gross and net of capital receipts, (b) revenue expenditure and (c) capital debt, expressed in cash and as per capita amounts.
  251
  Mr. Lang
  The information requested concerning the development corporations' capital and current expenditure, capital receipts and loan debt is available in the annual accounts published in each corporation's annual reports for the period 1974–75 to 1986–87. The corporation's annual reports for the year 1987–88 are to be laid before Parliament on 13 July.

  Information on the estimated capital and revenue expenditure of the new towns in aggregate for the years 1987–88 to 1990–91 is contained within the Government's expenditure plans 1988–89 to 1990–91 presented to Parliament in January of this year.

  Information on population within the designated area of each Scottish new town for the years 1974–75 to 1989–90 was included in the answer given to the hon. Member on 25 May.

  Fetlar
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish an inquiry into the circumstances in which unemployed workers have been attracted to the island of Fetlar with offers of jobs renovating old croft houses as part of a £200,000 publicly funded project, only to find on their arrival that no jobs exist; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for the Sheltand Islands council. I understand that the circumstances have already been investigated by the Commissioner for Local Administration and that the Shetland Islands council has his report.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much gross income was derived in each of the last five years by the Forestry Commission from the use of its land and facilities by all forms of rally sport.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is available only for car rallies, and is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Gross income

  £

  1984

  331,000

  1985

  395,000

  1986

  323,000

  1987

  436,000

  1988

  349,000

  Edinburgh Bypass
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to appoint a public inquiry into the alternative routes for the M8 extension to the Edinburgh bypass.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have already made provisional arrangements for a public local inquiry to be held in the autumn for the purpose of considering the objections received to the draft orders published by the Scottish Development Department in March 1988.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to announce any changes in the cash limits for 1988–89 within his responsibility.
  252
  Mr. Rifkind
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for Class XVI, Vote 14: "Prisons, Hospital and Community Health Services, etc, Scotland" will be increased by £86,100,000 from £1,783,653,000 to £1,869,753,000. Most of the increase—£86 million—follows the decision to implement the recommendations of the review bodies in respect of doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine from 1 April 1988. The remaining £100,000 is the amount allocated to health boards following the error of calculation of the retail prices index as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 18 December 1987.

  The cash limit for Class XVI, Vote 15: "Education, Arts, Libraries and Social Work, Scotland" will be increased by £796,000 from £197,720,000 to £198,516,000. This is to allow the disbursement of funds to various voluntary sector bodies and teachers' benevolent funds as a consequence of the earlier announced error in the retail prices index.

  Those changes represent a net charge on the reserve of £86,896,000 and will not therefore increase the planned total of public expenditure.

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the directly employed labour of the historic buildings and monuments directorate of the Scottish Development Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report was submitted at the end of February. Copies are being placed in the Library of both Houses today. I have agreed that copies should be circulated to the appropriate bodies with a view to starting the necessary consultations on the recommendations contained in the report.

  The report recognises that the primary task of the directly employed labour is the conservation of historic masonry and that the work force deploys specialist skills and experience of a high order with an impressive dedication to its task. The report suggests that to give value for money the directorate should continue to develop its existing sophisticated management information system, increase the amount of work contracted out and continually question how the existing service can be improved.

  The main recommendations for obtaining better value for money are:

  the integration of maintenance expenditure and DEL staff costs in a single vote;

  extend contracting out of non-historic work and reduce DEL numbers;

  review the present Estate of monuments against modern criteria of the merits and the liabilities of each site;

  achieve further savings on goods and services purchased;

  change various practices, set up targets and establish

  quantified performance indicators for the DEL force; re-assess the geographic working areas of each DEL

  Depot;

  install an integrated computer network to give Area access to the management information system.

  Implementation of the recommendations could lead to a reduction in annual costs of at least £300,000 per annum after three years. The recommendations will be carefully considered in the light of the consultations about to be undertaken.

  Student Awards
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in relation to applications for student awards for session 1987–88 which were not received by 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the period for acceptance of valid applications for student awards for session 1987–88 should, exceptionally, be extended to 30 June 1988. He has taken this step in view of the fact that a small proportion of students have apparently relied hitherto on informal final reminders from their academic institutions that they should apply before the closing date, which could not be provided on this occasion. We are making arrangements to advise the individuals and institutions concerned immediately.

  Nurses
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the total amount expended on wage for(a) nurses and (b) midwives for each health board in (i) 1987–88 and (ii) the expected expenditure in 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 May 1988]: Complete information on actual exenditure incurred by each board in 1987–88 will not be available until their accounts are submitted later this summer. For 1988–89, we have announced that an additional £92 million is to be made available in Scotland to finance the full additional cost of the review body awards. The precise attribution of this amount among the various categories of staff is currently being assessed. Health boards will be informed of their additional allocations shortly.

  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the extent to which the recent changes in rent rebates and rates rebates are causing hardship to elderly tenants in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The new housing benefit system ensures that a person's resources after paying housing costs including 80 per cent. of rates will not be below their level of income support entitlement.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the pension arrangements for staff of Government Communications Headquarters who formally served in the armed forces;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the calculation of reckonable service for pension purposes of civil servants who previously served in the armed forces during peacetime.

  Mr. Brooke
  There are separate pension schemes for civil servants and for armed forces personnel. Staff employed by the Government communications headquarters are, in general, members of the Principal Civil Service pension scheme. However, an individual formally serving 254
  with the armed forces would normally be a member of the armed forces pension scheme and receive appropriate pension benefits from that scheme.

  The armed forces pension scheme provides for the transfer of accrued pension rights by those who have left the services since 1 April 1975. As the armed forces pension scheme is a member of the public sector transfer club, a civil servant who transferred benefits from the armed forces scheme would receive broadly year for year credit in the Civil Service scheme. The armed forces scheme has no provision for those who left before April 1975 to transfer pension benefits to another scheme. It is not normally possible, therefore, for a civil servant to reckon service with the forces that ended before April 1975 towards a Civil Service pension, unless the individual concerned comes within the scope of the limited concessionary arrangements provided for under the Superannuation Act 1946 and the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948. The main concessions in regulations made under these Acts are that those who entered the Civil Service between 3 September 1939 and 30 June 1950, after serving in the armed forces during that period, could reckon their forces service as if it had been unestablished service in the Civil Service; and to enable national service to reckon if it interrupted service in the Civil Service.

  Hereditament Maps
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his reasons for requiring that hereditament maps should be sent from provincial offices to the public record office at Kew, London.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The valuation office is required to release these maps to the public record office in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958, in order that they may be preserved and form a permanent source of public reference. The public will now be able to examine the maps alongside the relevant field books which are already preserved in the public record office.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Treasury has taken a number of positive measures to encourage equal opportunities All in-house management training courses include an equal opportunities element. External development training courses only for women are advertised in the Department and have been attended by a number of women. Training and personnel managers attend a number of equal opportunity seminars and conferences throughout the year which add to their understanding of equal opportunity issues.

  Job sharing, part-time working and career breaks to assist with individual domestic circumstances are encouraged where practicable.

  Monitoring of ethnic recruitment is also undertaken to determine whether there are any signs of discrimination. There is no evidence to show that there is.

  Payroll Giving Scheme
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers have now joined the payroll giving scheme, under the terms of section 202 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Brooke
  About 2,600 schemes have been set up by employers. In some cases an employer may have more than one scheme for separate payrolls.

  Tax Forms (Reply-paid Envelopes)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Inland Revenue ceased the practice of providing reply-paid envelopes for the return of tax forms; and whether he will estimate the savings to be made to the revenue in a 12-month period.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 29 January 1988 at column 420. The Inland Revenue ceased, from 5 April 1988, to issue reply-paid envelopes for the return of income tax returns and other correspondence except where payment of tax is being requested (where the present first-class reply service will remain unchanged) and in a few other special circumstances.

  The savings to the revenue in the 12 months to April 1989 are estimated to be in excess of £2·0 million.

  Management and Computer Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each management or computer consultant contract in the Inland Revenue as at 1 January 1987, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As at 1 January 1987 the Inland Revenue had the following management and computer consultancy contracts:

  Assignment

  PA Computers and Telecommunications Ltd.

  Project Management and Control Operational Research

  Computer Sciences Company Ltd.

  Application Software

  ICL

  Systems Software and Technical Support

  Peat Marwick McClintock

  Financial Systems Taxes Clerical Work Measurement

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Personnel Planning

  AC Consultancy Services

  Operational Research

  National Coal Board1

  Operational Research

  1 Now British Coal Corporation.

  Non-residents' Personal Reliefs
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of the measures proposed in clause 30 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill relating to non-residents' personal reliefs and the number of tax units who would benefit from the measure were it to be introduced in 1988–89.
  256
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: Detailed statistics are not available to make a firm estimate of the cost of the measures in clause 30 of the Finance Bill. However, including the cost of the change to independent taxation for those taxpayers affected, it is thought that the additional relief is unlikely to exceed £15 million to £20 million in a full year. The overall cost of the change is included in the cost of independent taxation given in paragraph 36 of annex 4 to chapter 4 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1988–89.

  Precise figures are not available, but it is known that at least 65,000 non-resident taxpayers (counting husband and wife as one) currently benefit from personal reliefs under the provisions of section 278 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of the Minister for the Civil Service is an equal opportunity employer. Its personnel policies are designed to ensure that all staff, no matter what their age, colour, disability, ethnic or national origin, marital status, race or sex have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement solely on the basis of their ability, qualifications and suitability for the work.

  Some examples of the Department's equal opportunity initiatives are: the introduction of a career break scheme; job sharing and part-time working; promotion board and recruitment monitoring.

THE ARTS

  Arts Council (Grants)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what grants were given by the Arts Council in 1985–86 and 1987–88 to(a) the British Theatre Association, (b) the Puppet Centre Trust, (c) the Book Trust, (d) the Poetry Society, (e) the Minority Arts Advisory Service, (f) Shape and (g) the National Association of Arts centres; and what other similar arts support and service organisations have received such grants in those years.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:

  1985–86

  1987–88

  (£)

  (£)

  British Theatre Association

  16,000

  —

  Puppet Centre Trust

  6,000

  —

  Book Trust

  60,000

  60,000

  Poetry Society

  95,000

  112,000

  Minority Arts Advisory Service

  17,300

  20,500

  Shape

  23,980

  160,000

  National Association of Arts Centres

  9,900

  3,000

  Dance Umbrella

  31,000

  33,250

  1 Devolved to Greater London Arts Association.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of Arts and Libraries is an equal opportunity employer. Its personnel policies are designed to ensure that all staff, no matter what their age, colour, disability, ethnic or national origin, marital status, race or sex, have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement soley on the basis of their ability, qualifications and suitability for the work.

  Some examples of the Department's equal opportunity initiatives are: the introduction of a career break scheme; job sharing and part-time working; promotion board and recruitment monitoring.

  Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many representations he has received during the past 12 months by members of the public, asking to pay to borrow more books than the rules of the basic library service allow, as proposed in paragraph 5.11 of the public libraries Green Paper.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no direct representations about this from members of the public in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the library authorities who presently do not charge commercial companies for their use of the authority's(a) reference, (b) information and (c) lending services.

  Mr. Luce
  This is a matter for local authorities' discretion. No central record of this information is kept.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the cost of(a) producing and (b) printing the public libraries Green Paper.

  Mr. Luce
  The cost to my office of producing the Green Paper was about £9,000.

  The costs of printing, publishing and distributing it are borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which recovers its costs from sales revenue.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts on what occasions in the last 10 years a Minister for the Arts has used his statutory powers to ensure that a library authority provided a free and comprehensive basic service under the 1964 Act.

  Mr. Luce
  No Minister responsible for the public library service in England has used his statutory powers under the 1964 Act to direct an authority.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish the detailed figures which led him to set an initial target of £50 million gross income a year for charged services in his Green Paper on public libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  The £50 million is a cautious assessment of the gross income which library authorities in England could earn if they used the full range of means proposed in the Green Paper. The figure is based on projections using the amount which the higher earning authorities now raise.
  258
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish tables which show the rate at which each public library authority in England and Wales charges for(a) notifying library users that reserved books are available for borrowing and (b) failure to return borrowed books on time.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in "Public Library Statistics", copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what criteria he used in coming to the conclusion that public libraries could be more cost-effective.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not reached any firm conclusions that public libraries could be more cost-effective. However, all library authorities should test regularly that their services are cost-effective and delivering value for money. My Green Paper, "Financing our public library service: four subjects for debate," seeks to explore ways in which public library services may be made more cost-effective.

  In my answer to an earlier question from the hon. Member today, I referred to a costing model published by my office. In addition, I am currently funding, through the British Library, the production of a manual of performance indicators for public libraries. Both these initiatives will, I hope, provide authorities with useful management tools.

  Office of Arts and Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the staff of the Office of Arts and Libraries contains a qualified economist or accountant employed in that capacity.

  Mr. Luce
  While the staff of the Office of Arts and Libraries includes no qualified accountant or economist employed in that capacity, the Department is able to draw on such professional services when it requires them from within or outside the Civil Service.

  Library Authorities (Costs)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on the extent to which Library authorities should fully cost(a) staff time, (b) apportioned rent of premises, (c) apportioned rent of equipment, (d) apportioned rent of telephone, (e) postage, and (f) interest on capital.

  Mr. Luce
  As far as public library costs are concerned, I believe that library authorities will wish to calculate as accurately as possible the itemised costs of their services in the interests of good management and to test that they are achieving good value for money. "A Costing System for Public Libraries," published by the Office of Arts and Libraries in July 1987, provides a flexible model designed to assist them in this.

  Museums
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has about museums disposing of items not required for display or retention.

  Mr. Luce
  Most national museums and galleries have carefully circumscribed powers to dispose of items from their collections either by sale, exchange or gift. I believe
  259
  that this facilitates good collections management and it is my intention to grant such powers to the National gallery, Tate gallery and National Portrait gallery as part of their change to corporate status.

  As I announced in the House on 20 May, I shall be initiating a wider consultation exercise on this question before reaching any final decisions. I shall be considering in the light of the response whether it would be appropriate for different collections to be treated differently in this respect.

  Institution

  Date charges introduced

  Present charges

  Adult

  Concession

  £

  £

  British Museum (Natural History)

  Natural History Museum1

  April 1987

  2·00

  1·00

  Geological Museum1

  April 1987

  1·00

  1·00

  Zoological Museum2

  April 1987

  1·00

  1·00

  Imperial War Museum

  Lambeth Road

  December 1984

  Voluntary Donation

  HMS Belfast3

  December 1971

  3·00

  1·50

  Cabinet War Rooms

  April 1984

  2·80

  1·50

  Duxford Airfield4

  January 1976

  3·50

  1·80

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Merseyside Maritime Museum

  April 1986

  1·00

  0·50

  National Maritime Museum

  April 1984

  2·20

  1·20

  Science Museum

  National Railway Museum

  April 1987

  1·50

  0·75

  Wroughton Airfield5

  1980

  2·00

  —

  Concorde6

  1980

  3·00

  1·50

  Tate Gallery

  Barbara Hepworth Gallery7

  1976

  0·50

  0·25

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  South Kensington

  November 1985

  Voluntary Donation

  Apsley House

  1949

  2·80

  1·00

  Ham House

  1952

  1·80

  0·90

  Osterley Park House

  1953

  1·80

  0·90

  Theatre Museum

  April 1987

  2·25

  1·25

  1 Free entry 4.30–6.00 pm weekdays.

  2 Free entry 4.30–5.30 pm weekdays.

  3 Taken over by Imperial War Museum March 1978.

  4 £2·50 and £1·25 during winter.

  5 Seasonal opening. Charge per car.

  6 Charge is for entry to Fleet Air Arm Museum.

  7 Taken over by Tate in 1980.

  The other information the hon. Member asks for can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report a table, covering each of the votes on Class XIII and each of the years 1979–80 to 1990–91, which analyse income other than supply grant by its source including admission charges, other charges, trading profit, miscellaneous sales revenue, support from non-Government sources, public donations and other miscellaneous income.
  260
  It is for the trustees of each institution, advised by their director, to determine the extent to which their statutory powers are used. Information about items disposed of under these powers is not held centrally.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report, for each of the national museums covered by Class XIII a list of operational facilities, the dates at which any admission charges were introduced and the structure of such tariffs and any changes over the period 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: The national museums and galleries sites at which the trustees charge for admission or seek a voluntary donation are as follows:

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: It is the policy of this Government to maintain their support for museums and galleries, and the arts generally, and to do so in a way which encourages and assists arts organisations to become more self-reliant in their development and growth. Some of the national museums and galleries have been particularly successful in this; all are developing their non-Exchequer sources of funding.

  The non-Exchequer receipts of the national museums and galleries that I sponsor, for the years since 1979–80, including the estimate for the current year, are as follows:

  261

  £ 000

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 (estimate)

  British Museum

  610

  814

  939

  960

  1,100

  1,327

  1,520

  1,250

  1,853

  4,592

  British Museum (Natural History)

  609

  767

  844

  942

  931

  1,174

  1,392

  1,657

  3,843

  4,441

  Imperial War Museum

  458

  495

  531

  551

  660

  850

  779

  875

  1,259

  2,825

  National Gallery

  20

  25

  27

  99

  112

  106

  48

  114

  144

  286

  National Maritime Museum

  180

  210

  217

  227

  255

  624

  720

  672

  879

  1,089

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  716

  National Portrait Gallery

  200

  156

  200

  210

  220

  245

  387

  426

  726

  640

  Science Museum

  50

  40

  39

  140

  280

  250

  240

  350

  1,950

  2,200

  Tate Gallery

  25

  165

  122

  164

  260

  260

  161

  240

  342

  932

  Victoria & Albert Museum

  119

  370

  376

  571

  572

  690

  990

  1,019

  625

  2,842

  Wallace Collection

  12

  17

  15

  43

  30

  35

  40

  50

  57

  66

  2,283

  3,059

  3,310

  3,907

  4,420

  5,561

  6,277

  6,653

  11,678

  20,629

  Notes:

  1. Source: Supply Estimates 1981–82 to 1988–89.

  2. National Maritime museum figure for 1987–88 has been adjusted to take account of later information.

  3. National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside was established in 1986. Receipts figures were not shown in Supply Estimates for 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  An analysis of receipts on the basis and in the detail requested by the hon. Member is not available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  ADAS (Charges)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the remit of his Ministry's review into the Agricultural Development Advisory Service charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend has asked senior officials concerned in this Department to complete before summer a review of the first year's experience of ADAS charging, including demand for all categories of ADAS services, the costs of providing such services in relation to the results of the first year of charging and the lessons to be drawn from this experience. Staff and trade union representatives have been informed of the review and will be consulted on the implementation of any follow-up measures of concern to them.

  Corn (Co-responsibility Levy)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the co-responsibility levy per tonne of corn in each European Community country and the percentage this represents of the price per tonne.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The co-responsibility levy for all cereals in all member states is 5.38 ecu per tonne. This is 3 per cent. of the intervention price for common wheat. The relationship between the levy and the intervention price does not change when they are expressed in national currencies because both are converted using the green rate applicable to cereals in each member state.

  The levy is currently the following rate per tonne in each member state:
  262

  Rate

  Currency

  United Kingdom

  3·53

  £

  Germany

  12·9008

  DM

  France

  40·22

  FF

  Netherlands

  14·462

  DG

  Belgium and Luxembourg

  258·59

  BF

  Ireland

  4·473

  IRL

  Denmark

  47·102

  DK

  Italy

  8591·86

  L

  Greece

  712·86

  DRA

  Spain

  829·67

  PTA

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This Department has taken the following positive action:

  Organised residential and non-residential development training courses solely for women managers.

  Advertised opportunities for job-share and part-time work.

  Notified staff of the opportunity for reinstatement and how to "keep in touch."

  Established a register of staff who are interested in working reduced hours.

  Contributed to the OMCS training review which will identify the scope for arranging further developmental or skills training for women. It will also identify areas where such training could be arranged for black and Asian staff.

  Advertised staff vacancies in inner city job centres.

  Agricultural Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when was the last time his Ministry produced a publication compiling agricultural statistics over a period of 100 years; and when he plans to publish the next compilation.
  263
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  "A Century of Agricultural Statistics 1866–1966" was published in 1968. There are no plans to publish a further edition.

  Nitrates
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many local meetings his Ministry has held with farmers to advise them about reducing nitrate applications in the areas where the level of nitrate exceeds the 50mg litre limit.

  Mr. Gummer
  Eight local meetings have been held during 1988 specifically to discuss the nitrate pollution issue and what farmers can do to help reduce nitrate leaching to water resources. These meetings form part of a publicity campaign run jointly by the Ministry and seven other interested organisations. They are not confined to particular areas but are organised wherever sufficient farmers seek information on the subject. In addition, the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service answers questions on the nitrate issue at many other meetings of farmers.

  Food, Drink and Marketing Policy
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current management objectives of his Department's food, drink and marketing policy division.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  These are set out in the relevant programmes of the Ministry's MINIM 1987 publication, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Salmon
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has reactivated his study of the economic value of British salmon fisheries.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following the termination of the contract for this study with Exeter university, the work is now being undertaken at Portsmouth polytechnic and is expected to last two years.

  Milk
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many milk producers in Great Britain were contracted into the Community non-marketing premium schemes during the base year for the calculation of milk quotas.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: Precise figures are not available. Initial investigation indicates that about 4,500 dairy producers in Great Britain were contracted into the non-marketing of milk premium scheme during 1983. Some of these would have been able to resume milk production in time to qualify for consideration under the milk quota exceptional hardship or development award provisions.

  Cereals
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the entitlement of British farmers to European small cereal producers' aid in respect of the harvests of 1987 and 1988, respectively; and what action he is taking to encourage the taking up of this entitlement.
  264
  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: Farmers have until 31 July 1988 to submit claims for small cereals producer aid in respect of the 1987 harvest.

  Cereal producers with not more than 100 hectares of crops and grass (excluding rough grazing) are eligible for the aid, provided that they can show that cereals co-responsibility levy has been deducted on their grain sales during the 1987–88 marketing year.

  The amount payable will be £3·53 per tonne on a minimum of 3 tonnes and a maximum of 25 tonnes of grain (£88·25). However, this amount per tonne will be reduced if the total amount claimed by all producers is more than 5·35 million ecu (£3·51 million), which is the amount allocated to the United Kingdom for payment of this aid.

  All producers who claimed the aid in 1987, have been sent a claim form. Others who are eligible should apply to their local MAFF divisional office for a form. I am anxious to ensure that there is the widest possible uptake of this aid.

  It has been agreed that small cereal producers will continue to receive aid in respect of the 1988 harvest, but the details are still under discussion.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown for each of the last five years of Government and other funding, respectively, of research into tuberculosis in badgers, including work on developing a live test and a vaccine for badgers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: Funds provided by the Government for research into bovine tuberculosis in badgers during the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Diagnostic test in live badgers

  Vaccine

  Other relevant work (estimated)

  1983–84

  12,361

  78,415

  91,000

  1984–85

  4,585

  87,455

  94,000

  1985–86

  24,598

  166,734

  95,000

  1986–87

  58,543

  173,475

  100,000

  1987–88

  313,738

  43,686

  102,000

  Information on funding from other sources is not available.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  AIDS
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the probability of the incidence of AIDS in the United Kingdom at the present time for each adult male and female over 18 years.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to assess the probability of the incidence of AIDS in the United Kingdom at the present time for each adult male and female over 18 years. The latest published figures, which give the current prevalence of HIV infection at the end of March, show that 7,380 men and 797 women have been reported to the national surveillance centres as being HIV antibody positive. With regard to cases of AIDS, to the end of April 1,412 males and 27 females had been reported. The latest
  265
  available figures for the population of the United Kingdom aged 18 and over are 20,747,900 males and 22,573,000 females. This represents rates of infection with HIV of 361 per million for males and 35 per million for females and rates of people with AIDS of 68 per million for males and 1·6 per million for females. It is necessary to interpret these figures carefully: some of the cases of AIDS will be included in the HIV figures and these HIV statistics include only those infected people who have presented for testing.

  ECT Statistics national and regional summary

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Regional Health Authority

  Treatments1

  Average Number of Treatments per course

  Treatments1

  Average Number of Treatments per course

  Treatments1

  Average Number of Treatments per course

  Northern

  11,127

  6·44

  12,242

  6·71

  10,346

  6·98

  Yorkshire

  10,803

  4·62

  12,503

  4·90

  12,947

  5·57

  Trent

  14,084

  6·40

  14,423

  6·61

  12,609

  6·37

  East Anglian

  6,339

  6·58

  7,689

  5·87

  6,879

  6·53

  North West Thames

  6,189

  5·37

  6,596

  5·44

  7,083

  5·50

  North East Thames

  7,156

  6·67

  7,733

  7·07

  6,867

  6·45

  South East Thames

  7,620

  5·91

  9,163

  6·11

  8,647

  7·06

  South West Thames

  7,255

  6·31

  8,380

  6·82

  6,799

  6·69

  Wessex

  11,611

  6·89

  13,031

  7·19

  12,905

  6·96

  Oxford

  2,390

  5·60

  3,630

  6·55

  3,291

  5·70

  South Western

  6,434

  6·09

  7,624

  6·41

  6,706

  6·07

  West Midlands

  14,547

  6·84

  15,128

  6·95

  13,952

  7·23

  Mersey

  4,852

  5·86

  5,404

  6·39

  5,572

  6·20

  North Western

  13,862

  5·43

  13,653

  5·67

  14,412

  6·74

  England

  124,269

  6·03

  137,199

  6·26

  129,015

  6·47

  Special Health Authority

  826

  8·18

  565

  4·59

  524

  4·40

  England (including Special Health Authorities)

  125,095

  6·04

  137,764

  6·25

  129,539

  6·46

  Special Hospitals

  262

  6·14

  176

  4·86

  218

  5·59

  Total

  125,357

  6·04

  137,940

  6·25

  129,757

  6·46

  1 The number of treatments is not the same as the number of patients treated, as some patients may undergo more than one course of treatment during the year.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what studies his Department has made of the effects of electro-convulsive therapy.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is not generally the role of the Department to commission basic clinical research. This type of research falls within the remit of other agencies such as the Medical Research Council and individual clinical researchers.

  NHS Ancillary Staff
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for

  Ancillary staff-—estimated incremental distributions by payscale 31 March 1987

  Whole time equivalents1 Points on incremental scales

  Payscale

  Total

  1st

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  Non-supervisors and chargehands

  Scale A

  72,991

  37,445

  14,242

  21,302

  0

  0

  Scale B

  24,437

  1,949

  19,577

  1,725

  1,183

  0

  Scale C

  10,487

  889

  7,720

  117

  1,761

  0

  Scale D

  799

  53

  703

  26

  18

  0

  Supervisors

  Scale I

  4,010

  360

  3,092

  189

  349

  0

  Scale II

  2,333

  95

  1,775

  398

  65

  0

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, by region, for each of the last three years for which figures are available(a) the number of male patients treated with electro-convulsive therapy and (b) the number of female patients treated with electro-convulsive therapy; and, in each case, what is the average number of treatments per patient.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Member the information she seeks in the form requested as no record is kept centrally of the number or sex of patients undergoing electro-convulsive therapy. The table shows the data held centrally.

  the number of ancillary staff employed in the National Health Service by scale and point or standard payroll system code under the terms and conditions of the ancillary staffs Whitley Council agreement.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest available information to this level of detail relates to staff in post at 31 March 1987. At this date, there were an estimated 119,000 (whole-time equivalent) ancillary staff employed by the NHS in England. Within this total, the estimated numbers by pay scale and incremental point were as shown in the table.
  267

  Whole time equivalents 1 Points on incremental scales

  Payscale

  Total

  1st

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  Scale III

  1,833

  94

  1,113

  498

  127

  0

  Scale IV

  1,049

  39

  539

  362

  62

  47

  Orthopaedic appliance makers and fitters

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Trainee grades

  16

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Orthopaedic appliance Maker II

  57

  57

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Orthopaedic appliance Maker I

  70

  70

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Orthopaedic appliance Fitters

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trainee cooks

  30

  2

  16

  7

  4

  1

  Upholsterers

  136

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Others grades 2

  655

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total directly employed staff

  118,910

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Source: DHSS (SR7) Quarterly count of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  2 Includes juvenile grades, other staff paid on ad-hoc payscales, and staff of authorities not on computerised payrolls.

  Thomas Connolly Moore
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the escape from a secure mental hospital of Thomas Connolly Moore.

  Mrs. Currie
  Mr. Moore absconded from Monyhull hospital, which is not a secure hospital, in the afternoon of 16 May and was found and returned on the morning of 17 May. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the level of supervision is appropriate for Mr. Moore.

  Donald Hume
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps have been taken to ensure that Donald Hume is kept under secure surveillance at St. Bernard's hospital, Ealing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that Donald Hume is currently receiving treatment in the regional secure unit at St. Bernard's hospital, Ealing. As the responsibility for the regional secure unit rests with the North West Thames regional health authority, my hon. Friend may wish to approach the chairman for further information.

  Computer Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has any plans to privatise computer services currently provided by his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  Government policy is to promote value for money in the management and delivery of public services. All Departments have been encouraged to consider areas of work, including computer services, which might be carried out more cheaply or more effectively under contract.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of child abuse cases on the records of each of the social service departments in the London boroughs on 30 April.
  268
  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information is not available. However, we announced on 9 July 1987 that arrangements would be made for the annual collection of national statistics on child abuse. The Department is carrying out a survey for the year ending 31 March 1988, which will be followed by the introduction of an annual statistical return. It is planned to publish some provisional results from the survey later this year which will include the number of children and young persons on the child abuse register at 31 March 1988 in each local authority in England.

  New-born Babies (Eye Defects)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made in improving the surveillance of new-born babies in respect of possible eye defects; when the expected recommendations from the professional bodies are likely to be made; and when appropriate action can be expected.

  Mrs. Currie
  The third report from the maternity services advisory committee recommended that all babies should be fully examined within 24 hours of birth by a doctor experienced in the care of the newborn. The content of the examination is a matter for the clinician.

  I understand the joint working party on child health surveillance convened by the British Paediatric Association will be presenting its report later this year.

  We shall consider its report carefully.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the numbers of hotels and guest homes which have been converted to use as residential homes for the elderly.

  Mrs. Currie
  No information is collected centrally on the origin of premises now used as residential care homes. However, this is one of the subjects being examined in a survey of residential and nursing homes which we have commissioned from the personal social services research
  269
  unit, university of Kent, and the centre for health economics, university of York, the report of which will be published later this year.

  Ulcerative Colitis
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to add irritable bowel diseases to the list of exemptions from prescription charges to cover the case of sufferers from ulcerative colitis.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if the review of the National Health Service currently being undertaken is considering the auction of hospital beds as a method of resolving priorities and raising funds.

  Mr. Moore
  No.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to amend the regulation under which 19-year-old school leavers can qualify for supplementary benefit payments when they are estranged from their parents.

  Mr. Portillo
  Supplementary benefit was replaced by income support from 11 April 1988. All 19-year-old school-leavers can qualify for income support provided they meet the normal conditions of entitlement such as availability for work and the income and capital limits. There are no plans to change this regulation.

  Community Care
  Mr., Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of his response to the proposals of the Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers, he will set out his Department's plans for the training of staff involved with community care services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The training requirements of staff working in community care are provided by a variety of bodies including local authority social services departments, health authorities, the National Health Service Training Authority and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Our recent £10 million training support programme initiative for staff working with the elderly has provided a significant training boost for certain groups of staff working in the area of community care, and we are currently seeking powers, through the Health and Medicines Bill, to allow for possible expansion of the programme to take in additional staff groups. We shall consider whether further training initiatives are required when we have brought forward our proposals on community care in the light of Sir Roy Griffiths's report.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for the joint planning of community care services between health authorities and(a) local authority social service departments and (b) the voluntary organisations.
  270
  Mr. Newton
  The present systems for joint planning offer health authorities, local authorities, the voluntary sector and family practitioner committees valuable opportunities to develop and co-ordinate community care services. We will consider whether any changes are necessary as part of our current examination of funding mechanisms for community care, following Sir Roy Griffiths' recent report.

  Attendance Allowance Unit (Blackpool)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why a courier service is used between the Blackpool attendance allowance unit and his Department's Leeds offices; whether this leads to delays in correspondence; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Portillo
  An internal courier service is used to link up all DHSS offices, including Blackpool and Leeds. This does not lead to delays in correspondence and, in fact, the reliability of next day delivery is generally at least as good as first-class post. It provides the Department with a method of transferring internal correspondence cost-effectively and efficiently between all offices.

  Nurses (Mobility)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the effect that the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 will have upon the mobility of nurses between European Community countries, and with regard to the recognition of nursing qualifications in European Community countries.

  Mr. Newton
  The European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 amends the European Communities Act 1972 so as to give legal effect in the United Kingdom to certain aspects of the Single European Act which was signed by the member states in February of 1986. The Single European Act amended the voting procedure on certain articles of the EEC treaty and introduced closer co-operation with the European Parliament. It did not affect the fundamental right of the freedom of movement for persons which is enshrined in the original EEC treaty. Directives to facilitate that right in relation to nurses responsible for general care were adopted in 1977. They provide for the co-ordination of nurse training and mutual recognition of qualifications throughout the Community. Specialist nursing qualifications which were not covered by the 1977 directives may be covered by the current proposal to provide for a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas. The added impetus given by the Single European Act to complete the internal market by 1992 and the introduction of procedural and institutional reform may well enable this proposal to be adopted in the near future.

  Fish (National Health Service)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much fish from the Faroe Islands was purchased by the National Health Service for each of the last two years.

  Mrs. Currie
  No national NHS contract is held for the purchase of fish from the Faroe Islands and information is not held centrally on the suppliers of fish to individual regional or district health authorities.

  Clinical Grading Structure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 17 May 1988,Official Report, column 410, what provision he is making to ensure that health authorities are able to fill and fund posts which are currently vacant when implementing the clinical grading structure.

  Mr. Newton
  As in earlier years, the review body estimate of the cost of its recommendations has been based on actual pay bills for the previous year. It is for health authorities to determine their nursing establishment, having regard to the total resources available.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cervical smear tests had not been processed in the Leicestershire health district on 23rd May.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may care to contact the chairman of Leicestershire health authority.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average delay in processing cervical smear tests in the Leicestershire health district on(a) 1 January 1987, (b) 1 October 1987, (c) 1 January 1988 and (d) 1 April 1988.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information has been collected centrally only since October 1987. The figures are as follows:

  Date

  Average processing time

  1 October 1987

  Four weeks

  1 January 1988

  Seven weeks

  1 April 1988

  Eight weeks

  I understand that the current position as on 23 May is that the average processing time is now four weeks. This meets the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, how many women had cervical cancer smear tests in Leicestershire health district in each of the months January to December 1987, and for each month in 1988.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The latest centrally held figures are for the number of smear tests carried out in the calendar year 1986. This figure is 59,332 and includes some women who had more than one test.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for each district health authority with backlogs in cervical cancer smear testing of(a) over one month, (b) between one and two months and (c) two months and over.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: There are 190 district health authorities in England. Those reporting an average processing time for cervical smear tests of more than one month as at 1 May are listed. The average processing time is shown in weeks.

  (a) Over one month but less than two (between 4·5 and 7·5 weeks)

  Number

  Durham

  6

  Gateshead

  7

  272

  Number

  East Cumbria

  6

  Leeds Western

  7

  Leicestershire

  7

  North Lincolnshire

  5

  South Lincolnshre (part)

  5

  Bassetlaw

  5

  Rotherham

  4·5

  Great Yarmouth

  5·5

  Norwich

  4·5

  Peterborough

  6·5

  North Hertfordshire

  6

  Barnet

  6

  Southend

  7

  West Essex

  7

  Mid Essex

  5·5

  Hastings

  6

  Eastbourne

  6

  Tunbridge Wells

  5

  Greenwich

  5·5

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  6

  North West Surrey

  7

  Wycombe

  7

  Cheltenham

  5

  Cornwall (Mid and West)

  5

  Gloucester

  6

  Southmead

  6

  Somerset

  6

  Mid Staffordshire

  7

  North Staffordshire

  5

  South Warwickshire

  4·5

  Dudley

  5·5

  Walsall

  5

  Liverpool (part)

  7

  St. Helens and Knowsley (part)

  6

  Wirral

  5

  (b) Two months and over (eight weeks or more)

  Number

  North West Durham

  10

  Scunthorpe

  8

  Bradford

  8

  Airedale

  8

  South Derbyshire

  9

  Nottingham

  9

  Doncaster

  8

  South Bedfordshire

  8

  Merton and Sutton

  9

  Chichester

  8

  Croydon

  9

  Plymouth/Cornwall (East)

  8

  Warrington

  8

  Halton

  8

  Central Manchester

  11

  Benefits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the annual cost of raising the capital disregard for social security benefits to £5,000 with a level taper to £10,000.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the start of the tariff income for social security benefits from £5,000 with an upper limit of £10,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The additional cost over and above that of the changes announced on 27 April 1988 would be £85 million.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the annual cost of raising the capital disregard for social security benefits to £10,000 for married couples.
  273
  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The additional cost over and above that of the changes announced on 27 April 1988 would be £25 million.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the disregard threshold for social security benefits from £6,000 to £7,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The annual cost would have been £24 million.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the disregard threshold for income support from £6,000 to £10,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The annual cost would have been £10 million.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the start of the tariff income for social security benefits to £4,000 with an upper limit of £10,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The additional cost over and above that of the changes announced on 27 April 1988 would be £55 million.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the disregard threshold for social security benefits from £6,000 to £8,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The annual cost would have been £39 million.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost to the Treasury of raising the capital disregard for social security purposes from the £6,000 proposed to £9,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The annual cost would have been £52·5 million.

  NHS Properties
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by region and special health authority(a) those properties which are awaiting disposal and (b) those planned for replacement; and if he will give the total estimated values of those properties for each region and the nation as a whole.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 11 May 1988]: The information that the hon. Member seeks has now been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken on the recommendation of the UKWMO working party on UKWMO service to wartime headquarters concerning links to county standby emergency centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The provision of such links is to be reviewed in the light of the current programme to extend the emergency communications network.

  Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of days spent on remand by those remanded in custody for terrorist-type offences in the second half of 1987, with regard to cases now completed in England and Wales; and what was the number of bail applications refused, respectively.

  Mr. Hurd
  The cases of four people who were remanded in custody for terrorist-related offences in the second half of 1987 have now been completed. The average number of days spent on remand was 86. In each case one bail application was refused.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in Great Britain were charged with terrorist-type offences relating to Northern Ireland in 1987; how many of those charged were released on bail; and what was the average period between remand and trial fór prisoners refused bail, relating to such charges in Britain in 1987.

  Mr. Hurd
  During 1987 10 people in Great Britain were charged with terrorist-type offences in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The charges against two of these people were later withdrawn, although one of the two was subsequently excluded from Great Britain under section 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. Six people are awaiting trial, one of whom has been released on bail. In the two completed cases the two people concerned were remanded into custody and were refused bail. The period between remand and trial in these two cases was 22 days and 294 days respectively.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences with which people initially detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 in Great Britain in 1987 were charged and give the outcome in each case as to acquittals, convictions and sentences imposed.

  Mr. Hurd
  Details of charges following detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 in Great Britain in 1987, and the outcome, where known, are given in the following table:

  Charges brought following detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 in Great Britain in 1987

  Charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984

  Number charged

  Section

  Outcome

  1

  Section 9

  2 years imprisonment

  1

  Section 10

  Charges withdrawn

  7

  Schedule 3

  1–30 days imprisonment

  2–60 days imprisonment

  4 fined: 1x£30, 1x£75, 1x£92, 1x£150

  275

  Charged under other legislation

  Number charged

  Legislation

  Outcome

  1

  Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1 (conspiracy to possess firearms)

  4 years (and 2 years on a further charge, to run concurrently)

  1

  Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1 (conspiracy to possess firearms)

  Charges withdrawn (excluded under PTA)

  2

  Explosive Substances Act 1883 Section 1 (conspiracy to cause explosions)

  Awaiting trial

  5

  Explosive Substances Act 1883 Section 3 (possession of explosives)

  Awaiting trial

  4

  Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1 (conspiracy to kidnap)

  Prosecution gave no evidence. All cases dismissed. However one person was deported and one person was removed under the Immigration Act 1971.

  3

  Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1 (conspiracy to commit murder)

  Awaiting trial

  2

  Offences against the Person Act 1861 Section 1 (murder)

  Awaiting trial

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were remanded in custody before trial for terrorist-type offences in 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  Nineteen such persons were remanded into custody during 1987.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in British prisons who give as their domicile Northern Ireland have been returned to Northern Ireland to serve the whole or part of their sentences in 1986 and 1987; and how many of these prisoners were serving sentences for terrorist-type offences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1986 two inmates were transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland at their own request to serve the remainder of their sentences, and in 1987 three such transfers were made. Four of these inmates gave Northern Ireland as their domicile, and one was granted a transfer as an exception to the normal criteria in view of his strong family ties with Northern Ireland. None had been convicted of terrorist-type offences. Transfers of inmates from Scotland to Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of custodial sentence of female prisoners in England and Wales in 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1986 the average length of sentences of immediate custody imposed by the courts on female offenders was 10·2 months. Provisional estimates indicate that in 1987 the average increased to 12·3 months.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average period of custodial remand for female custodial remand prisoners in England and Wales for the years 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the average time spent on remand in prison department establishments is 276
  published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales", table 2(a) of the latest issue, for 1986, Cm.210, copies of which are in the Library. Information for 1987 is not yet available.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners giving as their domicile either(a) the Republic of Ireland of (b) Northern Ireland have been permitted to return home to the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland on parole for humanitarian reasons in 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not available.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were transferred from(a) England and Wales to Northern Ireland and (b) Northern Ireland to England and Wales in 1987; and under which section of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 such transfers were carried out.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Three inmates were transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland under section 26 of the 1961 Act, and two under section 27. Three inmates were transferred from Northern Ireland to England and Wales under section 29 of the Act.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many appeals to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are pending at the latest date;

  (2) how many cases referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are still pending at the latest date.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of April about 79,000 applications were awaiting resolution by the board, including about 5,900 awaiting a hearing.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the highest award made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to date.

  Mr. John Patten
  £481,400.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board since its inception.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of applications resolved between 1 August 1964 and 30 April 1988 was 379,820.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it takes the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to reply to legal representations on behalf of clients.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board's practice is to reply to legal representations as soon as possible. Information about the average time taken is not kept centrally by the board.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average waiting time for appeals to be heard by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board following an appeal against a decision by a single member.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not keep a central record of waiting times. The length of time between refusal of a board member's determination and a hearing varies between six and 18 months.

  Mr. R. J. Driscoll
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the case of Mr. R. J. Driscoll, of Liverpool, arising from his claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in December 1985, will be decided.

  Mr. John Patten
  As the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is responsible for the consideration and determination of individual applications for compensation, I have asked the board to write to the hon. Member.

  West Yorkshire Police (Report)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the Byford report on the West Yorkshire police in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. As the then Home Secretary said in his statement to the House on 19 January 1982 at column 163 the report was from an inspector of constabulary to the Home Secretary and as such enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, the normal confidentiality which such reports have always had. A detailed summary of the report was place in the Library at the time.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the City of London police as to why Mr. Chris Jameson was not interviewed in the course of the recent inquiry into conflicts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the City of London police listing the persons interviewed in their inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses in the recent appeal hearing of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the City of London police as to the cost of the recent inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal hearing of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the City of London police as to how many people were interviewed during their recent inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses during the appeal hearing of the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question of 19 May at column 541. The conduct of the investigation, including decisions on which persons to interview, is an operational matter and is the responsibility of the Commissioner of the Police for the City of London. I understand that no additional costs were incurred in the investigation.

  Police (Civilian Staff)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentage civilianisation in each of the police authorities in England as a percentage of the total force in each area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:—278

  Police authority force

  Position at 31 March 1988 Civilians1 as a percentage of force establishment

  Avon and Somerset

  21·1

  Bedfordshire

  23·7

  Cambridgeshire

  26·6

  Cheshire

  20·9

  Cleveland

  18·2

  Cumbria

  22·0

  Derbyshire

  30·9

  Devon and Cornwall

  25·4

  Dorset

  30·4

  Durham

  23·6

  Essex

  24·9

  Gloucestershire

  18·6

  Greater Manchester

  20·0

  Hampshire

  21·5

  Hertfordshire

  22·7

  Humberside

  24·0

  Kent

  23·7

  Lancashire

  19·9

  Leicestershire

  23·7

  Lincolnshire

  21·9

  Merseyside

  17·8

  Norfolk

  21·7

  Northamptonshire

  23·8

  Northumbria

  26·9

  North Yorkshire

  19·0

  Nottinghamshire

  20·2

  South Yorkshire

  21·1

  Staffordshire

  22·6

  Suffolk

  26·1

  Surrey

  21·5

  Sussex

  23·0

  Thames Valley

  29·1

  Warwickshire

  26·8

  West Mercia

  28·9

  West Midlands

  24·3

  West Yorkshire

  20·3

  Wiltshire

  29·1

  City of London

  27·4

  Metropolitan

  35·3

  1 The percentages in this column are based on the figures supplied by police forces of civilians whose work contributes significantly to the performance of the functions of the force. Part-time staff are included on a 2 for 1 basis.

  Recidivism
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ex-prisoners of Welford road prison, Leicester, have reoffended in each year since 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available centrally. Reconviction rates within two years of release from sentence for all males are published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales", (table 8(a) of the latest volume, for 1986, Cm. 210) copies of which are in the Library.

  DNA Report
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his findings on the DNA report proposed by Dr. Jeffreys of Leicester university.

  Mr. Renton
  It is intended that copies of the report prepared by the Home Office on the pilot trial of DNA use in immigration casework, in which the DNA testing was carried out by Professor Jeffreys of Leicester university, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the amendment regulations regarding residential care concessionary television licences, announced on 18 May Official Report, column 467, affect those living in accommodation for elderly and disabled people with a dedicated warden and communal facilities for the use of all occupants provided or run by private companies; what distinction is drawn between such accommodation and similar accommodation provided by local authorities and housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The amendment regulations do not affect the position of sheltered housing schemes which are privately owned or run, and which continue to be ineligible for the concessionary television licence.

  Racial Equality in Schools
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached any decision on the application by the London borough of Brent for a section 11 grant for the development programme for racial equality in schools.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  I have now received and considered the report of an inquiry which Sir David Lane carried out at my request on Brent's development programme for race equality. He is severely critical of the arrangements for the development and implementation of the programme in 1986. But he finds that, under a new director of education and on a much reduced scale, the programme has now been accepted in schools. Sir David Lane and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, in a parallel report also published today, find that the scheme is now making a useful contribution to tackling under achievement by ethnic minority pupils in Brent schools. He accordingly recommends that, subject to extensive undertakings by Brent and its acceptance that the scheme should be independently monitored, grant should be paid for a period of three years for a retitled programme. I accept Sir David Lane's recommendations. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library.

  Brent council has accordingly been informed that section 11 grant will be paid only on the basis of the reduced scheme and its acceptance of the undertakings and of independent monitoring. Baroness Cox has agreed to lead the monitoring panel.

  I have also decided to set in hand a scrutiny of the whole basis for section 11 grant. It is time that we looked again at the criteria and procedures by which grants are made under section 11.

  Immigration
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give a breakdown by individual nationality of persons detained in Prison Department establishments under Immigration Act powers during 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: Information for 1987 is not yet available; the latest information is given in the table.
  280

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into prison department establishments in England and Wales in 1986: by nationality

  Nationality

  Number1

  Nigeria

  240

  Ghana

  206

  Bangladesh

  188

  India

  164

  Pakistan

  128

  Sri Lanka

  62

  Turkey

  52

  Iran

  47

  Saudi Arabia

  18

  Cyprus

  17

  Hong Kong

  16

  Morocco

  16

  Algeria

  12

  Eire

  12

  Mauritius

  11

  West Indies2

  11

  Yugoslavia

  10

  Colombia

  8

  Brazil

  6

  Indonesia

  6

  Eqypt

  5

  France

  5

  Libya

  5

  South Africa

  5

  United States of America

  5

  Zimbabwe

  5

  Other countries3

  126

  Not recorded

  36

  All nationalities

  1,422

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Includes other Commonwealth countries in the Americas.

  3 Where fewer than 5 were recorded.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the rights and entitlements which accrue to a firearms club which is approved by his Department under the terms of the Firearms Act 1968 as against a firearms club which is not approved for the use of small bore and full bore rifles and pistols and revolvers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My reply of 9 May may have been subject to misinterpretation and has been amended as follows.

  Approved clubs are eligible to be issued with a club firearm certificate at no cost. The certificate authorises the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition for club use. Approval also enables members who do not have their own firearm certificate to possess firearms and ammunition when engaged, as members of the club, in drill or target practice. Members of those clubs which are not approved must hold a personal firearm certificate which specifies the firearms and ammunition they are entitled to possess.

TRANSPORT

  Ferries Safety Steering Committee
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the composition of the steering committee investigating the safety measures necessary for British roll-on/roll-off ferries.
  281
  Mr. David Mitchell
  None.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has taken measures to reduce under-representation of women in the higher grades and of black and Asian staff. These measures include: women-only development training; advertising opportunities for job-share, part-time work and career breaks; using the ethnic minority press for advertising local vacancies; participating in feature articles to publicise the Department's work; taking part in schools liaison; using inner city job centres and other types of outreach work; and participating in a central training review and promotion monitoring projects.

  London Airport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on studies on the provision of a direct rail link from Heathrow to Central London, and those examining the feasibility of releasing the Perry Oaks sludge works to the airport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We expect to receive very shortly a report from our consultants, Howard Humphreys and Partners, analysing the responses to the Heathrow surface access study. This will include an assessment of the most promising proposals which have been made for new or improved public transport links between central London and the airport. Discussions continue between BAA and the Thames water authority about the possible release of the Perry Oaks site.

  Trunk Roads (Repairs)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to repair holes in trunk roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's agents carry out regular inspections to identify potholes and other defects. Hazardous defects are repaired immediately. Other repairs are dealt with according to their priority within a planned programme of work compiled at six-monthly intervals.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his statement in the Official Report, column 677, 16 May, what weight he gave to the Jarvis/PLC report on the Settle-Carlisle corridor in judging the potential of the Settle-Carlisle railway.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I welcome the Jarvis report, which I have studied closely. It emphasises the essentially leisure and pleasure-orinented growth potential of this line.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his statement in the Official Report, column 677, 16 May, he will define those people whom he considered will suffer hardship if the Settle-Carlisle railway close; and what assessment he has made of the effects on users of the Dales rail trains.
  282
  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Transport Users Consultative Committee's report advised that there would be various types of hardship if the line closed ranging from hardship to those unable to travel on steam and charter services to hardship to local people needing to travel for essential purposes. We have considerable sympathy for the latter and are seeking the TUCC's further advice on how best to mitigate such hardship by the provision of guaranteed bus services. We shall take into account the TUCC's advice on routes and timing. We shall also take into account any new evidence on hardship before taking the final decision.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his statement of 16 May,Official Report, column 677, whether there was any implied or expressed agreement that the local authorities supporting the Settle-Carlisle line were required to provide £500,000 capital expenditure to ensure retention of the line.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

  Cross-Channel Ferries (Boarding Passes)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the system of boarding passes for cross-Channel ferries to ensure accurate passenger numbers is fully in place and operational; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) Regulations 1988, which apply to all United Kingdom roll-on/roll-off passenger ships of class II and II(A), entered into force on 29 February and the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) (Application to non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988, which apply to foreign ships when departing from United Kingdom ports, entered into force on 1 April.

  Air Safeguarding Areas
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the map of air safeguarding areas designated by the Civil Aviation Authority and circulated by it to local authorities in east London, showing the broad effect of the provisions on the permitted heights of buildings within the designated area the names of the local authorities and parliamentary constituences so effected, together with the statutory basis of the provision.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The safeguarding of areas around airports is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I will draw the attention of the chairman of the authority to the hon. Member's request.

  Roads
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any approach from private industry to develop new roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reached agreement on 9 April 1987 for Dartford River Crossing Ltd. to design and build a new bridge and operate the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. In addition, as I said in my reply to my hon. Friend on 11 May at columns 162–63 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of ideas for privately funded infrastructure projects, including roads, particularly as a result of his letter of 28 March to firms in the finance and construction industry.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any approach from private industry to develop a rail link between London and the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Some interest has been expressed, but I have received no firm proposals.

  London-Heathrow (Rail Link)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any approach from private industry to develop a rail link from London to Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department has received a number of approaches from the private sector in response to the Heathrow surface access study. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Dartford Tunnels
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the tolls at the Dartford tunnels to be increased; how that increase will be calculated; and what the new rates are likely to be.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  If the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill currently before Parliament receives Royal Assent by 30 June, I expect that tolls at the Dartford tunnels will be increased with effect from 1 September 1988.

  Clause 17 of the Bill sets a limit to the size of toll increases. The limit is calculated by applying the percentage movement in the retail prices index (RPI) between December 1985 and the base month of each year (normally June), to the toll rates in force on 1 January 1986. Tolls were last increased on 1 January 1984. The June 1988 RPI will not be known until mid-July. I expect that, on current trends, the toll rates will be as set out in the table. The rates in force on 1 January 1986 are shown in brackets.

  £

  £

  Motorcycles

  0·20

  (0·20)

  Cars

  0·70

  (0·60)

  Light and medium goods vehicles

  1·10

  (1·00)

  Coaches: Heavy goods vehicles

  1·80

  (1·60)

  The construction of the new bridge, which the Bill would authorise, is planned to start on 1 August 1988.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates' Courts (Files)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average number of files being presented to prosecutors in the magistrates' courts on a daily basis by Crown Prosecution Service area or region.

  The Attorney-General
  The information required to answer this question is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The following table sets out the total number of cases completed in the magistrates' courts in each area during the first three 284
  months of this year. These figures do not include committals for trial, remands (either in custody or on bail), or other applications. It would be misleading to reduce the figures to a daily average, as some courts may sit only one day a week, with a small number of cases, whilst others sit six days a week, regularly dealing with well in excess of 100 cases a day.

  For the Period 1 January 1988–31 March 1988

  All Areas

  Cases finalised

  Avon/Somerset

  9,636

  Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire

  7,144

  Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire

  8,850

  Cheshire

  6,718

  Derbyshire

  7,486

  Devon/Cornwall

  7,778

  Dorset/Hampshire

  14,031

  Essex

  6,688

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  7,199

  Humberside

  7,475

  Kent

  9,772

  Lancashire/Cumbria

  16,825

  Leicestershire/Northamptonshire

  9,812

  London/Inner

  47,592

  London/North

  26,376

  London/South

  18,571

  Manchester

  22,573

  Merseyside

  13,826

  North Wales/Dyfed

  7,913

  North Yorkshire/Cleveland

  8,761

  Northumbria/Durham

  20,009

  Nottinghamshire

  8,671

  South Wales/Gwent

  19,108

  South Yorkshire

  10,108

  Staffordshire/Warwick

  10,968

  Suffolk/Norfolk

  9,269

  Sussex

  10,435

  Thames Valley

  12,441

  West Mercia

  7,380

  West Midlands

  20,976

  West Yorkshire

  17,975

  Grand Total

  412,366

  Average/Area

  13,302

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to recruit more staff to the Crown Prosecution Service; and how many are currently employed.

  The Attorney-General
  Recruitment of non-legally qualified staff in the Crown Prosecution Service has not posed difficulties which require special attention. As far as lawyers are concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 26 April 1988 at column 95.

  The staffing figures on 18 May 1988 were as follows:

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Lawyers

  1,788

  1,314·5

  Non-lawyers

  2,992·5

  2,595·1

  All staff

  4,780·5

  3,909·6

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the current pay scales for members of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  For the current pay scales of all members of the Crown Prosecution Service at grade 5 and
  285
  below, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on 26 February 1988 at columns 353–54.

  The current pay scales for staff at grades 1 to 4 are as follows:

  Grade

  Range

  £

  1

  65,000

  2

  43,500–54,0001

  3

  34,000–43,0001

  4

  30,344–33,4691

  1 Includes additional increment payable under the performance point scheme.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he intends to raise the pay levels of members of the Crown Prosecution Service in the light of the recent internal survey by members of the staff on their pay and conditions.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 26 April 1988 at column 94 and 21 April 1988 at columns 507–509.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give for each of the following categories of crime, namely murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, wounding with intent to do serious bodily harm, possession of firearms or explosives with intent, possessing firearms or explosives, other major firearms offences and membership of an illegal organisation, the number of cases reported to and investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the number of persons charged and the number of persons convicted who were serving members of the security forces at the time of the alleged offence in the years 1986 and 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  I regret that the figures requested are not kept separately by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. To ascertain whether the defendant in a case in any of the categories mentioned was a serving member of the security forces at the time of the alleged offence would involve checking each case individually. This could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases in 1987 involving persons injured by plastic bullets in Northern Ireland have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland; and what action was taken in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  Between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 1987 the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland considered 19 cases involving persons injured by plastic bullets in Northern Ireland. No prosecutions were directed in 18 cases. In the remaining case, a direction pends the receipt of further information from the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Police Operations (Football Matches)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost to public funds of the trials associated with the police operations codenamed Own Goal, Full-time and Dirty Den in relation to alleged public order offences in connection with football matches in London.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost to public funds of an individual trial cannot be precisely quantified. It comprises a number of separate elements borne by different Government Departments. Most of these form part of the ordinary running costs of the Departments concerned. The only amounts which can be precisely identified are those payable to prosecuting counsel and the defence lawyers.

  The fees payable to prosecuting counsel have not yet been assessed. Defence costs which are payable out of the legal aid fund are determined by an officer of the Crown court upon receipt of the lawyers' claims for fees. No such claims have yet been received.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General how many possible prosecutions of persons for alleged offences involving football hooliganism are currently outstanding.

  The Attorney-General
  It is not practicable to enumerate the number of possible prosecutions of persons for alleged offences involving football hooligans which are currently outstanding. The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep separate figures for prosecutions which have been brought against persons following incidents at or in the vicinity of football matches. Such information could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Gloucester United Schools Charity
  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will request the Charity Commissioners to institute an inquiry under section 6 of the Charities Act 1960 into the affairs of the Gloucester United Schools Charity; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no present intention of making such a request, but if my hon. Friend would care to write to me suggesting any reason why I should do so I shall consider the matter.

WALES

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were classified as homeless in Clwyd and Gwynedd in 1979; and what is the most recent figure.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of persons accepted as homeless in Gwynedd during 1979 and 1987 were 875 and 644 respectively, and in Clwyd 1,059 and 2,027.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the target figure for JTS in Wales in the last financial year, the total number of participants, and the underspend on appropriation.
  287
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Numerical and financial regional targets were not set when new job training schemes started in April 1987, since the pace of expansion of the scheme was to be determined by the quality of training. In Wales up to 12,040 places were contracted by managing agents in the year ending April 1988, during which 4,586 unemployed adults entered the scheme and expenditure by Manpower Services Commission was £2·069 million.

  Private Clinics
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total number of beds in private clinics in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  There were 212 beds in private hospitals in Wales as at 31 December 1986, the latest year for which information is available.

  Total rateable value

  Grant-related expenditure

  Population

  Total expenditure

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ Thousands

  £ million

  £

  1981–821

  274·3

  1,092·6

  2,775

  1,140·8

  99

  1982–832

  276·8

  1,169·7

  2,778

  1,207·1

  100

  1983–842

  279·7

  1,240·2

  2,801

  1,267·3

  100

  1984–852

  281·5

  1,284·1

  2,808

  1,304·0

  100

  1985–862

  284·3

  1,343·4

  2,808

  1,352·8

  101

  1986–872

  284·9

  1,425·4

  2,807

  1,456·3

  101

  1987–883

  285·9

  1,551·4

  2,812

  1,574·6

  102

  1988–894

  289·7

  1,669·7

  2,821

  1,707·4

  103

  1 Supplementary (No. 3) Report.

  2 Supplementary (No. 2) Report.

  3 Supplementary Report.

  4 Main Report, except for total expenditure which is taken from local authorities' budgets.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of local authorities which spent, respectively, above or below(a) their grant-related expenditure assessment and (b) any expenditure target set in each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, estimate.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the table. Comparisons of spending with grant-related expenditure assessments have been based on local authorities' total expenditure as defined for rate support

  Spending above grant-related expenditure

  Spending below grant-related expenditure

  Spending above target

  Spending at target

  Spending below target

  1981–821

  32

  5

  24

  0

  21

  1982–832

  25

  12

  18

  5

  22

  1983–842

  21

  16

  6

  11

  28

  1984–852

  23

  14

  8

  11

  26

  1985–862

  22

  15

  0

  16

  29

  1986–872

  24

  13

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1987–883

  29

  8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1988–894

  29

  8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = not available.

  1 Supplementary (No. 3) Report.

  2 Supplementary (No. 2) Report.

  3 Supplementary Report.

  4 Main Report, with total expenditure taken from local authorities' budgets.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) housing starts and (b) housing completions were made in each of the housing authorities of Gwynedd and Clwyd in 1979 and for the most recent year for which figures are available; how many houses in Gwynedd and in Clwyd are estimated to be (i) in urgent
  288
  In addition, there were 56 authorised pay beds in National Health Service hospitals (including two for emergency use only) as at 31 December 1986 and 1987.

  Grant-related Expenditure
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total rateable value grant-related expenditure assessment from 1981–82, population, total expenditure and rateable value per head, in total, for local authorities in Wales in each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89, estimate.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested, taken from the latest rate support grant report for each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, is given in the table. Comparable information for 1979–80 and 1980–81 is not available.

  grant purposes. The current expenditure targets set for 1981–82 have been compared with actual current expenditure reduced to allow for any spending disregards and revalued to the November 1980 rate support grant price base used for the targets. To compare spending in the years from 1982–83 to 1985–86 with total expenditure targets, actual total expenditure adjusted for disregards has been used. No expenditure targets have been set since 1985–86.

  need of repair, (ii) without one or more basic amenities, (iii) without an inside toilet and (iv) without a fixed bath; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information on housing starts and completions is given in the table. In 1986 there were 11,200 dwellings in Clwyd and 14,000 in Gwynedd in serious disrepair (that is, with repair costs of £3,000 or over) and 3,800 in Clwyd and 3,700 in Gwynedd lacking one or more
  289
  basic amenity. There were 1,800 dwellings in Clwyd and 1,700 in Gwynedd lacking a WC inside the dwelling and 1,600 in Clwyd and 1,800 in Gwynedd lacking a fixed bath or shower. Since 1979, some 12,076 renovation grants have been completed in Gwynedd and 7,500 completed in Clwyd.

  Dwelling starts and completions; Clwyd and Gwynedd; 1979 and 1987

  Dwellings started

  Dwellings completed

  1979

  1987

  1979

  1987

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  275

  275

  257

  257

  Colwyn

  511

  394

  373

  251

  Delyn

  233

  227

  166

  189

  Glyndwr

  166

  197

  210

  125

  Rhuddlan

  323

  126

  290

  151

  Wrexham Maelor

  786

  329

  474

  352

  2,294

  1,548

  1,770

  1,325

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  185

  156

  237

  255

  Arfon

  137

  178

  134

  158

  Dwyfor

  203

  64

  226

  104

  Meirionydd

  80

  26

  95

  20

  Ynys Mon

  553

  176

  403

  175

  1,158

  600

  1,095

  712

  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table including the budgeted current and capital expenditure, respectively, and the forecast actual, current and capital expenditure, respectively, of each of the new district health authorities in Wales for the current year.

  £ million cash prices

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Clwyd

  66·252

  2·161

  71·169

  4·476

  76·212

  7·452

  82·016

  5·893

  91·332

  5·690

  95·960

  4·918

  East Dyfed

  42·982

  1·863

  45·627

  2·063

  47·987

  1·861

  51·883

  2·362

  57·238

  2·103

  60·323

  2·180

  Gwent

  84·303

  3·388

  89·201

  4·204

  93·466

  4·154

  98·646

  6·221

  110·573

  6·772

  114·996

  5·166

  Gwynedd

  39·148

  1·093

  44·250

  2·809

  47·794

  1·007

  49·903

  1·228

  55·846

  3·934

  57·903

  1·964

  Mid Glamorgan

  95·763

  20·55

  104·853

  3·303

  110·634

  7·768

  118·911

  5·335

  130·940

  5·111

  134·556

  5·716

  Pembrokeshire

  13·798

  0·569

  15·221

  1·810

  15·755

  1·708

  17·573

  2·369

  19·871

  2·625

  22·727

  1·049

  Powys

  19·616

  0·539

  20·858

  0·869

  21·627

  1·266

  22·951

  1·164

  26·197

  1·026

  27·185

  1·126

  South Glamorgan

  111·958

  2·951

  119·661

  6·111

  127·956

  3·754

  132·775

  5·789

  150·865

  5·205

  157·171

  2·652

  West Glamorgan

  65·067

  2·462

  66·436

  4·991

  75·450

  8·458

  82·415

  10·689

  91·735

  11·090

  99·905

  7·443

  Notes:

  1 The information provided relates to the actual or estimated cash spent by each authority in the period reviewed, for the years 1983–84 to 1986–87 it is taken from DHA annual accounts.

  2 The figures for 1987–88 are estimates; actual figures will not be available until after 30 June when the health authorities submit their annual financial statements for 1987–88.

  3 The figures provided for 1988–89 reflect current allocations. These will be subject to change in respect of funds for centrally directed developments, provision for which is currently held in central reserves, and for each authority's share of the extra money which has been made available in respect of the additional cost of this year's Review Bodies' awards over the allowance for inflation in their allocations. Authorities may also transfer funds between their revenue and capital allocations or borrow or lend funds under brokerage arrangements and such action would further effect the 1988–89 figures.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a table showing the revenue expenditure of each district health authority in Wales for each year since 1979 both at 1988 and outturn prices.

  £ thousands

  District health authority

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–871

  Revenue expenditure at outturn prices

  Clwyd

  32,460

  38,998

  52,916

  59,244

  64,125

  66,898

  71,638

  76,293

  83,818

  290
  Mr. Grist
  The resources currently available to each authority for 1988–89 are detailed in the table. These allocations will be subject to change during the course of the year as funds for centrally directed developments are released and for the extra funds which have been made available for the additional costs of this year's review bodies' awards, over and above the allowance for inflation in authorities' initial allocations. Allocations may also be subject to further adjustment in the event of authorities transferring funds from revenue to capital or vice versa or borrowing or lending funds under brokerage arrangements.

  Revenue cash allocations

  Capital cash allocations

  £ million

  £ million

  Clwyd

  95·960

  4·918

  East Dyfed

  60·323

  2·180

  Gwent

  114·996

  5·166

  Gwynedd

  57·903

  1·964

  Mid Glamorgan

  134·556

  5·716

  Pembrokeshire

  22·727

  1·040

  Powys

  27·185

  1·120

  South Glamorgan

  157·171

  2·652

  West Glamorgan

  99·905

  7·443

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the expenditure levels forecast for each district health authority in Wales for the coming financial year, together with comparable expenditure for each of the preceding five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested, which is expressed in cash terms for comparability with allocations in 1988–89, is as follows:

  Mr. Grist
  The revenue expenditure of each district health authority in Wales for each year since 1979, in income and expenditure terms estimated 1988–89 prices is as follows:
  291

  District health authority

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–871

  Dyfed (East Dyfed from 1982–83)

  27,984

  34,000

  42,425

  48,307

  39,698

  43,003

  46,076

  47,907

  52,641

  Pembrokeshire (from 1982–83)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12,942

  13,958

  15,163

  16,227

  17,550

  Gwent

  42,554

  50,809

  65,980

  73,047

  79,565

  84,567

  89,279

  93,560

  100,119

  Gwynedd

  19,137

  23,478

  30,445

  34,257

  37,236

  39,666

  44,204

  47,515

  51,389

  Mid Glamorgan

  49,244

  59,618

  76,760

  84,071

  90,806

  96,980

  104,022

  110,475

  119,411

  Powys

  9,661

  11,797

  15,062

  16,624

  18,516

  19,754

  20,627

  21,288

  23,152

  South Glamorgan

  59,063

  70,655

  88,892

  98,739

  107,438

  114,501

  119,313

  127,402

  134,842

  West Glamorgan

  32,025

  38,746

  50,435

  56,665

  61,508

  65,173

  68,667

  76,020

  83,091

  Wales2

  272,128

  328,096

  423,915

  471,008

  511,834

  544,500

  578,989

  516,697

  665,013

  Revenue expenditure at estimated 1988–89 prices3

  Clwyd

  69,512

  71,448

  31,776

  83,309

  84,180

  83,875

  86,019

  86,445

  89,872

  Dyfed (East Dyfed from 1982–83)

  59,927

  62,299

  67,109

  67,929

  52,114

  53,916

  55,325

  54,282

  57,760

  Pembrokeshire (from 1982–83)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  16,990

  17,500

  18,207

  18,386

  19,257

  Gwent

  91,128

  93,099

  101,966

  102,718

  104,449

  106,028

  107,201

  106,021

  109,856

  Gwynedd

  40,981

  43,019

  47,050

  48,172

  48,882

  49,732

  53,078

  53,838

  56,387

  Mid Glamorgan

  105,455

  109,239

  118,625

  118,220

  119,206

  121,591

  124,904

  125,175

  131,024

  Powys

  20,869

  21,616

  23,277

  23,377

  24,307

  24,767

  24,768

  24,121

  25,404

  South Glamorgan

  126,482

  129,463

  137,374

  138,922

  141,039

  143,558

  143,264

  144,355

  147,905

  West Glamorgan

  68,581

  70,995

  77,942

  79,682

  80,745

  81,712

  82,451

  86,136

  91,172

  Wales2

  582,756

  601,178

  655,119

  662,327

  671,911

  682,678

  695,216

  698,759

  729,686

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Accounts.

  1 Latest year for which information in income and expenditure terms is available.

  2 Excludes the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  3 Adjusted for actual and expected inflation using the GDP deflator.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a table, for 1987–88 and for each of the past 20 years, showing the total expenditure on the services provided by health authorities in Wales and their predecessors and by Gwynedd health authority and its predecessors, respectively.

  Health Authorities Expenditure in Wales: 1974–75 to 1986–87

  (£ thousands)

  Health Authorities

  1974–75

  1975–76

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  18,108

  23,808

  26,341

  29,921

  34,380

  41,544

  55,419

  62,143

  66,761

  69,142

  76,112

  83,647

  88,784

  Dyfed (East Dyfed from 1982–83)

  14,351

  19,580

  21,859

  24,707

  28,949

  34,857

  44,218

  49,287

  40,972

  44,761

  48,280

  49,725

  55,202

  Pembrokeshire (from 1982–83)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13,288

  14,608

  16,423

  17,951

  19,936

  Gwent

  23,307

  30,667

  34,175

  38,799

  44,632

  53,176

  57,155

  76,003

  83,434

  88,186

  93,380

  97,599

  107·089

  Gwynedd

  10,459

  14,110

  15,563

  17,641

  19,538

  24,449

  31,781

  35,175

  38,175

  41,055

  47,015

  48,451

  52,637

  Mid Glamorgan

  26,439

  35,306

  39,339

  44,529

  51,008

  61,133

  78,004

  86,121

  92,912

  99,230

  107,035

  118,430

  124,609

  Powys

  5,200

  6,951

  7,633

  8,640

  10,114

  12,197

  15,371

  17,169

  19,063

  20,308

  21,576

  22,545

  24,338

  South Glamorgan

  34,113

  44,457

  48,287

  55,402

  62,081

  72,747

  92,648

  104,295

  112,869

  119,513

  125,558

  131,016

  142,283

  West Glamorgan

  17,621

  23,031

  25,995

  25,676

  33,869

  40,863

  52,622

  59,178

  64,422

  67,645

  73,926

  84,368

  93,926

  Welsh Health Services Authority

  10,444

  14,280

  13,600

  12,782

  13,620

  14,432

  22,461

  25,211

  31,675

  34,652

  25,766

  21,830

  23,612

  Wales

  160,042

  212,190

  232,798

  261,997

  298,391

  365,398

  459,679

  514,582

  563,511

  599,102

  635,070

  675,572

  731,416

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Accounts.

  Notes:

  1 It is not possible to provide information prior to 1974–75 since the boundaries of the hospital management committees which preceded the health authorities were not coterminus with those of the successor authorities.

  2 Latest year for which expenditure in income and expenditure terms is currently available.

  Private Treatment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to amend National Health Service procedures to enable area administrators of health authorities in Wales to know the numbers of patients treated privately by doctors and specialists employed on a part-time basis by the area health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  No, because in this matter district general managers need ensure only that consultants on part-time contracts honour their commitments to the National Health Service.

  Private Beds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of private beds within National
  292
  Mr. Grist
  The total expenditure on the services provided by health authorities in Wales for the period 1974–751 to 1986–872 is given in the table:—

  Health Service hospitals in each area health authority in Wales, the percentage occupancy of these beds and the annual income to each health authority from charges made for boarding costs for their private beds for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the table:

  Health authority financial year

  1Number of private beds authorised

  2Percentage occupancy by private patients

  3Income from boarding costs private patients

  (£ thousands)

  Clwyd

  1979–80

  12

  56

  113·9

  1980–81

  12

  64

  161·7

  1981–82

  12

  60

  184·4

  1982–83

  12

  42

  13·1

  293

  Health authority financial year

  1 Number of private beds authorised

  2 Percentage occupancy by private patients

  3Income from boarding costs private patients (£ thousands)

  1983–84

  12

  56

  224·0

  1984–85

  12

  57

  251·3

  1985–86

  12

  55

  284·3

  1986–87

  12

  48

  256·9

  East Dyfed

  1979–80

  9

  35

  60·4

  1980–81

  9

  48

  107c1

  1981–82

  9

  42

  112·0

  1982–83

  7

  41

  102·9

  1983–84

  7

  34

  84·5

  1984–85

  7

  48

  130·0

  1985–86

  7

  41

  119·5

  1986–87

  7

  50

  164·0

  Pembrokeshire

  1979–80

  1980–81

  Figures included with East Dyfed

  1981–82

  1982–83

  3

  41

  35·9

  1983–84

  3

  10

  38·0

  1984–85

  3

  7

  46·6

  1985–86

  3

  43

  49·8

  1986–87

  3

  80

  67·8

  Gwent

  1979–80

  1

  13

  3·2

  1980–81

  1

  10

  2·2

  1981–82

  1

  5

  0·9

  1982–83

  1

  3

  0·4

  1983–84

  1

  —

  —

  1984–85

  1

  —

  —

  1985–86

  1

  —

  —

  1986–87

  6

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  1979–80

  8

  43

  67·7

  1980–81

  8

  49

  95·8

  1981–82

  8

  43

  95·6

  1982–83

  8

  34

  92·9

  1983–84

  8

  36

  103·3

  1984–85

  8

  29

  91·6

  1985–86

  8

  49

  189·2

  1986–87

  8

  45

  190·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  1979–80

  3

  21

  11·1

  1980·81

  3

  17

  12·2

  1981–82

  3

  27

  20·0

  1982–83

  3

  13

  9·1

  1983–84

  3

  28

  24·7

  1984–85

  3

  13

  10·9

  1985–86

  3

  13

  18·2

  1986–87

  3

  28

  40·2

  South Glamorgan

  1979–80

  1

  94

  40·7

  1980–81

  1

  48

  26·4

  1981–824

  10

  5

  17·4

  1982–834

  10

  4

  26·2

  1983–844

  10

  4

  19·4

  1984–854

  11

  10

  22·3

  1985–864

  11

  16

  66·6

  1986–874

  11

  13

  73·5

  West Glamorgan

  1979–80

  2

  19

  7·0

  1980·81

  2

  22

  10·7

  1981–82

  2

  37

  20·6

  1982–83

  2

  29

  19·2

  1983–84

  2

  43

  32·0

  1984–855

  4

  23

  33·3

  1985–86

  4

  25

  43·1

  1986–87

  4

  23

  53·6

  294
  1 As at 31 December.

  2 Excludes occupancy of private beds by NHS patients.

  3 Private patient income has been shown on an accruals basis As such the amounts will reflect invoices raised throughout the accounting period and also take into account any provision for bad debts from previous years.

  4Excludes 2 beds for emergency use only.

  5Excludes 1 bed for emergency use only. Powys does not have any authorised private beds.

  District Health Authorities (Transport and Travelling Grant)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each district health authority in Wales, the amount within the total grant which is provided to meet the transport and travelling needs of that authority.

  Mr. Grist
  District health authorities' resource allocations do not contain specific allowances for transport and travel costs. However, in the revenue formula, which is used in determining the revenue resource allocations to authorities, the ambulance component is weighted to take account of population sparsity as measured by road length per head of population. I have arranged for a copy of the 1988–89 revenue formula assessment to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Tourism (Ambulance Cover)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek to ensure that every area health authority in Wales makes resources available to ensure increased ambulance cover in summer for those areas which receive substantial influxes of tourists.

  Mr. Grist
  It is the responsibility of health authorities in Wales to ensure that adequate ambulance cover is available for their resident population and, in summer months, for any increases due to the influx of tourists. Each authority organises its ambulance service accordingly.

  Bilingual Health Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give the number of qualified speech therapists employed by each of the area health authorities in Wales; and how many of those currently employed are bilingual in Welsh and English;

  (2) what proportion of staff in each of the area health authorities in Wales is bilingual.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of speech therapists emploued by each of the district health authorities in Wales was given in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 1 March 1988. Information on the number of staff employed in the National Health Service who are bilingual is not held centrally.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the numbers of persons in Wales who were ordered to be held in psychiatric hospitals under provisions of Mental Health Acts during 1987 or most recent available and the number of such persons detained under orders in Wales at the current time.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available figures indicate that during 1986 there were 830 admissions to mental illness
  295
  and mental handicap hospitals and units in Wales under the various provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. Details are as follows:

  Mental Health Act 1983 Section

  Number of people

  2

  333

  3

  121

  4

  254

  137

  17

  237

  3

  46

  1

  47

  2

  136

  31

  Other powers

  68

  TOTAL

  830

  1Without section 41 restriction.

  2With section 41 restriction.

  On 5 April 1987, there were 192 patients in these hospitals and units who were being detained under the Act.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of ambulances in working condition in each of the district health authorities in Wales; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Area Health Authorities (Finance Allocation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to give further recognition in deciding on allocation of finance to area health authorities in Wales of sparsity of population, impact of tourism, and costs associated with elderly population migration.

  Mr. Grist
  The revenue formula, used in determining the revenue resource allocations to district health authorities in Wales, takes account of population sparsity in the ambulance component, which is weighted by road length per head of population. The formula also takes account of the seasonal pattern of activity in accident and emergency services, reflecting the effects of tourism. Each element of the formula is weighted by the age and sex structure of the population and therefore incorporates the effects of the movement of elderly migrants into authorities' areas. A copy of the 1988–89 revenue formula assessment is in the Library of the House.

  The formula is kept under review by the joint NHS—Welsh Office resource allocation working group. This group is currently considering the need for and possible means of taking further account of population sparsity in the formula and will be reporting to my right hon. Friend in July.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research has been undertaken by his Department into the effects on the Welsh economy of the completion of the single European market in 1992; and if he will make a statement.
  296
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Completion of the single European market will bring greater freedom of trade. I have not commissioned a formal study, but research from various sources has shown that this liberalisation of trade will offer great potential benefits to all nations and regions within the European Community. The effects within Wales will, however, depend very much on the response of individual businesses to the new opportunities which the single market will present. A major programme is planned to raise the awareness of industry in Wales to the opportunities and what can be done to realise them. Currently, I am in the process of writing to all exporting companies and potential exporters known to my Department—over 3,000 companies—encouraging them to respond to the challenge and sending them advice on how to do so.

  Expenditure Allocations
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money remains unallocated under each expenditure heading for Wales for 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are many areas of spending within my responsibility where resources remain which have not yet been specifically committed or allocated. These are far too numerous to detail.

  I envisage that these remaining resources will be wholly spent during the course of the current financial year in accordance with the plans which have been clearly set out in the Wales chapter of the Government's "Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm. 288—11) and the Supply Estimate booklet (HC 339-XVII) presented to Parliament on 15 March.

  Should circumstances change, it may be necessary for me to switch some of the uncommitted resources from one expenditure heading to another. Where these changes are significant, Parliament will be notified by means of the normal cash limit and Supplementary Estimate procedures.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what allocations of resources under each expenditure heading have been made to the south Wales valleys for the current year and for each of the next two years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Most of the resources under my control are allocated to local authorities and health authorities whose areas do not correspond precisely to the valleys. Allocations are also made to agencies which operate on an all-Wales basis. Specific expenditure allocations have not therefore been made to the valleys.

  Water Pollution Offences
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of prosecutions and convictions arising from water pollution offences in 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88, respectively, in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has not instigated any prosecutions against the Welsh water authority in respect of discharges from sewage treatment works during the four years in question. Prosecution in respect of other discharges to water is the responsibility of the Welsh water authority and I have asked the chairman of the Welsh water authority to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for class XVII, votes 5 and 8, for 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for Class XVII, Vote 5 will be increased by £1,294,000 from £223,490,000 to £224,784,000 and the cash limit for Class XVII, Vote 8 will be increased by £33,366,000 from £743,259,000 to £776,625,000.

  The whole increase for Class XVII, Vote 8, together with £634,000 of the increase for Class XVII, Vote 5, follows the decision to implement the recommendations of the review bodies in respect of doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 April 1988. Those increases will be charged to the reserve and do not, therefore, add to the public expenditure planning total.

  A further increase of £600,000 is required for Class XVII, Vote 5 to augment the provision for the development and implementation of the education national curriculum in Wales. Provision for this service formed part of the last public expenditure survey and does not, therefore, constitute either an increase in the planning total or a claim on the reserve.

  The remaining increase of £60,000 for Class XVII, Vote 5 is required to meet preliminary costs of the privatisation of the Welsh Water Authority. A corresponding reduction of £60,000 is being made to the cash limit for Class X, Vote 9 (Sale of shares in the water services public limited companies, etc.).

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants in his Department are also directors or consultants in(a) public liability companies, (b) companies limited by guarantee, (c) building societies, (d) other friendly societies and (e) commercial undertakings other than the above; and what rules or instructions govern these activities with particular reference to remuneration.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: The information is not available. The involvement of Welsh Office staff in outside occupations is covered by several staff rules, including one which requires that without permission no officer may hold a directorship or engage in consulting work which has a connection with official duties or is on behalf of a firm or concern which is in contractual or other special relationship with the Department. There is no requirement to obtain consent where the activity does not impinge on the Welsh Office.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in Wales are seriously in need of repair.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The number of dwellings in Wales in serious disrepair was 123,600 a substantial improvement over 1981, as a result of 130,210 renovation grants completed since that time.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the National Consumer Council concerning water privatisation the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since taking office I have had no meetings with the National Consumer Council concerning privatisation, although I have had informal discussions with one of its representatives.

  I am content that, after flotation, consumers' interests will be satisfactorily served by the proposed Director General of Water Services.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the National Federation of Anglers the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I met representatives of the National Federation of Anglers on 25 February 1988, when they formed part of a delegation from the National Anglers' Council to discuss the proposed National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the National Trust the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have visited a number of National Trust properties. My noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water has met members of the National Trust during the last year.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Council for the Protection of Rural England the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not attended any meetings of the Council for the Protection of Rural England in the last year. My noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water has met members of the Council for the Protection of Rural England during the last year.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Council for Environmental Conservation the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not attended any meetings of the Council for Environmental Conservation this year.

  North Sea
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State ior the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress
  299
  made nationally and internationally on action agreed at the first intergovernmental conference to protect the North sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Progress made nationally and internationally on action agreed at the first intergovernmental conference to protect the North sea (the Bremen conference) was reported on and reviewed by the second international conference on the protection of the North sea in London in November 1987. This is reflected in the programme of further action in many of the areas covered by the Bremen declaration which is set out in the ministerial declaration issued at the London conference, copies of which are in the Library.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the atmospheric pollutants which he believes need to be reduced, or, if appropriate, to be eliminated in order to protect the maritime environment of the North sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There is great uncertainty about the quantities of atmospheric pollutants entering the North sea and therefore uncertainty in the efficacy of reducing emissions in protecting the sea from pollution. However, the United Kingdom is already committed to a precautionary policy to reduce airborne emissions, illustrated by the investment of £1 billion by CEGB on flue-gas desulphurisation and on low-NOx burners. It also participates in the work of the Paris commission on the monitoring and deposition modelling of heavy metals and has increased its research efforts to improve our understanding of the interaction of atmospheric pollutants with the marine environment.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the use of best available technology to reduce nutrients in discharges from waste water treatment plants whose effluent enters the North sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government are participating fully in the Paris commission working group on nutrients and in discussions in other international forums concerning nutrients discharged into marine waters. The North sea declaration calls for reduction of inputs of nutrients into areas where these are likely to cause pollution. A review of nutrient concentrations in United Kingdom estuarial and coastal waters is being carried out under the auspices of the marine pollution monitoring and management group. The Government will consider if there are specific actions needed in the light of this.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the most dangerous substances from which it is necessary to protect the North sea and for which adherence to a precautionary approach to pollution control is necessary.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The ministerial declaration following the second international conference on the protection of the North sea in London (copies of which are in the Library) identified substances which are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate. Annex A of the declaration lists examples of those substances which are already the subject of specific action. Annex B lists examples of other potentially significant pollutants where it was agreed to consider what further action might be taken to reduce 300
  inputs. The United Kingdom is drawing up a list of the most dangerous substances for priority action, which will be called the red list.

  The United Kingdom Government has taken an early lead in implementing this part of the declaration and their proposals are set out in the guidance note on the ministerial declaration published on 3 February 1988, copies of which are also in the Library.

  Phosphates
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to regulate the use of phosphates in detergents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government have no plans at present to regulate the use of phosphate in detergents.

  Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the uniform emission standards presently in place for all the pollutants controlled in all the rivers and estuaries under United Kingdom jurisdiction entering the North sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom does not generally set uniform emission standards for discharges of particular substances. Under the present pollution control system for water in this country, the levels of a substance permitted in discharges may vary according to the nature and use of the receiving water, the degree of dilution available and the number of other inputs affecting the water. However, the Government have announced that they intend to introduce a requirement to use the best available technology not entailing excessive cost in relation to significant discharges of the most dangerous substances, and this would be reflected in emission standards for discharges of such substances.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the environmental quality standards presently in place for all the pollutants controlled in all the rivers and estuaries under United Kingdom jurisdiction entering the North sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The following national environmental quality standards in microgrammes per litre have been set for the individual substances listed below in all United Kingdom waters:

  Mercury (rivers): 1·0, (estuaries): 0·5

  Cadmium (rivers): 5·0, (estuaries): 5·0

  Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (rivers): 0·1, (estuaries): 0·02

  Lead; Chromium; Zinc; Copper; Nickel; Arsenic—The ranges of environmental quality standards for these substances are set out in Appendix 2 of Department of the Environment Circular 18/85, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  National quality standards for a number of additional substances will be set in the near future.

  In addition, quality standards for a range of substances and other parameters apply to waters specifically designated under or falling within the scope of the following EC directives:

  76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water,

  78/659/EEC on the quality of fresh water needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life,

  79/923/EEC on the quality required of shellfish waters,

  301

  75/440/EEC concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States.

  The quality standards applied to these waters are those set down in the directives, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Water authorities may also in some cases set local quality standards where national standards are not currently in place.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the key industrial and other sectors where he intends to achieve a reduction in aerial emissions using strict emission standards, if practicable, within the next four years; and how large a reduction he hopes to achieve.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Control over atmospheric emissions is effected by applying emission standards and by other mechanisms. Standards apply primarily to emissions from those industrial processes controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (mainly in the fuel and power industry, production and processing of metals, non-metallic mineral production, and the chemical manufacturing industry) and to emissions from vehicles. gnhe extent to which emission standards will bring about reductions in aerial emissions of a wide range of pollutants over the next four years will depend on many different factors, but new standards for power station and vehicle emissions will result in substantial long-term reductions in air pollution.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what improvements are necessary in the scientific base and monitoring data, which exist for the North sea, to allow a more thorough assessment of its condition.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Improvements in the scientific base and monitoring of data were among the issues discussed at the second international conference for the protection of the North sea, and some of the areas where improvements were felt to be required are set out in annex G to the ministerial declaration, which is available in the Library. The conference also asked the Oslo and Paris commissions and ICES jointly to consider the setting up of a scientific task force to take forward this work and the United Kingdom hosted an inaugural meeting of the task force in March.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the details of the agreed criteria which have to be met to ensure that the knowledge of behaviour of pollutants in the North sea is sufficient to allow these pollutants to be continuously discharged into the North Sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The principal criterion governing the issue of discharge consents, whether for discharges to rivers and estuaries or direct to marine waters, is the need to protect the aquatic environment and to safeguard legitimate uses of water. Where environmental quality standards are set for specific substances. These are derived from the available date about the ecotoxicological effects of the substance of sensitive species, with a suitable safety factor built in. Regular monitoring also takes place to assess the effects of discharges. A major research programme is being undertaken by the United Kingdom and other countries bordering the North sea to add to our knowledge about the behaviour and impact of potential pollutants in the North sea.
  302
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he is taking to reduce the quantity of substances that are persistent and toxic from reaching the North sea; what reduction he expects to achieve by 1995; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will detail the measures taken to reduce the inputs into the North sea of (a) mercury, (b) cadmium, (c) carbon tetrachlorides, (d) organic compounds, (e) pentachlorophenol, (f) polychlorinated camphino and (g) drins, wastes from titanitum oxide industry and oil from refineries and reception facilities; what steps will he taken to reduce them further; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Discharges to water of these and other substances that are persistent and toxic are already subject to control under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These controls are operated by the relevant pollution control authorities. In addition, some substances are subject to environmental quality standards laid down in EC directives.

  Further action was agreed upon in the declaration following the second international North sea conference which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired in the United Kingdom last November. The United Kingdom is taking an early lead in the implementation of the declaration. We have opened discussions with the water industry on the measures to be taken in order to achieve a substantial reduction (of the order of 50 per cent.) by 1995, in total inputs to the North sea, of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate. Such measures will be applied consistently throughout all United Kingdom coastal waters.

  The United Kingdom's reduction programme will forcus on a priority list of the most dangerous substances, selected on the basis of strict scientific criteria, to be termed the red list. Substances on this list will be subject to stringent controls under the new unified approach to the control of dangerous substances which I announced on 18 November. The detailed proposals will be set out in a forthcoming consultation paper.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternative plans he has for the incineration of waste currently incinerated at sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom accounts for a very small proportion of the total waste incinerated in the North sea. In 1986, the last year for which comparable figures are available, the United Kingdom accounted for 3,754 tonnes or about 3·2 per cent. of the total. This amounts to only 5 per cent. of the total waste incinerated on land, but for logistical and local nuisance reasons marine incineration is currently the preferred option for these wastes. As indicated in paragraph 30 of the guidance note on the ministerial declaration following the second international North sea conference, the licensing authorities, advised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, will seek reductions in the use of this option where practicable and seek to ensure that adequate alternative disposal capacity is available by the end of 1994.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has plans to issue advice on the action required by regulatory authorities and companies to follow up the declaration agreed at the end of the second intergovernmental conference on the North sea.
  303
  Mr. Moynihan
  Follow-up action by regulatory authorities, industrial interests and others to implement the ministerial declaration following the second international conference on the North sea is the subject of a guidance note on the ministerial declaration issued by the Department on 3 February. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to whether pollution from the United Kingdom has contributed to the ecological deterioration of the Wadden sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None of the assessments or models so far used in North sea studies indicate that discharges from United Kingdom rivers are serious factors in the condition of the Wadden sea or other contaminated areas on the eastern side of the North sea. The main sources of pollution of these waters are the major load bearing continental rivers.

  Houses of Parliament (Legionella)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what checks have been made recently for the presence of Legionella in the water systems of the Houses of Parliament; and what were the results.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Ports (Oils and Chemicals)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often he reviews the availability, capacity and standards of service of oil and chemical reception facilities operating at British ports.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Legislation requiring ports and terminals to provide reception facilities for oil residues came into force in July 1984 and the availability and capacity of these facilities have since been assessed annually by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. In the case of other noxious residues, including chemicals, legislation was enacted in April 1987 and the same monitoring arrangements are being put into place. There have been no reports of inadequate standards of service, but if such a report were received, it would of course be investigated.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the initiatives his Department is taking to assist the disabled with their house adaptations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local authorities give grants of £40 million each year for the adaptation of houses for disabled people. My Department has published today a manual which will provide practical advice for all those engaged in this work. Copies have been sent to all housing, social services and health authorities in England and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is taking similar action. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will take steps to ensure that new 304
  entrants to the local government superannuation scheme should be treated as members unless they elect to the contrary; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what resources are available in the local government superannuation scheme to make improvements, including pensions for widowers, children of married women, dependants of single persons, spouses of post-retirement marriages, and a guaranteed pension for five years as well as a minimum death-in-service lump sum of two years' pay; and what the total cost would be of these improvements on top of current liabilities;

  (3) what plans he has to terminate the difference in the local government superannuation scheme whereby women contributors pay into the scheme at the same rate as men for unequal benefit;

  (4) why women receive less than their male counterparts when paying into the local government superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has taken measures to reduce under-representation of women in the higher grades and of black and Asian staff. These measures include women-only development training; advertising opportunities for job-share, part-time work and career breaks; using the ethnic minority press for advertising local vacancies; participating in feature articles to publicise the Department's work; taking part in schools liaison; using inner city job centres and other types of outreach work; and participating in a central training review and promotion monitoring projects.

  Somerset Wetlands (SSSI)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he estimates the site of special scientific interest in the Somerset wetlands will continue to qualify as such, at current rates of drying out; and whether he will introduce a system of water table management, aimed at preserving the levels, and moors, wetland status.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The results of recent surveys commissioned by the NCC into the possible lowering of water levels and a decline in the density of breeding wading birds on the Somerset levels and moors over the last 10 years are currently under examination. The NCC has no plans at present to denotify any of the SSSIs. It has recently met Wessex water authority to discuss the position and will be having further consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Wessex water authority, internal drainage boards, other environmental interests and farming representatives.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether community charge officers will be able to ask for information concerning an individual from
  305
  gas, water and electricity boards; and whether those boards could exchange information about individuals to the community charge officer.

  Mr. Howard
  No. The powers of community charge registration officers to request information are set out in schedule 2 to the Local Government Finance Bill. They do not include power to request information from the bodies mentioned. Nor will registration officers have any power to pass information to those bodies.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why Price Waterhouse was chosen to carry out a study concerning the costs of implementing the community charge; how many companies tendered for the study; and why the actual cost of implementing the community charge in Scotland was not used as a basis for a reliable estimate as to the likely true cost of introducing the legislation in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  The actual cost of preparing for and implementing rates reform in Scotland will not be known until after April 1989. Our estimates of these costs in England and Wales have been questioned by local authority associations and some individual authorities have made their own forecasts. Price Waterhouse was selected to undertake an independent study of these costs after we had examined tenders and written proposals from six firms of consultants.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why, pursuant to the answer of 16 May, the information requested relating to illustrative community charges for 1988–89 was given by reference to figures for 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Because estimates for 1988–89 are not yet available for England. I apologise for not making that clear.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from Community Service Volunteers with regard to exemption from the community charge; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have received a number of such representations from various organisations. This matter was also discussed during the consideration of the Local Government Finance Bill in Committee in another place. My noble Friend the Minister of State agreed to consider the possibility of making special provision for residential voluntary workers.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of single pensioners he estimates will be adversely affected by the introduction of the community charge;

  (2) what percentage of pensioners he estimates will be adversely affected by the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Local Government (Wage Earners)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many wage earners currently make no direct contribution towards the cost of local government.
  306
  Mr. Howard
  On the basis of data contained in the family expenditure survey, I estimate that about 10 million wage earners currently do not receive rate bills.

  European Directives
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the proposed European directives that he has vetoed in the Council of Ministers since 1979.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Council does not keep records of votes on a national basis. The information requested is therefore not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Wetlands (Ramar Convention)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his reply of 11 May,Official Report, column 128, whether he will make it his policy that sites meeting the revised criteria and guidelines for the identification of wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention should be listed under article 2 of the convention;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 11 May, Official Report column 127, whether he will make it his policy that sites confirmed by the Nature Conservancy Council as qualifying for designation as special protection areas under EC directive 79/409 or wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention should be so designated.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government consider the formal classification under the Ramsar convention and/or the EC birds directive of all sites which the Nature Conservancy Council concludes meet the relevant criteria when the necessary preparatory work is completed. Our aim is to designate those sites which are necessary to meet the conservation objectives of the convention and the directive.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to implement a detailed inventory of the existing housing stock with estimates of replacement costs.

  Mrs. Roe
  No.

  Cross-Bradford Rail Link
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the reasons given by the Property Services Agency why a cross-Bradford rail link could not be accommodated on the proposed Bradford courthouse site; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Chope
  A cross-Bradford rail link could not be accommodated on the proposed Bradford courthouse site because its closeness to the courthouse would produce unacceptable levels of noise and vibration, would create unsurmountable security problems, and would be visually intrusive.

  Water Environment
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has amended his plans, in the event of privatisation of the water authorities, for the legal framework protecting the water environment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. It remains the Government's firm intention to strengthen protection of the water environment, in particular by providing a statutory framework of quality objectives and standards for rivers and estuaries; and by establishing the National Rivers Authority, for the management and protection of the water environment. Detailed provisions will be brought forward in the forthcoming water privatisation Bill.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the name of the main contractors for any development, including infrastructure and building works, for each site sold by the London Docklands Development Corporation since July 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  Appointment of contractors by developers of sites sold by the LDDC is a matter for the developers.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give the name of the main contractor, the value of the contract and the date when the contract was signed for each site where the London Docklands Development Corporation has let a contract for infrastructure works, including land reclamation and the provision of drainage or other services, since July 1981;

  (2) if he will name the purchaser for each site sold by the London Dockland Development Corporation since July 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of any letter written to the London Docklands Development Corporation by Messrs Robson Rhodes concerning the annual accounts of the corporation, together with any respective responses which have been made.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 March 1988, c. 579]: The Department has examined the management letter sent by Messrs Robson Rhodes in relation to the LDDC's 1985/86 external audit, and the corporation's response and has consulted Messrs Robson Rhodes and officers of the corporation on both. Having considered the results of these consultations carefully I have reached the following conclusions:

  (i) Management letters, which are the formal means by which external auditors draw the attention of the audited body to various aspects of that body's systems of internal control, do not deal with matters of substance which materially affect the annual accounts. Such matters are properly dealt with by qualification of the accounts. Robson Rhodes made it clear that none of the issues raised in its letter was of such substance in relation to the 1985/86 accounts.

  (ii) None of the issues raised in the management letter alleged or implied irregularity or impropriety by the corporation, or misuse of public funds.

  (iii) The auditors accept that the corporation's use of financing mechanisms was not improper or
  308
  irregular. They pointed out, however, that such mechanisms are generally complex, somewhat open to misinterpretation and if multiplied in future years could increasingly press against the legal constraints by which the corporation is bound. Such timely advice is one of the purposes and benefits of external audit.

  (iv) On consultancy appointments, I am satisifed that LDDC has in fact operated within the current guidelines laid down by the Department for ensuring proper competition. Robson Rhodes' main concern was that, under the internal approval procedures for appointment of consultants, full documentary evidence of the competitive process that had been carried out was not always immediately available to those ratifying appointments. LDDC has made it clear, however, that such evidence was always available for inspection, and has agreed to review supporting documentation more thoroughly.

  (v) Where the award of a consultancy contract is based on a comparison of competitive rates (as distinct from the submission of tenders) there should be a full and explicit definition of the criteria used for selection. The Department will discuss this further with LDDC, and agree revised procedures as necessary.

  (vi) Proper procedures were employed by LDDC in awarding consultancy appointments to three former employees of the corporation. In view of the comments made by Messrs Robson Rhodes, however, the corporation accepts that additional arrangements are required to fully demonstrate propriety in all such cases. The corporation has therefore reviewed its procedures, and now requires that all such cases should go to the board for approval.

  (vii) Messrs Robson Rhodes suggested that the corporation should obtain clarification from the Department on competition requirements and how they should best be satisfied. My officials are reviewing the existing guidance to the corporation on this and will bring forward revised proposals.

  (viii) The other issues raised in the management letter related to negotiated land disposals, reporting and seeking approval for project overspends, and actioning internal and external audit recommendations. I am satisfied that LDDC has taken appropriate follow-up action in each case and, where necessary, has revised and strengthened its procedures.

  My Department's primary concern is that the LDDC should always respond fully and effectively to the matters raised in management letters. These letters are intended to raise issues which require detailed consideration by the body under audit and the Department and to lead to agreement on ways in which procedures could be further improved or adjusted to meet changing circumstances. But I should add that the unauthorised disclosure of such letters undermines their effectiveness for this purpose.

  I am satisfied that in relation to the 1985–86 letter that the corporation has paid proper attention to the issues raised, and that a full and effective response has been made.

  Youth Projects (Kensington)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those youth projects in existence in the Kensington parliamentary constituency for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department does not keep comprehensive information on youth projects in Kensington or any other area. A number of projects in Kensington aimed at benefiting young people have been
  309
  supported by my Department through the urban programme in the past five years. These are listed as follows.

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Youth projects supported through the Urban Programme 1983–88.

  YTS Training Centre

  Construction of new training centre for borough wide youth training scheme.

  Glissando Steel Orchestra

  To build a sound-proofed rehearsal centre for orchestra.

  Outward Bound Courses

  12 Outward Bound places on courses.

  Cremorne Riverside Centre

  Training centre for water based activities.

  St. Stephen's Intermediate Treatment Centre

  Centre for the prevention and treatment of delinquency.

  North Kensington Family Centre

  Family centre with a Caribbean focus.

  North Kensington Students Hostel Ltd.

  Accommodation for homeless students.

  Unemployed Centre (Venture Community Association)

  Drop in centre for the unemployed.

  Holiday Projects

  Provision of play projects during the school summer holidays.

  Stopgap

  Holiday project.

  Unity Association Hostel

  Accommodation and support for young people.

  Tabernacle Community Association Ltd.

  Community Centre.

  Harvey IT/Education Centre.

  Water Pollution Offences
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for. the Environment what were the numbers of prosecutions and convictions arising from water pollution offences in each English water authority during 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No prosecutions have so far been taken out against water authorities by the Department. The number of prosecutions for water pollution offences taken by each English water authority during 1984–85 and 1985–86 were:

  1984–851

  1985–861

  Anglian

  17

  14

  Northumbrian

  2

  1

  North West

  70

  26

  Severn Trent

  23

  33

  Southern

  15

  6

  South West

  12

  34

  Thames

  5

  12

  Wessex

  29

  38

  Yorkshire

  33

  40

  Totals

  206

  204

  1 Some data is for calendar year.

  Details for 1987 are not yet available but will be published later in the year.

  Information about convictions following prosecutions is collected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department but is not collected in a comparable form. I understand, however, that in general over 90 per cent. of these cases result in convictions.

  Decisions on whether or not to prosecute rest with water authorities and will depend upon factors such as the severity of the pollution and whether the source can be clearly identified.

  Berne Convention
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which way the United Kingdom representative voted at the sixth meeting of the standing committee of the Berne convention in Strasbourg when considering the proposal to include Lululla arborea in appendix II of the convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government accepted the Nature Consevancy Council's advice to support the listing of the Lululla arborea in appendix II to the Berne convention. However, the species is already listed in annex I of the birds directive (79/409 EEC) and therefore comes within Community competence. I understand that, following consultations with all members states at the sixth meeting of the standing committee to the Berne convention, the Commission abstained from voting on the proposal to include the Lululla arborea in appendix II.

  Dover Castle (Officers' Mess)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the officers' mess in Dover castle was last used; and for what purpose;

  (2) on how many occasions (a) he, (b) his officials and (c) English Heritage have had discussions with interested parties in the last 12 months concerning proposals to bring the officers' mess in Dover castle back into commercial use;

  (3) whether he will review the progress being made by English Heritage in processing proposals for developing the officers' mess in Dover castle; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what assistance his Department is prepared to give to English Heritage and Dover district council in order to assist private proposals for bringing the officers' mess in Dover castle into commercial use;

  (5) when his officials last discussed with English Heritage proposals for developing and using the officers' mess in Dover castle; and what specifically they discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The management, presentation and future development of Dover castle are matters for English Heritage. The former officers' mess ceased to be used for that purpose some years before the castle was placed in the care of the Ministry of Public Building and Works in 1965. It has remained empty ever since. Various proposals have been considered at different times for its re-use and I understand that English Heritage has had discussions with several potential developers. At English Heritage's request last March, my officials offered informal advice on a question of tendering procedure. Apart from that, the Department has had no discussions with English Heritage or any other party about the future use of the officers' mess building since the transfer of responsibility to English Heritage on 1 April 1984. I am sure the chairman will be happy to provide my hon. Friend with further details of his plans.

  Water Industry Privatisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are being currently proposed for him with regard to the setting of initial water quality standards prior to the privatisation of the water industry; and if he will make a statement.
  311
  Mr. Moynihan
  In its 1986 consultation paper, "The Water Environment; The Next Steps", the Government indicated:"In order to launch [the new Statutory Quality Objective System] on a firmly established clear basis, the Government proposes to use initially the objectives which the Water Authorities have adopted. These objectives are widely understood, have been the subject of local consultation, and can be related to the classifications used as a basis for water quality measurement in the [1980 and 1985] River Quality Surveys. Using them at the outset will ensure continuity and provide a good basis for comparison between progress in different … areas, and between the present situation and any future review".

  This remains the Government's position. Legislation to give effect to it will be brought before Parliament in due course.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is intended to make provision for water protection zones following the privatisation of the water industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It remains the Government's intention to re-enact and simplify the existing legislative provisions relating to water protection zones in the forthcoming water privatisation Bill.

  National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee (Chairman)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how widely the vacancy for the position of chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee was advertised; and how many applicants were considered.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The position of chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee was not advertised. But a number of candidates were considered before the decision was taken to appoint my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expenses the chairman of the national rivers authority advisory committee will be eligible to claim.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee, my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Crickhowell, will be eligible to claim current Civil Service class I travelling and subsistence allowances.

  Local Authorities (Investments)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) of 3 December,Official Report, column 642, what progress he has made in consideration of options to control further the investment of local government pension fund moneys in the light of the failure of the News on Sunday newspaper.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend is still considering the matter and will be consulting representatives of local government and others in due course.

  Planning Enforcement Notice Appeals
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the report of the efficiency 312
  scrutiny of his Department's handling of planning enforcement notice appeals, carried out in 1987, and his response to the report's recommendations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A volume incorporating the report and the action plan which we have agreed is being published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The scrutiny examined the procedures under which local planning authorities issue planning enforcement notices and the Department deals with appeals to my right hon. Friend against such notices. The report makes 51 recommendations for more efficient and effective handling of these appeals.

  We have accepted many of the report's key recommendations and one of the main objectives of the action plan will be to ensure that the majority of enforcement appeals decided by planning inspectors are eventually processed, and the decision issued, within 22 weeks from receipt of the appeal.

  Some of the recommendations involve proposals to amend provisions in part V of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and to adapt existing administrative procedures for processing enforcement appeals. My Department will shortly be consulting the local authority associations, and the professional and other organisations with an interest in the planning control process, about the feasibility of implementing these recommendations.

  We have also said that we shall now he undertaking urgently a full review of the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities. This review will build on the detailed analysis in the enforcement scrutiny report.

  Spent Magnox Fuel
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the studies recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment on dry storage and direct disposal of spent Magnox fuel have been completed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The reports and an independent review have today been deposited in the Library of the House of Commons and with the British Library. Copies have been sent to members of the Environment Committee and to other interested organisations.

  The reports and the review confirm that a change to a strategy of long-term storage and direct disposal of spent Magnox fuel would not give rise to significant reductions in radiation exposures to the public or to the work force in the nuclear industry, and uncertainties would remain about the suitability of the chemically reactive fuel for direct disposal. At this late stage in the life of Magnox power stations the extra costs which would be entailed cannot, therefore, be justified. A continuation of fuel reprocessing to the end of the Magnox programme remains prudent policy.

  Discharges of radioactivity from fuel reprocessing at Sellafield have been considerably reduced; they are now only one tenth of the level in 1978. Further reductions are planned from about 1991 when the enhanced actinide removal plant (EARP) becomes operational. This should enable discharges to alpha emitters to be reduced further.

  The length of time for which the Magnox programme continues will depend on financial considerations, the reviews of safety of the reactors and the fuel reprocessing plant, waste management and energy strategy considerations.

  Water Privatisation
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has taken any steps to prevent water authorities from acquiring stocks in statutory water companies in anticipation of the privatisation of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: It is in the first instance for the water authorities to decide in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case whether they have the legal powers and the resources to acquire water company shares.

  Homeless Persons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what surveys have taken place as to the number of people who sleep rough in London each night; when such surveys were conducted; and what was the number of people found to be sleeping rough.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware of any more recent official survey than the one in 1965 by the National Assistance Board which found that there were then approximately 275 people sleeping rough in London. There are extreme methodological difficulties in counting accurately the number of people sleeping rough because of their constant mobility and lack of willingness to respond to official inquiries.

EMPLOYMENT

  ILO Convention 45
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government has reached any decision with regard to the current opportunity to denounce International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention 45 as mentioned in his Department's recent consultative document.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are considering carefully the many responses to the consultative document on restrictions on employment of young people and the removal of sex discrimination in legislation, including these of the CBI and TUC.

  A clear majority of the responses favoured changes to many aspects of the legislation. In order to clear the way for possible changes to the statutory restrictions on women in mining which could not take place within the constraints of the convention, the Government propose to denounce ILO convention 45. Denunciation will take effect 12 months after the date on which it is registered with the ILO.

  Remploy
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to ensure that Remploy pays rates of pay to its workers consistent with the standard rates of pay for the work undertaken and rates of pay for jobs considered to be of similar value; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Within a framework of wider public spending considerations, it is for the hoard of Remploy to determine 314
  wage rates for the company's workers. I am pleased to say that Remploy's manual work force has now voted by a sizeable majority to accept the pay offer which the board put to it recently.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State For Employment what estimates he has as to the likely number of retirements from the dock labour scheme in each year until 1995 and the number of new entrants who will be required in each year until 1995.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to make such estimates since the numbers will depend upon the choices of individuals and a variety of commercial and other factors.

  Job Release Scheme
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State For Employment how many people in each year have taken advantage of the job release scheme since its inception.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Number

  1976–77

  9,979

  1977–78

  14,529

  1978–79

  25,643

  1979–80

  68,164

  1980–81

  24,239

  1981–82

  38,674

  1982–83

  46,134

  1983–84

  44,045

  1984–85

  14,895

  1985–86

  11,960

  1986–87

  12,046

  1987–88

  10,005

  Perivale Skillcentre
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State For Employment what steps he is taking to secure the future of the Perivale skillcentre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a review of the skills training agency at the end of last year and has received an initial report which he is considering.

  Penlee Quarry
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South,Official Report, column 285, 13 May, what was the date of the last visit to Penlee quarry by a mines and quarry inspector prior to 28 January 1987; whether the inspector was satisfied that all troughed belt conveyors at the quarry were to the British Standard; and whether the 1974 British Standard for machinery guards was required, reached or imposed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The date of the last visit to Penlee quarry by a mines and quarries inspector prior to 28 January 1987 was on 5 January 1987. This visit was to deal with a matter relating to the security of stockpiles. The inspector did not deal with any other matters during that visit.

  Quarries (Investigations)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of the Health and Safety Executive metallurgical laboratory report on the broken derricking pawl shaft boss from the Anderson and Grice 15-tonne Scotch derrick crane at Hantergantick quarry, St. Bernard and (b) a copy of the investigation report into the accident at Penlee quarry, Newlyn, on 28 January 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Health and Safety Executive is still considering whether or not to instigate proceedings following the Hantergantick accident. Individual accident investigation reports, which may contain personal information and opinion, are not usually made public.

  Scotch Derrick Cranes
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a list of all scotch derrick cranes in use and their location and age so far as is known in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive does not hold a list of all Scotch derrick cranes currently in use in the United Kingdom. A list of all those cranes known to be located at quarries has been placed in the Library.

  List of Scotch derrick cranes located at quarries as at May 1988

  Name of Quarry

  Crane make and Safe Working Load

  Date of Manufacture (if known)

  Watson

  Anderson Grice 5 ton

  —

  Bolton Wood

  Butters 10 ton

  —

  Britannia

  Morgan 20 ton

  1950-approx

  Britannia

  Henderson 15 ton

  1969

  Britannia

  Henderson 15 ton

  1972

  Deep Lane

  Butters 6 ton

  1940's

  Squire Hill

  Bradley 7 ton

  —

  Naylor Hill

  Morgan 10 ton

  —

  Dunhouse

  Morgan 10 ton

  —

  Dunhouse

  Butters 15 ton

  —

  Stainton

  Butters 10 ton

  1964

  Locharbriggs

  Anderson Grice 15 ton

  —

  Stoneraise

  Butters 5 ton

  —

  Darney Crag

  Morgan 7 ton

  —

  Whitestone and Quarry Lane

  Balmforth 4 ton

  1920's

  Trannach

  Rushworth 4 ton

  —

  Trannach

  Rushworth 2 ton

  —

  De Lank

  Henderson 15 ton

  1975

  Bosahan

  Henderson 15 ton

  1939

  Merrivale

  Butters 35 ton

  1975

  Hantergantick

  Butters 15 ton

  1960

  Hantergantick

  Butters 20 ton

  1975

  Bowers

  Butters

  1942

  Doulting

  Henderson 15 ton

  1968

  Maesgwyn

  Butters 20 ton

  1960

  Independent No. 1

  Henderson 35 ton

  1964

  Independent No. 1

  Sangster 10 ton

  —

  Portland No. 6

  Anderson Grice 15 ton

  —

  Portland No. 4

  Anderson Grice 15 ton

  —

  Holywell

  Butters 7 ton

  1953

  Holywell

  Smith 4 ton

  —

  Holywell

  Smith 4 ton

  —

  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training individual inspectors in the mines and quarries inspectorate have received to enable them to prepare all the necessary documents for a prosecution to be taken on indictment in the Crown court.
  316
  Mr. Nicholls
  As a result of a comprehensive training programme, all inspectors of the mines and quarries inspectorate have the necessary knowledge and skills to prepare the documentation for consideration for prosecution.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the next meeting is to take place between the Health and Safety Executive and the Chief Inspector of Mines and Quarries to review progress in reducing the number of fatal and serious accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  When the chief inspector saw the executive on 23 March, he described a number of measures already in train to improve health and safety in quarries, and they were discussed. The measures in train are the responsibility of the chief inspector and need time to develop before a meeting to review progress could be useful.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prohibition and improvement notices have been issued by the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate; and how many prosecutions there are now pending following the meeting in April between Dr. Mike Jones and the health and safety executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is listed for the period 14 April 1988 to 20 May 1988.

  Number

  Improvement Notices issued

  13

  Deferred Prohibition Notices issued

  9

  Immediate Prohibition Notices issued

  30

  Prosecutions Pending

  2

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to transfer the duty to prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 from the mines and quarries inspectorate to the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no need to change the existing arrangements since the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales and the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland can already initiate proceedings in respect of contraventions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

  Escalators
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to making regulations under section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to impose requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance and examination of escalators similar to those contained in Offices, Shops and Railway Premises (Hoists and Lifts) Regulations 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 849).

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received no such proposal from the Health and Safety Commission. I am not aware of any reason to take a substantially different view from that taken by my predecessor in replying to the Adjournment debate held on 23 December 1981 at column 1043.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will discuss with the Health and
  317
  Safety Executive the case for revising its guidance notes relating to escalators with respect to (a) uniformity in the siting, size and content of escalator warning notices and (b) the fitting of stand-off skirt guards or other deflector devices to all existing escalators to minimise trapping accidents.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive will review its guidance note "Safety in the use of escalators" when it has received a report on research which is being undertaken on their behalf by the Institute for Consumer Ergonomics and which includes(a) an appraisal of escalator warning signs and (b) an evaluation of deflector devices on escalators in shopping centres and department stores.

  Ceramic Industry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the ceramic industry at present; and how many have been employed in that industry over each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  Employees in Employment in the Refractory and Ceramic Goods industry in Great Britain (Group 248 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980)

  Thousands

  December of each year

  Number

  1978

  75·1

  1979

  72·2

  1980

  66·2

  1981

  58·8

  1982

  56·6

  1983

  59·1

  1984

  64·2

  1985

  67·4

  1986

  68·5

  11987

  70·0

  1The latest date for which figures are available.

  These estimates are subject to considerable potential estimation error due to the relatively small number of employees in the industry.

  Separate estimates for the ceramic goods industry are not available.

  MSC (Grants)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the Manpower Services Commission to finalise supplementary grant levels to local Manpower Services Commission areas; and whether inner city areas will receive a higher level of supplementary grant to take account of the cost of premises and salaries.

  Mr. Cope
  The Training Commission (formerly the Manpower Services Commission) is currently in the process of determining the distribution of training places and supplementary grants to its areas. I expect the process to be completed shortly. The grants are intended to meet the higher costs of training provision associated with a wide variety of need, including the special need of the inner cities.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the total number of people under 318
  the age of 25 years who are unemployed in the Kensington constituency (a) as a percentage of all people under the age of 25 years and (b) as a percentage of the total number of unemployed people in the constituency;

  (2) how many people under the ages of (a) 23 years and (b) 25 years have been unemployed in Kensington for (i) less than six months, (ii) between six months and one year, (iii) between one year and two years and (iv) over two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants under 25 years in Kensington constituency on 14 April 1988 for the requested durations, together with the under 25 years unemployment level expressed as a percentage of the total unemployed in the constituency. Separate figures are not available for those aged under 23. Data are not available on the number of people in Kensington aged under 25.

  Unemployed claimants, Kensington constituency, April 1988

  Under 25 years

  Under 25 as a percentage of total unemployed Per cent.

  Less than six months

  503

  —

  Six to twelve months

  216

  —

  One to two years

  120

  —

  Over two years

  149

  —

  All durations

  988

  23.8

  YTS (Kensington)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers of young people who have obtained full-time jobs on leaving YTS schemes in the Kensington constituency for each of the past three years; and what percentage this is of all those who have completed YTS schemes during that period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Figures for the Kensington constituency are not available. The table gives details of leavers from YTS schemes in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and nationally. The figures have been obtained from the 100 per cent. postal follow-up surveys of young people three months after leaving YTS schemes.

  Per cent, in full time work Kensington and Chelsea

  Per cent, in full-time work Great Britain

  April 1985 to March 1986

  53

  53

  April 1986 to March 1987

  63

  60

  April 1987 to December 1987

  56

  51

  In Kensington and Chelsea, as in the country as a whole, large numbers of trainees also leave YTS for further education and training.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been on YTS schemes in the Kensington parliamentary constituency for each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The number of people who have been on YTS schemes in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the past three years is:
  319

  Number

  1985–86

  30

  1986–87

  102

  1987–88

  154

  I am pleased to see that an increasing number of young people are entering work via a structured training programme in this area.

  Construction Industry (Deaths)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) deaths (b) serious and major injuries and (c) employees there were in (i) the public and (ii) the private construction industries for each year from 1970 to 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on Monday 18 April 1988, at column 317.

  Stallite Batteries
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise the number and year of each visit the number, type and year of each notice, and the offence by year and resultant fine with regard to Health and Safety Executive action at Stallite Batteries, Worsborough Dale, Barnsley in each of the years from 1958 to 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table shows the number and year of visits to Stallite Batteries, Worsborough Dale, Barnsley, from 1965 to 1986. During 1986 the company moved to new premises in Bolton-on-Dearne.

  Year

  Number of visits

  1965

  5

  1966

  4

  1967

  3

  1968

  4

  1969

  3

  1970

  1

  1971

  16

  1972

  13

  1973

  4

  1974

  25

  1975

  14

  1976

  12

  1977

  12

  1978

  22

  1979

  7

  1980

  5

  1981

  11

  1982

  4

  1983

  5

  1984

  4

  1985

  18

  1986

  17

  The factory was not known to Her Majesty's factory inspectorate, now part of the Health and Safety Executive, prior to 1965.

  The following enforcement notices were served during the same period.
  320

  Year

  Number of notices issued

  1975

  1 Prohibition notice

  1 Improvement notice

  1978

  2 Improvement notices

  1 Prohibition notice

  1981

  2 Improvement notices

  1982

  1 Improvement notice

  1983

  2 Improvement notices

  1985

  1 Improvement notice

  Prosecutions by year with resultant fines are as follows:

  Year and Offence

  Total fine

  £

  1965

  Failure to notify occupation and illegal employment on a lead process:

  21–18–0

  1973

  Failure to control fumes and failure to have an employee medically examined.

  100

  1988 (offence in 1986)

  Failure to suspend person who was issued with a certificate of unfitness for work with lead.

  750

  Building Sites (London)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions in connection with construction sites there were in London in 1987; how many offences were committed; and what was the fine for each offence.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the available information.

  The number of prosecutions 1: informations laid in 1986–872

  The number of convictions

  The average penalty per conviction £

  533

  39

  810

  1 Data are for construction related prosecutions taken by Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates of the Health and Safety Executive London area offices. They exclude any that may have been taken by other enforcing authorities.

  2 Provisional data for the 12 month period April 1986 to March 1987.

  3 The outcome of eight of these informations laid is not yet known.

  Building Sites
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions in connection with construction sites there were in 1987; what regulations were broken; and what was the fine for each offence.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the available information, concerning prosecutions associated with the construction industry.
  321

  Regulation

  The number of prosecutions 1: informations laid in 1986–872

  The number of convictions

  The average penally per conviction £

  Construction (General Provisions) Regs 1961

  52

  44

  792

  Construction (Lifting Operations) Regs 1961

  40

  27

  649

  Construction (Working Places) Regs 1966

  181

  145

  347

  Construction (Health and Welfare) Regs 1966

  11

  8

  288

  Other Regulations 3

  112

  92

  325

  Specific Regulations not Quoted

  254

  166

  688

  Grand Total

  4650

  482

  517

  1 Data are for construction related prosecutions taken by Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates of the Health and Safety Executive London area offices. They exclude any that may have been taken by other enforcing authorities.

  2 Provisional data for the 12 month period April 1986 to March 1987.

  3 Information separately distinguishing each of the other regulations can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  4The outcome of 29 of these informations laid is not yet known.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how frequently the average building site has been inspected, each year, in each of the years from 1970 to 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were(a) the estimated number of building sites and (b) the number of construction Health and Safety Executive inspectors for each of the years from 1970 to 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive does not keep estimates of the number of building sites. All inspectors in the factory inspectorate division of the HSE may work in construction groups. The number of experienced inspectors employed on construction work for the years as at 1 January 1979–86 was as follows:

  Number

  1979

  86

  1980

  87

  1981

  90

  1982

  89

  1983

  88

  1984

  88

  1985

  86

  1986

  84·5

  In September 1987 there were 92 qualified inspectors employed on construction work.

  No information is available centrally for the years 1970–78.

  Sellafield (Safety Allegations)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for independent interviews and investigations to be carried out into recent allegations by employees of BNFL of safety breaches at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that various anonymous allegations have been made of breaches in safety rules in certain buildings at BNFL's Sellafield site. BNFL and the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate will both be looking into these allegations and undertaking any further necessary investigations.

DEFENCE

  Small Firms (Research Information)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in making available the results of research sponsored by his Department to small firms.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We attach high importance to the fullest possible exploitation of research carried out by, or on behalf of, the Ministry of Defence. Defence Technology Enterprises Limited is specifically charged with the commercial exploitation of this research and now has some 265 members, mostly in the small firms sector. The defence research information centre also plays a very important role.

  Tucano
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest cost estimate for the Tucano trainer project; what were the original estimates; when the trainers are expected to be in operation; what was the original estimate; what financial and operational contingency plans have been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The estimated cost for the Tucano trainer project has not changed since the contract was let. Aircraft were ordered on a firm price basis, with payment to be made on delivery. Consequently, there is no increase in the contract price as a result of delays in the programme. The value of the contract is, however, commercially confidential. We expect deliveries of Tucano to the RAF to commence shortly. Deliveries were initially scheduled to begin in January 1987. As a result of the delay, the RAF's Jet Provost fleet is continuing in service for longer than originally planned.

  Radar Station (Bradwell)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the role and function of the trial radar station near Bradwell-on-Sea, Essex; which unit or agency is responsible for operating this installation and its experiments; what is the estimated cost of the activities at this location; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As I have already explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 29 April, the facility is used for high-frequency
  323
  surface wave radar technology studies. The site is managed by Marconi Radar Systems Ltd. and has been sub-let to the Royal Signals Research Establishment (amongst other users) to undertake research work. They are paying a proportional element of the total maintenance costs of the site currently estimated to be about £70,000 a year, together with costs of dedicated Marconi personnel incurred in supporting these studies.

  Tornado
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force Tornados have been destroyed or seriously damaged in a flying accident since the Tornado entered Royal Air Force service; in which countries they occurred; how many were on low-flying exercises; how many lives have been lost; and what has been the cost of the Tornados involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since entering service with the Royal Air Force, 17 major Tornado accidents have resulted in 15 aircraft being lost and a further three sustaining major damage. In these accidents, six aircrew were killed. Eleven of the accidents occurred in the United Kingdom or surrounding waters, four took place in the Federal Republic of Germany, and the remaining two were in Canada and the United States of America. Eleven of the aircraft were involved in low-flying operations when the accident occurred. In respect of the cost of the aircraft involved, it is now our practice not to publish unit production costs, but I refer the hon. Member to table 3.2 of volume 2 of the "Statement on Defence Estimates 1988" (Cm. 344–11).

  Flying Accidents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the accident on 10 May involving a Tornado GR1 which crashed near Ankum. in northern Germany.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 10 May, during the course of a training exercise, a Royal Air Force Tornado GR1 of 17 Squadron, RAF Bruggen crashed some five miles north west of Ankum in the Federal Republic of Germany. Both members of the crew were killed. There were no civilian casualties, but there was minor damage to a farm building near the crash site. The RAF has convened a board of inquiry to examine fully all the circumstances of the accident, with a view to establishing its cause, and preventing recurrence. A summary of the board's findings will be published in due course and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Strength (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the manpower strength of the British Army in Northern Ireland, giving details of the number of operatives for the following categories: Ulster Defence Regiment, regular British Army and British Territorial Army, on 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Number

  Ulster Defence Regiment

  6,364

  Regular Army

  9,645

  Territorial Army

  3,744

  324
  The figures for the Ulster Defence Regiment include both full-time and part-time soldiers. Soldiers of the Territorial Army are not used in support of the RUC in counter-terrorist operations.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average time served by officers and other ranks of the Ulster Defence Regiment separately for full-time and part-time officers as at 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information on the average time in years served by UDR personnel on strength as at 31 December 1987 is as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Officers

  Male

  4·6

  9·4

  Female

  4·5

  4·1

  Other ranks

  Male

  7·6

  6·9

  Female

  6·9

  4·6

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the numbers of operatives by rank, separately of those who have joined the Ulster Defence Regiment and its reserve, and of those who have resigned from the Ulster Defence Regiment and its reserve, in the calendar years 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the following figures are available for those male and female officers and other ranks who have joined the UDR and who have left the UDR for reasons other than medical or disciplinary or on death:

  1986

  1987

  Intake

  Outflow

  Intake

  Outflow

  Officers

  Male

  29

  29

  18

  30

  Female

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Other ranks

  Male

  880

  694

  738

  701

  Female

  156

  117

  117

  119

  South African Armed Forces
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training facilities are, or have been provided at the 4th Parachute Regiment's premises at Leeds road, Bradford, for members of the South African armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no Territorial Army centre in Leeds Road, Bradford; Headquarters Company of 4 Parachute Regiment has its premises in Thornbury barracks, Pudsey. No training facilities have been extended to South African armed forces within these premises, nor are there any plans to do so.

  P and O
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)Official Report, 20 May,

  325
  column 611, how many P and O company personnel have been allowed use of Ministry of Defence facilities; if he will list the facilities so used; over what period of time they have been used; what has been the charge to the company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The P and O company has hired the swimming pool belonging to the Royal Marines school of music thrice-weekly since 9 May. On each occasion about 20 P and O employees have used the pool and changing facilities. The company has been charged at the normal rate of £7·75 per 45-minute session for use of the pool. The hire of the pool to P and O is consistent with long-standing arrangements which I referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on the 20 May at column 611.

  Major Cory
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his Department's handling of the case of Major Cory, in the light of the inaccuracies now acknowledged by his Department in the statement made by Mr. James Ramsden in the House on 17 December 1963, with particular reference to the judgment of the court martial appeals court.

  Mr. Freeman
  Mr. Ramsden made certain omissions in his statement to the House in his account of the internal investigation in 1963 into the trial of Major Cory but these were made in the interests of brevity. Major Cory has also drawn attention to the fact that certain references in the statement were at variance with certain statements in the judgment of the courts-martial appeals court. I wish to make it quite clear that if any statements were made to the House which were open to misinterpretation, or if any facts were omitted, thereby allowing an interpretation to Major Cory's discredit, there was no intention to mislead and the statement made should not be taken to contradict or minimise Major Cory's complete exoneration by the courts-martial appeal court's judgment. Major Cory is innocent of all the charges and an ex gratia payment was made to him in 1963 in respect of this miscarriage of justice. I regret that due to an administrative error by the MOD Major Cory's name was not removed from the records held at the national identification bureau. I can assure my hon. Friend that this has now been rectified.

  "Tumbledown"
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice and assistance was sought of his Department during the production of the British Broadcasting Corporation film "Tumbledown"; what assessment was made of the extent to which the proposed portrayal of the treatment of Lieutenant Robert Lawrence following his wounding during the Falklands war was(a) accurate and (b) in conformity with standard military procedure; what representations he has received on this matter; what action has been taken as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  At an early stage, the BBC sought assistance in making the drama "Tumbledown" and gave the MOD a copy of the playwright's script and asked for facilities including permission to film within MOD establishments and for equipment, aircraft and helicopters to be made available. The BBC was told, however, that the 326
  MOD was unhappy about the script mixing fact with fiction and that it could cause offence to individuals who would consider themselves portrayed and who had no means of defending themselves or their reputations. Since the BBC were adamant the script was a work of drama and were unwilling to consider any rewriting, the MOD declined to offer any assistance with "Tumbledown'. and, consequently, made no detailed analysis of how accurately the script reflected events or military procedures. There has been no further contact with the BBC on the subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received two letters from private individuals expressing concern that "Tumbledown" might misrepresent actual events.

  Military Land (Rally Sports)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much gross income was derived in each of the last five years by the use of military controlled land and facilities by all forms of rally sport.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Glasgow Airport
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military operations and excercises, by month and for each year since 1974 have in any way used Glasgow airport.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  "British Defence Policy 1988–89"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of preparing and printing "British Defence Policy 1988–89"; how many copies have been printed; whether there will be a charge made for copies; and what is the expected readership.

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimated costs of producing "British Defence Policy 1988–89" were approximately £69,000; 80,000 copies of the booklet have been printed initially, for issues free of charge to Members of Parliament, peers, journalists, foreign defence attaches and advisers, diplomatic posts abroad, officials and members of the armed forces, recruits to the services and members of the public who request it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the first full month's operation of the social fund in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Information about social fund applications is collected on the basis of calendar months, and I will place details in the Library on a similar basis to that announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 6 May.

  Unemployment Levels
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to monitor changes in relative unemployment levels among Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland over the next five years; and what goals and timetables he intends to set for reduction of existing inequalities.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Government will set goals and timetables for the eradication of present inequalities in levels of unemployment among Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland; and what steps are proposed to monitor changes in relative levels.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government's plans for evaluating the impact of our fair employment policies are set out in the White Paper on fair employment which was published yesterday. It would be inappropriate to set targets for unemployment levels.

  Michael Tighe
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the validity of the legal authority under which a bug was placed in the hay shed where Michael Tighe was killed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have answered three parliamentary questions on this subject from the hon. Member.

  West Belfast (Job Creation)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to announce further proposals for job creation in west Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House on 28 April, the Government are considering what additional steps, in which the private sector must have a major role, could be taken to strengthen economic activity in west Belfast. However, the biggest single boost to job creation would come from a renunciation of violence.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contribution is being made by jobcentres in Northern Ireland to the provision of opportunities for equal and fair employment.

  Mr. Viggers
  Job markets provide employment services to all persons regardless of sex, or religion. The "Guide to Effective Practice" issued by the Department of Economic Development last year encouraged employers to use job markets to fill job vacancies. Special help is given to disabled persons through the Department's disablement resettlement officer service.

  Explosives and Arms Caches
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of explosive and arms caches discovered since 1 January.
  328
  Mr. Tom King
  The determined efforts of the security forces throughout the island of Ireland have led to the recovery of a substantial amount of arms, ammunition and explosives. Since 1 January this year there have been over 100 caches of various sizes discovered in Northern Ireland. The most significant of these were the discovery of 91 assorted weapons, 150 hand grenades and 11,500 rounds of ammunition at Portadown on 8 January; 27 weapons, 20 hand grenades, two rocket launchers and 11,000 rounds of ammunition at Lisburn on 3 February; and 53 weapons, 126 hand grenades, one rocket launcher and 40,500 rounds of ammunition in north Belfast the following day.

  Overall, a total of 296 weapons, just over 70,000 rounds of ammunition and approximately 4,100 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. Some 200 weapons, about 139,000 rounds of ammunition and 600 lb of commercial explosives have also been recovered by the Garda Siochana.

  Security
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he remains satisfied with the implementation of security in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security of the Province.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland, with special reference to Mid-Ulster.

  Mr. Tom King
  Since the beginning of this year, two people have been killed in Mid-Ulster as a result of terrorist activity. Both were members of the security forces; Private Gibson a part-time member of UDR and Gunner Morgan from 19th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, who were murdered by the Provisional IRA in separate incidents on 26 April.

  School Meals
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of children taking school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At the annual census on a day in October 1987, 165,387 pupils were taking school meals.

  Benefits
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland who were in receipt of social security benefit at 31 March are now(a) no longer in receipt of benefit and (b) in receipt of benefit at a reduced rate; and what is the range, in money terms, of such loss of benefit suffered by the above categories.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the achievements of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  The agreement has offered reassurance to members of both traditions that their rights and identities will be respected; it has opened the way to intensified cross-border co-operation on a wide range of matters, and in particular in the security field offers the opportunity for fundamentally improved links between the security forces; and it has permitted Anglo-Irish relations to be conducted on a closer and more informal basis and provides a more immediate forum for the discussion of problems that arise either between north and south or between the two traditions.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reforms in the administration of justice were discussed at the recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement issued after the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 4 May. The Government attach great importance to ensuring that where there are genuine concerns about justice issues, everything possible is done to tackle those issues so as further to enhance the confidence of the whole community in Northern Ireland in the administration of justice.

  Schoolchildren (Integration)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on progress towards the greater integration of schoolchildren of different denominations.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the progress towards integrated schools in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are encouraged by the growing evidence of the willingness of parents to have their children educated in the integrated schools. The Government's proposals to facilitate the creation of grant-maintained integrated schools will offer a further opportunity for the expression of parental wishes.

  Benefit System
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has with pensioners' organisations concerning the changes in the social security benefit system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Political Parties (Consultations)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last consulted the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties represented at Westminster.
  330
  Mr. Tom King
  I regularly consult the leaders of the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland on legislative and other proposals. I last discussed prospects for political progress with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and party colleagues on 26 April, and with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on 11 May. I expect to meet the Unionist leaders again today.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on matters discussed at the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply I gave earlier to a question from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

  Health and Social Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his plans for health and social services in the Province for the next year; and whether he has yet met the chairman of the four area boards.

  Mr. Needham
  My long-term strategy for the health and personal social services remains as set out in the regional strategy which I published in August 1987.

  I met the chairman of the Western health and social services board on 16 May in the course of the 1988 accountability reviews and I have made arrangements to meet the other chairmen soon. One of my aims will be to consider and agree with them on detailed plans for 1988–89.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan).

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had regarding the possible introduction of a community charge to replace the existing Northern Ireland rating system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have had no discussions on this matter.

  Irish Republican Army
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to procure from right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland who attend this House, and from Protestant and Catholic leaders, a common declaration against the Irish Republican Army.

  Mr. Tom King
  I trust that all right hon. and hon. Members who represent the constitutional political parties
  331
  in Northern Ireland, as well as the leaders of the Churches in the Province, will continue to make clear their condemnation and detestation, which the Government fully share, of all acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

  Fair Employment (Code)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will take steps to ensure that the principles upon which the new code of conduct on fair employment will be based will be included in the proposed legislation in this area.

  Mr. Viggers
  The White Paper on fair employment indicates that the future code of practice will be a comprehensive guide to the ways in which employers can discharge their responsibilities under the proposed legislation. As such, the code will reflect the principles of that legislation.

  Gibraltar Shootings (BBC Programme)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation prior to the broadcast of the Spotlight programme on the Gibraltar shootings.

  Mr. Tom King
  None.

  Police (Discussions)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met the Chief Constable and the Garda Commissioner at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 4 May. As the statement which was issued after the meeting made clear, we discussed a number of matters relating to security co-operation including joint action against racketeering and smuggling.

  RUC (Recruitment)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implications for security in Northern Ireland of recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has no difficulty in attracting the necessary number of high calibre recruits required to maintain the level of manpower in the force at its full establishment. Last year 4,872 applications were received for the regular force, a substantial increase on previous years, with 246 officers appointed including 17 graduates. 3,909 applications were received for the full-time reserve with 403 appointed. The increased establishment of 250 officers, announced on 6 May 1987, was reached by 31 January 1988.

  Republic of Ireland (Ministers)
  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 hope to meet Irish Ministers shortly, at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. The 332
  final agenda is not yet fixed but security co-operation will certainly be one of the subjects and as announced after the last meeting, the problems of west Belfast and other disadvantaged areas will be discussed together with a number of other matters.

  The joint statement issued after the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 4 May sets out the matters discussed. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  West Belfast (Job Creation)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to announce further proposals for job creation in west Belfast and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland told the House on 28 April the Government are considering what additional steps, in which the private sector must have a major role, could be taken to strengthen economic activity in west Belfast. However, the biggest single boost to job creation would come from a renunciation of violence.

  Terrorism Cases (Appeals)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases concerning scheduled offences were referred to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in 1986 and 1987; and in how many of these referred cases the original conviction was(a) quashed and (b) upheld.

  Mr. Stanley
  Outcome of appeals disposed of in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeals) following conviction for scheduled offences.

  1986

  1987

  Appeal abandoned

  30

  26

  Appeal dismissed

  58

  92

  Conviction quashed

  70

  2

  Sentence varied

  5

  25

  Total number disposed of

  163

  145

  Irish Language
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the role of Irish in the curriculum was discussed at the curriculum conferences of the inspectorate of education since 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The role of individual subjects is not normally discussed at the full conference of the Inspectorate. However, in recent years the inspectorate's panel for languages other than English has discussed various aspects relating to the teaching of Irish including the initial and in-service training of teachers of Irish, the development of resource materials for teachers and pupils in Irish language classes, the assessment of Irish through the graded objectives approach and the introduction of GCSE Irish.

  West Belfast
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met community groups in west Belfast to discuss the economic and social problems of the area: and if he will make a statement.
  333
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met community groups in west Belfast to discuss its economic and social problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Ministers and officials frequently meet Community and other groups to discuss how to improve economic, social and physical conditions. I believe that further measures taken must include a role for the voluntary and private sectors.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were convicted in 1987, either on their own admission of guilt or following a plea of not guilty, on the basis of evidence on behalf of the Crown given by alleged accomplices in cases concerning scheduled offences in Northern Ireland; how many suspects arrested on the basis of such evidence have been released as a result of the retraction of evidence given by accomplices; how many people are presently awaiting trial as a result of evidence obtained from alleged accomplices; and how many people have been found not guilty, or not guilty on appeal, on the basis of such evidence.

  Mr. Stanley
  In 1987, none.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were remanded in custody before trial for scheduled and non-scheduled offences and both together in the second half of 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  A total of 939 persons were remanded in custody in the scond half of 1987, 542 of whom were charged with scheduled offences and 397 with non-scheduled offences.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of prisoners on custodial remand for scheduled and non-scheduled offences, respectively, were(a) given a non-custodial sentence, (b) given a custodial sentence and (c) found not guilty or not proceeded against in 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  Following is the information:

  Disposal

  Scheduled offences

  Non-scheduled offences

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Non-custodial sentence

  12·9

  17·4

  Custodial sentence

  74·6

  64·2

  Found not guilty or not proceeded against

  12·5

  18·4

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of days that prisoners spent on custodial remand for scheduled and non-scheduled offences and both together in 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  For persons who were tried in 1987 and who were in custody at the time of their trial, the average time spent on custodial remand was 178 days for persons charged with scheduled offences and 46 days for persons charged with non-scheduled offences.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for bail by those held on remand for scheduled and non-scheduled offences and both together were refused bail in 1987.
  334
  Mr. Stanley
  A total of 576 bail applications were refused in 1987 in respect of persons charged with scheduled offences and 228 in respect of persons charged with non-scheduled offences. The latter includes a corrected figure of 111 refusals in the first six months of the year rather than 110 as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 December 1987, at column 800.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of days spent on remand for both scheduled and non-scheduled offences together, in the second half of 1987;what was the total number of persons remanded in custody before trial for both scheduled and non-scheduled offences together in the second half of 1987; and what was the number of bail applications refused for(a) scheduled offences, (b) non-sheduled offences and (c) both together in the second half of 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  In the second half of 1987, 939 persons were remanded in custody, 341 bail applications were refused in respect of persons charged with scheduled offences and 117 in respect of persons charged with non-scheduled offences. The average length of time spent on custodial remand for persons tried in the second half of 1987 and who were in custody at the date of the trial was 108 days.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were detained under the Emergency Provisions (Northern Ireland) Acts 1973 and 1978 in the first six months of 1987 and in the second half of 1987; and how many of these persons were subsequently charged with(a) scheduled offences and (b) non-scheduled offences.

  Mr. Stanley
  In the first half of 1987, 48 persons were arrested under section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, and 378 under section 11. The power of arrest under section 11 was repealed from 15 June 1987. Nobody was arrested under section 13. Fourty-four of those arrested were subsequently charged with scheduled offences and two with non-scheduled offences.

  In the second half of 1987, nine persons were arrested under section 13 of the Act and 47 under Section 14. I shall write to the hon. Member with the numbers subsequently charged.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average period of custodial remand for female custodial remand prisoners in Northern Ireland for the years 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows.

  The average length of time spent on custodial remand by female prisoners who were in custody at the time of their trial was 129 days for those tried in 1986, and 43 days for those tried in 1987.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners were remanded in custody prior to trial for scheduled and non-scheduled offences, respectively, in 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  A total of 1,813 persons were remanded in custody in 1987, 1,043 of whom were charged with scheduled offences and 770 with non-scheduled offences.
  335
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the number of prisoners in Northern Ireland's prisons as at 31 December 1987, detailing the numbers by sex, in prison and in young offenders centres separately.

  Mr. Stanley
  On 31 December 1987 there were 1,871 inmates in Northern Ireland prison establishments of whom 1,844 were males and 27 were females; 1,673 were in prisons and 198 in young offenders centres.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the size of the present prison population in Northern Ireland, divided into terrorist type offenders and other offenders, categorised by age and by sex in the following groups(a) under 18 years of age, (b)18 to 25 years, (c) 25 to 30 years, (d) 30 to 40 years, (e) 40 to 50 years, (f) 50 to 60 years and (g) over 60 years;

  Breakdown by sex, age and length of sentence

  MALES

  Sentence Length

  Offence Type

  Up to 18

  18 up to 25

  25 up to 30

  30 up to 40

  40 up to 50

  50 up to 60

  Over 60

  Up to three months

  Scheduled

  1

  8

  3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  29

  12

  16

  6

  3

  0

  Three up to six months

  Scheduled

  3

  4

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  14

  43

  17

  5

  4

  1

  1

  Six up to 12 months

  Scheduled

  4

  20

  7

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  23

  62

  22

  18

  1

  1

  2

  12 up to 18 months

  Scheduled

  1

  15

  6

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  2

  26

  12

  4

  2

  1

  0

  18 months up to four years

  Scheduled

  6

  106

  48

  21

  7

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  4

  73

  32

  39

  14

  6

  1

  Four up to eight years

  Scheduled

  0

  76

  56

  25

  4

  1

  1

  Non-scheduled

  1

  22

  17

  13

  14

  2

  0

  More than eight years

  Scheduled

  0

  69

  107

  85

  9

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  5

  6

  4

  1

  3

  0

  Life1

  Scheduled

  2

  18

  121

  251

  39

  5

  1

  Non-scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  61

  576

  469

  485

  107

  24

  6

  1 Including those detained at the pleasure of the Secretary of State.

  Sentence Length: as imposed by Court.

  Sentence Length

  Offence Type

  Up to 18

  18 up to 25

  25 up to 30

  30 up to 40

  40 up to 50

  50 up to 60

  Over 60

  Up to three months

  Scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Three up to six months

  Scheduled

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Six up to 12 months

  Scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  12 up to 18 months

  Scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  18 months up to four years

  Scheduled

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Four up to eight years

  Scheduled

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  More than eight years

  Scheduled

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Life1

  Scheduled

  0

  1

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Non-scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  1

  8

  9

  3

  3

  1

  0

  1 Including those detained at the pleasure of the Secretary of State.

  Sentence Length: as imposed by Court.

  336
  and if he will give a breakdown of the length of sentence being served by each age group under the following headings: (i) up to three months, (ii) over three months and up to six months, (iii) over six months and under 12 months, (iv) over 12 months and under 18 months, (v) over 18 months and up to four years, (vi) over four years and up to eight years, (vii) over eight years and (viii) life, together with a breakdown, divided into terrorist-type offenders and other offenders under the same sentence headings, of the numbers as a percentage of the total prison population.

  Mr. Stanley
  On 1 April 1988 (the latest date for which figures in such detail are available) there were 1,753 sentenced inmates in Northern Ireland prison establishments. This includes those detained in the young offenders centres. The requested breakdowns of the population are set out in the tables below.
  337

  Scheduled and non-scheduled offenders, by sentence length, as a percentage of the total sentenced prison population

  Sentence length

  Scheduled offences

  Non-scheduled offences

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Less than three months

  0·9

  4·0

  Three up to six months

  0·7

  4·9

  Six up to 12 months

  2·0

  7·5

  12 up to 18 months

  1·4

  2·7

  18 months up to four years

  11·0

  9·6

  Four up to eight years

  9·5

  3·9

  Over eight years

  15·5

  1·1

  Life (including SOSP)

  25·3

  0·1

  Total

  66·2

  33·8

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners charged with scheduled offences in the latest calendar year were remanded in custody prior to trial for periods between(a) nil to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months, (e) 12 to 18 months and (f) over 18 months, for scheduled and non-scheduled offences, respectively.

  Mr. Stanley
  The length of time spent on custodial remand for persons tried during 1987 and who were in custody at the time of their trial and charged with scheduled and non-scheduled offences respectively was as follows:

  Time in Custody

  Scheduled offences

  Non-scheduled offences

  Less than three months

  249

  397

  Three months up to six months

  71

  47

  Six months up to nine months

  64

  20

  Nine months up to 12 months

  47

  4

  12 months up to 18 months

  53

  5

  Over 18 months

  20

  4

  Total

  504

  477

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average length of custodial sentence of female prisoners in Northern Ireland in 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows: The average determinate sentence imposed on female prisoners in 1986 was 12.8 months, and in 1987 10 months. Four women prisoners were sentenced to life imprisonment in 1986, none in 1987.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many formal complaints have been made about incidents of police use of plastic baton rounds in 1987; in how many cases the complaint has been upheld; and in how many cases disciplinary action has been taken against the officers involved.

  Mr. Stanley
  During 1987, seven formal complaints were made concerning the use of plastic baton rounds by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Two were later withdrawn. Police reports on four others were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions who directed no prosecution on each. The question of disciplinary action is now being considered by the deputy Chief Constable, and 338
  in due course the papers will be referred to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. The remaining complaint is still under investigation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic bullets were fired in Northern Ireland in 1987 and in what circumstances: in what location the bullets were fired; and how many persons were injured as a result of the use of plastic bullets.

  Mr. Stanley
  During 1987, 2,575 plastic baton rounds were fired in Northern Ireland; 40 people were allegedly injured in the period. I am writing to the hon. Member with the information he has requested about the circumstances and places in which the baton rounds were fired. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Security (Fatalities)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fatal casualties there were in 1987 arising from incidents where security forces in Northern Ireland opened fire on vehicles taken without their owners' consent.

  Mr. Stanley
  There was one such incident in 1987. On 8 May, eight terrorists attacked the RUC station at Loughgall using vehicles which had been hijacked earlier. All the terrorists were killed. An innocent passer-by was also killed during this attack.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the manpower strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and its Reserve, as between full-time, part-time, male and female, operatives as at 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows:

  Strength of RUC and RUC reserve as at 31 December 1987

  Male

  Female

  Total

  RUC

  7,591

  645

  8,236

  RUC reserve (full-time)

  2,983

  4

  2,987

  RUC reserve (part-time)

  1,336

  321

  1,657

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will detail how many attacks on Royal Ulster Constabulary personnel took place in 1987, showing whether the attack was on(a) a foot patrol and (b) a mobile patrol and the total attacked while on duty each month together with details of the type of attack, namely (i) physical assault, (ii) stone throwing, (iii) petrol bomb, (iv) explosion and (v) shooting, and the number of persons made amenable.

  Mr. Stanley
  Information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, in 1987 there were over 950 incidents in which the police were attacked either on or off duty. Of these, 105 incidents involved the use of explosives and 92 the use of firearms.

  Firearms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will detail the number of arms found in 1987 under the headings of(a) machine guns" (b) rifles, (c) shotguns, (d) pistols/revolvers and (e) others.
  339
  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  Machine Guns

  23

  Rifles

  223

  Shotguns

  76

  Pistols/Revolvers

  152

  Others

  108

  Note:

  "Others" include—Antique weapons, anti-tank weapons, blank firing pistols, replica pistols, replical revolvers, replica sub-machine guns, starting pistols and starting revolvers.

  Bullet Firing

  Shotgun

  Air weapons/miscellaneous2

  Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve1

  10

  —

  —

  Ulster Defence Regiment

  178

  —

  4

  Regular Army

  —

  —

  —

  Civilians

  35

  91

  14

  1 Ulster Special Constabulary were disbanded in 1970.

  2 Also included in this category are air rifles, humane killers and flare pistols.

  Security Forces (Offences)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the security forces convicted of offences in Northern Ireland and sentenced to custodial sentences have been allowed to return to Great Britain to serve their sentences for humanitarian reasons in 1987; and how many members of the security forces secured early release from their sentences in 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  There were no transfers of sentenced members of the security forces to Great Britain during 1987, and in that year no such person was released in Northern Ireland except under normal release procedures.
  340
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will show in a table how many legally held firearms were stolen in Northern Ireland during 1987 from (i) Royal Ulster Constabulary/Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve and Special Constabulary, (ii) Ulster Defence Regiment, (iii) British Army and (iv) civilians; and if he will give a breakdown of weapons stolen as in (i) bullet firing, (ii) shotguns and (iii) air weapons and miscellaneous, to include blank firing weapons, muzzle loading weapons and antique weapons.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows:

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the proposed legislation on equality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland will include the principles upon which a revised code of conduct on fair employment will be based.

  Mr. Viggers
  The White Paper on fair employment indicates that the future code of practice will be a comprehensive guide to the ways in which employers can discharge their responsibilities under the proposed legislation. As such the code will reflect the principles of that legislation.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Employment Act,

Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Order Confirmation Act.

New Car Sales
11.6 a.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for sales of new cars in the United Kingdom.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there were just over three quarters of a million new cars registered in the UK in the first four months of this year. This is an increase of 10 per cent. on the corresponding period of last year.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the recent announcement of a new Rover model for 1989, with the consequent increase in the labour force, is an encouraging sign for the British motor car industry? Can he say what percentage of newly registered cars were manufactured in this country?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that Rover's programme of new models is clearly encouraging for the British motor car industry as a whole. As regards import penetration, analysis of new registrations of passenger cars in the period January to April of this year shows that 54·5 per cent. were imported. In the corresponding period for last year, 49·4 per cent. were imported. However, I should say that the Ford strike undoubtedly had an impact on those figures, whereas during 1987 there was a drop in the percentage level of registrations of foreign-made vehicles.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what the current net annual increase in the total car population is, as opposed to sales for new cars? Having given that figure, can he then tell us how to avoid traffic jams?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that is an interesting point. I have all sorts of figures in front of me concerning new car production. However, I do not have figures relating to cars which are taken off the road or scrapped. If I can find those figures, I shall of course let the noble Lord have them. No doubt they
1006
will be of great interest to him. However encouraging the figures may be, I doubt whether he will get around much more quickly than he does at the moment.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, can the Minister say what steps are being taken in central London and the central areas of other big cities to improve traffic conditions?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that that is another Question. The present Question concerns registration of cars in this country. Although that may have some bearing on traffic, the noble Lord's is another point.

Police Computer Systems Improvements
11.10 a.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to use computer technology to assist the police in the fight against crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, computer technology has already brought the police more effective systems for handling major criminal investigations, for deploying police officers and for recording and analysing crimes. There will be continuing development of this nature.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he have information on how computers can speed up identification of crimes and criminals?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the police national computer is being replaced at the moment. That will give it more capacity, which should result in the quicker retrieval of information.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question is very important in regard to the detection of crime and the saving of manpower? Can he give the House news about the development of at least three devices? The first device, about which the police are very keen, is AFR—automatic fingerprint retrieval—which is already in use in the United States, Canada and Japan. The second device is the electronic photofit, which is at an experimental stage in Hertfordshire but which is not in use generally. The third device is the very useful automatic notebook, known technically as the HHID—the hand-held input device.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has asked penetrating questions of detail. As regards automatic fingerprint recognition—AFR—I can tell him that the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police are working on that project. It is a pilot project for a national AFR system. So far as the electronic photofit system is concerned, I applaud the noble Lord for his detailed knowledge of those matters. The system has been on trial with the Lancashire Constabulary. We are considering whether the system will be suitable for use on the new police national computer. As regards hand-held

1007
input devices, which the noble Lord described as electronic notebooks, those are in use in many police forces. They cannot be used to access the police national computer and there are no plans to allow such devices to be used with the PNC.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can we be sure that trained policemen are not being used to read the computers who could be better employed on the beat? Are civilians being used for that purpose?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all forces are engaged in a considerable civilianisation programme for the very purpose which my noble friend has mentioned—to put uniformed police on the beat.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while I thank the noble Earl for his customary courtesy, can the House be assured that these matters are receiving his urgent attention as a Minister with special responsibility for the police, because the police themselves to my certain knowledge are most anxious that they should be proceeded with with diligence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to emphasise that point because improving the status and ability of the police to function properly is very important. He would like to know that £25 million was spent in 1986 on operational computer systems and very considerable work and expenditure are being put into computerising the police force.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can efforts be directed to finding a substitute for the term "civilianisation", which might put civilians off?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is one better than "screenees" to which one of the noble and learned Lord's noble friends was subjected yesterday.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, since the Question looks to the future, is it worth putting on record that the police national computer has now been functioning for some 20 years and that originally the police themselves were very dubious about its benefits but since it was forced upon them they have come to value its contribution towards the detection of crime?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for drawing your Lordships' attention to that fact. The police national computer is a very considerable asset. Apart from containing the names of criminals and conviction details and information on stolen or suspect vehicles, 33 million inquiries are made into it each year and 90,000 a day. There are 2,700 terminals connected to the computer, so it has a major impact.

Fire: Houses in Multiple Occupation
11.15 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many lives have been lost over the last 10 years in houses in multiple occupation and hostels
1008
due to the incidence of fire, and whether any measures are being contemplated to deal with this problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, because of some change in the recording practice by fire brigades consistent information is available only from 1982. In the period 1982 to 1986 there were 432 deaths in fires in the UK in detached, semi-detached or terraced houses in multiple occupation and 23 deaths in fires in hostels or similar institutions. Her Majesty's Government will be issuing guidance on means of escape from houses in multiple occupation later this year. We are considering the way in which means of escape from fire can be included in future housing legislation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that very informative reply. May I ask him whether the advisory standards which are to be issued later this year will be mandatory or optional? If they are optional, is he aware that because of lack of resources many local authorities will certainly not implement them and the carnage suggested in the figures he has given today will continue? I do not think that that is what any of us in your Lordships' House or elsewhere wishes to see happen.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the guidance will cover within its scope some 80 per cent. of houses in multiple occupation. It will not have statutory force, but it is anticipated that it will help to raise the standards of means of escape in many more than 8 per cent. of the houses in multiple occupation upon which there is a duty to provide means of escape. A mandatory grant is available for up to 90 per cent. of the cost of the provision of means of escape from fire in those houses in multiple occupation which are required to have them.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, since the great majority of fires in such buildings are caused by overloaded electric circuits, can the noble Earl tell us how far it is now compulsory to have electronic residual current circuit-breakers fitted in those houses? Is that now compulsory?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount is very ingenious in putting his question, but I believe that if he thinks about it again he will realise that it is far outside the scope of the present Question. I should be delighted to answer if he would be kind enough to put down a Question specifically on electronic contact-breakers.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to declare my interest as a non-executive vice president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Has the Minister any evidence of unguarded electric fires and old-fashioned oil heaters, which I believe are illegal anyway, being in evidence in such properties? If so, have any recommendations been made concerning them at inquests into such tragedies?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Question refers specifically to houses in multiple occupation and to

1009
hostels. I do not have the detailed information for which my noble friend has asked because it is outside the scope of the Question.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is not the answer to the question of houses in multiple occupation and hostels that they ought to be designated under the Act dealing with fire prevention and required to have a certificate as a result? Is the Minister aware that the greatest fire authority dealing with the problem, namely the one which covers the metropolis, is extremely anxious as a matter of policy that that should happen so that it can as a fire authority have proper liaison with the housing authority?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the problems which has been considered in drawing up the guidance is the connection between the Home Office, the fire authorities and local authorities. I think that the suggestion which the noble Lord has put forward would have considerable resource implications, but we are considering ways in which means of escape from fire can be included in future housing legislation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that I am somewhat disappointed at his answer to my supplementary question that there will still be a large number of properties for which the necessity to provide that type of accommodation without fire risk will be left to the mercies of individual local authorities? As he said, considerable resources will be necessary to bring those buildings up to standard.
The point I wish to make is that the more that provision is left as a non-obligatory function, the longer the risk will continue. Is the Minister further aware of the concern shown by authorities and associations which arc grappling with this problem? I know that they will be extremely disappointed to learn that there will still be some loopholes left should the advisory standards be as depicted by the Minister in his Answer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, local authorities can serve a notice under Section 366 of the Housing Act 1985 requiring the provision of means of escape from fire. There is a duty in respect of houses in multiple occupation of three storeys or more and with 500 square metres of floor area, and there is a discretionary power for local authorities in respect of smaller properties. At the moment the Government are not convinced that further powers are necessary and no authorities have said that they serve notice only where the duty applies. They appear to discharge their duties on fire safety as regards houses in multiple occupation outside their legal duty.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the expression "multiple occupation" as it appears in the Question covers the case of families who have a mother-in-law living with them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that they would have to live in separate apartments within the same building and that there would have to be more than two of them.

Wheelclamping in London: Policy
11.21 a.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the policy of clamping cars in London is operated in a fair and rational manner.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the operation of wheelclamping in London is a matter for the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and of the City of London. Officers have been made aware of the need to ensure that the power to clamp is used with discretion.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I must declare a personal interest, in that I was clamped in the space of six minutes while I was unloading my luggage and carrying it into the Farmers' Club in Whitehall Court. Although my indignation boiled over at that time, I put down the Question because I have discovered that a great many people have had similar experiences. Is the Minister aware that there is a general feeling that the civilians who are employed under the supervision of a police officer to clamp cars are either on a bonus or on quota? Will the Minister tell us a little more, if he can, about the system and how many people a police officer supervises? Can he say whether the story about quotas and bonuses is a fable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having been generous enough to tell the House that he had an interest to declare and that he had only put down this Question on behalf of others who had suffered a similar fate! I am bound to say that when I saw this Question and was apprised of the fact that the noble Lord had been clamped, I thought that he could well have been reminded of the prayer, which he would have heard read had he been present for prayers, which says:
"We, having Thy fear always before our eyes and laying aside all private interests, prejudices and partial affections".
He was of course good enough to lay all those considerations on one side.
I can tell him that wheelclamping operations are carried out with sensitivity, though the person being clamped does not necessarily notice it. The Metropolitan Police have instructions which are sent out to all officers stating that officers engaged on wheelclamping duties are inevitably involved in a sensitive area of public relations and it is therefore essential that officers apply common sense and good judgment at all times. They also add that there will be many occasions when it will be necessary for police officers employed on those duties to exercise their discretion.
There is always a police officer in charge of a wheelclamping unit and no car is clamped before the officer concerned has given such authority.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, at the moment I am touching wood and hoping that I do not have an interest to declare and can therefore comply with my noble friend's theological admonition. Is he aware that clamping seems to be taking the place of the older practice of towing away? May I ask whether he and the Metropolitan Police appreciate that a clamped car that is obstructing traffic continues to obstruct the traffic for longer than it might otherwise have done, whereas once a car is towed away there is no further obstruction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but towing away is a fairly draconian measure. It is undertaken on certain occasions. The number of wheelclamping operations which have taken place has risen considerably and this has been found to increase the rate of traffic flow. There are occasions when a car that has been wheelclamped still obstructs traffic, and it is then towed away.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has the Minister seen reports in the press last week about a police car that was answering an emergency call being clamped? I understand that it took the officer several minutes to persuade the person who had clamped the car to unclamp it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is an expression:
"The rain it raineth every day upon the just and the unjust person".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as someone who most likely will have to declare an interest as a consequence of asking this supplementary question, may I ask the Minister whether he is conscious of the fact that there is a general feeling among the public that much wheelclamping is done at random? Is he aware (though how in the name of heaven he can be I know not) that at about 6.15 p.m. yesterday near Russell Square I observed that a British Telecom vehicle had been clamped and heard the driver's language when he found it? It was somewhat disturbing. It appears that the vehicle was in that place in order to carry out some telephone repairs. Does he not consider that an example of that kind, which I personally witnessed, indicates that wheelclamping operations are done at random and somewhat carelessly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all have individual examples of how things appear to be not part of the norm. I am conscious of the anxiety caused by wheelclamping, but there is a real and serious dichotomy in this situation. On the one hand, the police have to make sure that the roads are kept clear and where parking offences occur they should be properly penalised. On the other hand, that must be done with sensitivity because the mere fact of clamping alienates the people who very often are the greatest supporters of the police. There is a delicate balance to be kept.
The noble Lord may not be surprised that I was not aware of what happened in Russell Square around 6 o'clock yesterday afternoon. He may have been surprised at the language of the British Telecom engineer. I wonder whether he heard the language of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he was clamped.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many people who, in some streets at any rate, have found the movement of traffic to be somewhat improved as a result of wheelclamping? Does he appreciate that previous to that draconian punishment (which is what it is) the ordinary system of fines, which usually operates many months in arrears, was proving quite insufficient to stop illegal parking such as can be seen any day in London in hundreds of places? My noble friend is fully justified in introducing wheelclamping as a possible—I repeat possible—means of preventing illegal parking and thus freeing the streets of London for traffic to move through.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for putting that point so clearly. Perhaps I may say that he is quite right. There is a perfectly clear distinction made between places where one may and one may not park. Nevertheless, in all of us there is the element of the schoolboy and we all try to see whether or not we can get away with it. If one does not get away with it, one has really only oneself to blame.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, has consideration yet been given to the recommendations of the North Report? The report suggests that clamping might be extended to cases where the police constable sees that a vehicle is in a very dangerous condition or where there is no display either of a registered licence disc or an out-of-date one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the North Report, only recently produced, has some very important recommendations. There are a great many of them. At present the Government are considering them and will in due course decide what to do.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I said, "Bother"? There is a serious point to my Question. It seems to be a firing into the pack method. It may be effective but it could be refined. Certainly the unloading time should be defined. Five minutes is far too little. If the computer could be used so that persistent offenders pay more, there might be some logic to it. The present "spray shot" method is alienating the public.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the clamping time is very clearly laid down. One is permitted to stop, or to load or unload, for up to 20 minutes. The courts have held that loading or unloading must be continuous. The Metropolitan Police observe private cars for five minutes for signs of loading or unloading before a wheel clamp is applied; and 10 minutes is allowed for commercial vehicles. Should the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, go to the City, the City police observe for 10 minutes and 20 minutes respectively.
The noble Lord has a very good point. He is quite right when he refers to the alienation of the public from the police. I had the advantage of drawing this fact to the attention of the police yesterday at the meeting of the Association of Chief Police Officers at Eastbourne. I said that this was a matter that they have to take into account. However, in the end we

1013
must make sure that we do not alienate from the police those who are basically the greatest supporters of the police.

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill
11.31 a.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

British Steel Bill
11.32 a.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. As I said in my Statement to the House on 3rd December last year, the British Steel Corporation has now reached the stage at which it would benefit from a return to a fully commercial environment. I said that legislation would be introduced in this Session to turn the corporation into a Companies Act company. The House now has that legislation before it and I should like to outline its main provisions.
The Bill is an enabling Bill. It paves the way for the subsequent privatisation of British Steel. The core of the Bill is to be found in Clause I, which provides for all of the property, rights and liabilities of the corporation to vest in a successor company. That company will be a Companies Act company set up for the purpose of vesting. The successor company will be limited by shares, all of which will be owned by the Government. The Government will then be able to offer their shares for sale to the public and thus privatise the successor company.
The Bill does not dictate the timing of the privatisation. That will depend on the market and the performance of the company. Our clear intention, however, is to return British Steel to the private sector as soon as possible. Nor does the Bill dictate the form in which British Steel will be privatised. We have, however, made it clear that we intend to privatise the successor company as a single entity and in its present plant configuration.
The Bill essentially provides therefore for a change in the legal status of British Steel from a public corporation to a public limited company. While the successor company will technically be a different person in law from the corporation, the intention of the Bill is that it should be regarded for all practical commercial purposes as the same company. The change brought about by the Bill is not intended to affect the commercial activities of British Steel nor the extent of its assets and liabilities
To complement this change of legal status the successor company will require a capital structure which is compatible with the requirements of the Companies Act. Clauses 2, 3 and 7 of the Bill provide for that capital structure and it may be of assistance to noble Lords if I briefly explain those provisions.
Clause 2 provides for the reduction and subsequent extinguishing of the public dividend capital of the corporation. A reduction in the corporation's capital
1014
is necessary to write off accumulated past trading losses and thereby achieve a balance sheet which more accurately represents the present value of the net assets of the company. It is important to understand that the accumulated losses are not debts. We are not talking about money that is owed to someone; we are concerned with losses which have been made in previous years, the accumulated total of which is recorded in the corporation's accounts.
It is open to any Companies Act company to apply to the court for a reduction in its capital in order to eliminate such losses, to enable it to pay dividends and, in the case of the successor company, to ensure that it may be registered as a plc. Since the corporation as a nationalised industry cannot apply to the court for such a reduction, this will be authorised under Clause 2 of this Bill.
The remaining public capital will then be extinguished, and will be replaced by securities issued under the provisions of Clause 3 by the successor company to the Government. To the extent that the total nominal value of the securities issued to the Government is less than the amount of the public capital extinguished, the balance will go to form a reserve, called the statutory reserve. The uses to which this reserve may be put are specified in Clause 7 of the Bill.
The statutory reserve is not a cash fund; it is a book-keeping entry which serves the primary purpose of ensuring that the balance sheet balances. Private sector companies generally have a mixture of share and loan capital and reserves. The process of restructuring the balance sheet of the corporation is, as I have said, complementary to the vesting provisions of the Bill. Instead of—as we have now—a nationalised corporation funded by public dividend capital, the successor company will be a Companies Act company with capital and reserves.
I must make it clear that the rearrangement of British Steel's capital structure prior to privatisation does not contain any element of subsidy nor does it contain any element of write off of debt. No cash changes hands as a result of the provisions I have described and the successor company is obliged to inherit all of the liabilities of the corporation.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are subsidiary and technical and I do not propose to delay your Lordships by discussing them further now. They are generally well precedented by previous privatisation legislation. My department will make available full explanatory notes to anyone who is interested or concerned.
Your Lordships will be aware from my previous statements to the House on this and other matters that my department is committed to the promotion and regeneration of enterprise in this country. We are firmly of the belief that nationalisation and public ownership of industry are inimical to the growth of enterprise.
The Morrisonian type of state corporation—a relic perhaps of a bygone era—is a cumbersome and unwieldy structure. It has been proved to be fatally flawed in that the different imperatives of the commercial and political worlds (to both of which it is subject) cannot be satisfactorily reconciled. That

1015
has been amply demonstrated by the history of the British Steel Corporation, and I think that most people would now accept that state ownership is unlikely to promote the efficient and competitive manufacturing of goods for the international market.
Not only is the political control imposed on state corporations inappropriate, but there also grew up a belief that governments could afford to ignore the market, and indefinitely maintain outdated excess industrial capacity. Again and again the history of the British Steel Corporation illustrates the folly of such a belief. It is simply not within the power of governments to roll back the tide of market forces and to preserve industries in a static form. The lessons have been learnt, and learnt painfully, that the only guarantee of success is to respond quickly and flexibly to the market, and to produce goods that customers want to buy at prices they are willing to pay.
British Steel fully understands that fundamental truth, and I congratulate the management and workforce of the corporation on the excellent results they are now achieving. Yes, it is true that the remarkable turnaround in the corporation's fortunes has been achieved within the public sector; but that has been achieved despite public ownership, not because of it. The Government have sought as far as possible to give the corporation the freedom to get on with its business and not to interfere in its commercial decisions.
The foundations of success have been laid and the first profits built upon them. But this is not the time for complacency. We must look to the future. The European steel market is well on its way towards complete liberalisation. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that the internal market will be complete by 1992. Third world steel producers are increasingly making their presence felt. If British Steel is to prosper in this increasingly competitive environment, as I am sure it will, it must have the freedom and flexibility to take swift decisions, to adapt to the changing needs of the market-place, and to take risks; in short, it must be enterprising.
As I have said, I believe that public ownership inhibits the spirit of enterprise. The benefits that the Government's privatisation policy has brought to the economy are plain for all to see. This Bill is the first step in the process of privatising British Steel. As a private sector company, British Steel will be free to grow and prosper and to play its full part in contributing to the wealth of our nation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Young of Graffham.)
11.46 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for taking us through the Bill and for explaining some of the thinking behind it. I was grateful to him also for clearly specifying that the point of the Bill was to prepare for privatisation, although the Bill itself, as he remarked, is just a vesting Bill making sure that a public corporation becomes a plc.
1016
I am afraid that the noble Lord has failed to persuade us of the reasons for the change of ownership. He said clearly that the British Steel Corporation has done extremely well in the last two years under public ownership. He went on to say—I do not think I misquote him—that this was because the Government gave the British Steel Corporation freedom to manoeuvre and freedom to react to market forces. We on our side see no reason why this should not continue. I have yet to hear from any government Minister anything other than what I would regard as somewhat weary platitudes about the Government not being involved in any kind of industry.
If I were turning the argument on its head and the British Steel Corporation were now private and we were considering nationalisation, I believe I might even take the same view. This was not the case in 1967 when 14 companies were brought together. I believe it was right to do that under public ownership, but if a company is running successfully in the national interest and if it is in a competitive environment, as British Steel is and will continue to be, I do not see any great reason for changing ownership simply for reasons of dogma.
Since 1984–85 the British Steel Corporation has been a substantial success story. In productivity, just to take the Lanwern works, labour productivity to produce a tonne of steel has gone from eight hours to 2·8 hours today, and Scunthorpe is now at 2·86 man hours per tonne. In terms of export growth the 1986 overseas receipts came to about £1 billion. British Steel was the ninth largest foreign exchange earner in industry. In 1987 approximately 36 per cent. of total output was exported.
In technology British Steel has shown itself to be a world leader. The blast furnace at Redcar, for example, was rebuilt in 1986 right on time. In fact, it was put into commission slightly early. The Port Talbot hot mill in 1987 was commissioned early and without substantial teething troubles. In terms of product quality, there have been certificates of quality signifying complete confidence from some of the major steel consumers in the world who are operating in the international market, notably Caterpillar and Gillette. On reliability of delivery, customers now take it for granted that orders will be delivered, will be delivered on time and to the required specification.
I do not think anybody would now say, as they used to say of the British Steel Corporation, that it is the sick man of the European steel industry. In fact there is good reason to suppose that it may be the world's best steelmaker at present. By any standards the British Steel Corporation is now a success and this must be due to every person employed in the corporation, manager and workforce alike. One cannot say too often how much they have contributed and at a considerable price in terms of employment (we have to recognise that) to the present success.
So why are we now discussing the possible change of ownership which will upset an equilibrium which has produced such a success? We are doing it because the Government wish to do it and the Government

1017
have secured a majority for the Bill in another place. In your Lordships' House we have to accept that that will happen. I wish to point out some of the problems with privatisation, as we see them, that we shall be exploring in Committee.
There is the future of Ravenscraig. When the noble Lord made a Statement we had a short exchange about Ravenscraig. When my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove winds up from these Benches he will be referring to Ravenscraig in much greater detail. Secondly, why should the corporation be privatised as a single unit? We believe that there is need for a full and frank discussion of the pros and cons. We expect to go into that in Committee.
Thirdly, there is the problem of the quasi-monopoly position of British Steel. I accept that that question is linked with the future of the European steel industry and integration in Europe—indeed the integration of the steel industry on a worldwide basis and competition from Korea and other countries. That in its turn is linked to the sterling-dollar and sterling-Deutschmark rate particularly. It is said by a number of experts that in Europe there is a surplus of steel-rolling capacity of approximately 30 million tonnes. It is also said that there is a world overcapacity of approximately 100 million tonnes. We must be quite clear that reductions in capacity—if they occur, as they certainly must at some point—do not affect the operations of British Steel merely because it is privatised.
Steel is a particularly interesting form of primary industry because in the early stage it suffers from a downturn in the inventory cycle. When steel users see the projections of their sales for the future and they see a possible downturn, the first thing they do is to cut stocks of raw materials. Steel immediately feels the effect of that process. It is a most cyclical industry. Part of the problems that were suffered by the British Steel Corporation in the 1970s and early 1980s were due to that early attack on the steel industry as a result of turndown in economic activity. We must be clear in our minds that privatisation will not damage the status and activities of British Steel if such a downturn occurs.
We shall next wish to discuss in Committee at some length the question of the golden share arrangement. We shall wish to know exactly what the Government are proposing, what they proposed in another place, how it will work, whether the five-year limit is satisfactory, whether it is right to include that in the articles of association and what the status will be. I suspect that we shall ask for a preliminary draft of the articles of association of the successor company.
The next problem which we shall examine is that which was described by the Secretary of State. It is the writedown of public dividend capital. It is true that a company can go to the courts and write down its capital. It is true that after shareholder approval it can go to the court and reconstruct its capital in whatever way it wishes. The Companies Act is most flexible on the matter. Nevertheless, I am not entirely happy that the funding of the losses of British Steel, which was achieved through public dividend capital, should be entirely written off without some repayment, and possibly a total repayment, to those
1018
who provided the capital; in other words, the taxpayer. We shall be looking carefully at the matter to see whether that can be achieved.
According to the estimates of some analysts the Government will receive approximately £2 billion as a result of privatisation. I shall not insist on the figure; that is give or take the odd £100 million. Clearly that is nothing like the money that the taxpayer has put into British Steel to ensure that it is the success it is today. In that connection there is an issue which we must examine in Committee.
It was said in another place that the reserve created by Clause 7 of the Bill will be the equivalent of a share premium account. I am not entirely convinced that that is correct. I understand the clause; it can be paid out only in the form of bonus issue to existing shareholders. However, we shall wish to look carefully at that matter to make sure that it is not in the form of a simple distributable reserve.
All those are questions which we shall be probing at the Committee stage. However, they are questions of detail. The main questions which the Government still must answer are these. If it is not broken, why fix it? Why should we change the ownership of the company? Until we receive a satisfactory answer to those questions we on this side of the House will continue to believe that enterprising public ownership is a perfectly valid formula and that the British Steel Corporation should remain in its present ownership. Consequently we shall oppose the Bill.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, for many years I was involved in an industry closely associated with the steel industry. I was able to witness at first hand the debilitating effect on the steel industry of the continued changes of ownership. I believe that it is a remarkable testimony to the ability of the present management that with that background it has achieved such a remarkable turn-round.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, has explained that that turn-round has been due not only to the skill of management but also to the fact that the Government have tried to minimise their interference. That point was seized upon by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As one who suffered from various government interference during my previous activities in a nationalised industry, I believe that that is a good development. Therefore in passing I should like to ask the Minister whether the same self-denial will be and indeed is being practised in relation to the remaining nationalised industries. I have in mind particularly the railways and coal. Who knows whether in this era of governmental self-denial, combined with the undoubted efficiencies in management, those two great enterprises may not soon break into substantial profit?
If there is to be a further change in the ownership of the steel industry—this will be the fourth in the past 40 years—we shall all need to be absolutely convinced that it is not only a sensible course to take but that effectively in our lifetimes it would be the last change. For it to be just another change to be

1019
followed by a further change at some later date would not be a serious way to look at one of our basic industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has expressed doubts as to whether a change is at all necessary. I do not go quite as far as that. I believe that one can approve of it if the change now contemplated can clearly be demonstrated to be in the interests of the industry and its customers, and if it can be regarded as having a long-term prospect ahead to enable the industry to utilise its undoubted technological skill and managerial talents.
I should like to deal with the question of timing. The noble Lord, Lord Young, said that the Bill does not lay down the time when the privatisation would take place; this is merely a first step. I believe that timing will be of great importance. The timing which is chosen must be in the best interests of the industry to enable it to perform its tasks. I doubt very much whether the present time is such a time, if that were being contemplated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has pointed out, there is still an overcapacity of steel-making in the world, particularly in the European Community. As regards the Community, a quota system is still in place and the form in which that system will be dismantled is by no means clear. Furthermore, the British steel industry has a substantial debt. The Minister pointed out that it will be no part of government policy to reduce the debt before privatisation. The industry will carry it forward. Should it not be given a little more time in which to reduce it before privatisation through its now profitable operations?
I believe that these are all questions that should be raised. In addition to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I believe that it will be proper to consider in Committee some of the points that I have just made. We are concerned with the future of one of the great industries of Britain.
Over the past 40 years it has been through a most turbulent time largely because of successive political interventions. The kind of future that we should like to see for the industry is one in which political intervention would be kept to the absolute minimum. The kind of structure that we should like to see is one that could be preserved in its basic features for years ahead. Obviously there would have to be changes from time to time to meet changing external circumstances. That should be the objective of our inquiry and, therefore, we shall be raising a number of detailed points in Committee in order to elicit the views of the Government on these points.
12 noon
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I start on common ground, which is always a good place from which to start. Every one on all sides of both Houses has given nothing but praise to the management and employees of this industry for the remarkable turnround in its results and for having demonstrated that it is now a reliable, viable company making good steel, good exports and good profits.
1020
The conclusion that I draw is that, given good management, one can secure good results whether the organisation is managed under the public or the private sector. This is not the only example we have, as everyone knows. The Government's conclusion is quite different. The Government conclude that inasmuch as the corporation has demonstrated its capacity to win not only domestic praise but worldwide praise for its achievements, it should immediately be privatised. The logic of that escapes me.
I further criticise the Government for their decision that the industry should be privatised immediately, notwithstanding that clearly that was not planned. It is neither referred to specifically in the manifesto for the last election nor even in the Queen's Speech for this Session. It was not fully prepared. For example, no time has been allotted for an examination of the alternative methods of privatisation so as to avoid a private monopoly, which is what the Government are proposing, notwithstanding that the financial market conditions are still very flat and notwithstanding that the legislative programme is already far too heavy. I am sure that your Lordships will recognise that and sympathise with my remarks.
The Secretary of State has made no case whatever for privatisation at the present time. Therefore, the sole conclusion that I can draw for this hasty action is obvious: namely, to keep the receipts from privatisation rolling into the Treasury so as to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue his tax reduction programme. However, because the Government have not justified the present step does not mean that no case can be made out. Provided that the timing is right and given a full examination of the best method of achieving effective competition, I believe that a case can be made out on the ground of motivation.
Perhaps I may explain what I mean as it is a matter of some importance. I take the view that what makes for efficiency in any undertaking is the fullest motivation of men and management concerned. That means a combination of personal financial reward and a sense of service to one's community. Both elements are present, albeit in varying proportions. In some spheres such as the Civil Service or the defence services, the dominant motive of those attracted to these services will obviously be service to the community. Therefore, the natural place for such an activity is in the public sector. Similarly, in straightforward commercial activities the personal reward, the profit motive, will be the dominant factor; hence, the natural place will be the private sector.
Steel seems to me to come into that second category and to fit best into the private sector. That does not mean that steel production is not a matter for public concern. On the contrary, any country desiring a strong economy will need its own steel-producing capacity. Just as it was right, in the interest of defence, for a Tory government to transfer an ailing Rolls-Royce into the public sector until it was strong enough to be returned into the private sector, so it was right for a Labour government to nationalise an ailing steel industry in order to maintain domestic steel production. Indeed, had that

1021
not happened there might well be no domestic steel industry left to discuss today. The measure of that need for protection is the several billion pounds that have gone into safeguarding its future.
Therefore, I conclude that the Government are right in principle to return steel to the private sector. However, I must say that it is no credit to the Government just because every time they consider a nationalised industry and dogmatically decide to privatise it that they should, on rare occasions, happen to be right. Nor is it any credit to the Government that they should attempt to do so prematurely. I say prematurely for the reasons I have already given, three of which are self-evident, and the fourth, that of being unprepared, is demonstrated by the fact that the issue of the golden share, in spite of its importance in protecting the new fledgling industry and in spite of continual pressure on the Government to make up their mind, was only decided three months after Second Reading.
Of far greater importance is the fact that the Government have not given themselves time to examine the various options and to come forward with their considered proposals for enhancing competition. Instead, in spite of the lip service so recently paid to the promotion of competition, the Bill simply provides for the transfer of a public monopoly into a private monopoly. Whatever may be said about competition from abroad, the fact remains that the British Steel Corporation will be a monopoly under the law. Clearly, we must return to both these issues in Committee.
It will also be necessary in Committee to consider much more closely the rights of employees. I know it has been said that the rights of employees are protected because their rights are automatically transferred to the new company which has to take over all the liabilities of the existing corporation. That is not a fair statement of the case. The new company is a plc and the "l" stands for limited. The new company will have a limited liability. In the present circumstances any pensioner who is in trouble over his pension claim will be able to sue an employer which has no limited liability. In the new circumstances if, for example, total steel demand drops unexpectedly and the company finds itself in difficulties, the pensioner will have a right to sue a liquidator to recover whatever he can out of the liquidation. That again is a matter which we shall have to consider very carefully when it comes to the Committee stage.
Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that the dominating factor has been the need to maintain the flow of privatisation receipts for the purpose, as we all know and as has been declared so many times, of enabling the Chancellor to continue his programme of tax reduction.
As I have said many times, there is nothing wrong in selling the nation's assets if one reinvests the proceeds for the benefit of the nation. Perhaps I may paraphrase rather freely what has been said recently in high places. What matters is what one does with the wealth so acquired. We know the answer: it is to reduce taxation in such a way that those with the largest incomes benefit most, so that the gap between
1022
the well-to-do and the needy is widened once more. That is where the Tory philosophy of today leads. Thank heavens, it finds no place in the philosophy of my party!
12.10 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I feel that I must say a few words at the start of the funeral rites of steel nationalisation. There is no happier mourner than myself. During the 1964–66 Parliament the Labour Government had a majority of three. Desmond Donnelly and I knew that the nationalisation of steel was doctrinaire dogma which would cost the nation many thousands of millions of pounds, which indeed it did. We were able to force the Government not to nationalise steel during that Parliament. They had to wait until Labour won a substantial majority in 1966. Therefore, I suppose that between us we saved the nation about £300 million by that delay.
Nationalisation was the disaster that we predicted it would be. Actually, the majority of the Labour Cabinet knew that it would be, too, but they were too frightened of their ideological supporters to stop it. The old and charming theologian, Nye Bevan, had vividly but mistakenly described steel as one of the commanding heights of the economy which must be taken over by the state if the nation were to be prosperous. In those days to be against nationalisation of steel in the Labour Party was like a cardinal of Rome declaring a disbelief in the Virgin birth. However, I gather that Mr. Kinnock is now discouraging that approach, though the news does not yet seem to have reached the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. However, it is too late now for Mr. Kinnock to welcome me back into the Labour Party.
For long periods British Steel was losing £2 million to £3 million a day of the taxpayers' money. The record was achieved in 1980 when it lost £1·8 billion, including an operating loss of £700 million.
There was great interference by government even before nationalisation. Steelworks were started in the wrong places for political reasons in order to catch votes. For instance, the late Lord Stockton had the interesting idea for half a strip steelworks in Wales and the other half in Scotland. The management was not allowed to manage while there was a Labour Government—that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is only since then that management has been allowed to manage. If the industry ever fell back into the hands of the noble Lord and his friends, once again it would never be allowed to manage. The losses need never have been so high.
But since 1980 there has been a new atmosphere. Under Sir Ian MacGregor, Sir Robert Haslam and Sir Robert Scholey, management has been urged to do what it believes is right and to take no notice of foolish politicians. Sir Robert Scholey deserves particular praise because throughout that period he was also the chief executive. He has done a wonderful job. He is a steel man born and bred and he remains so today. He wants the industry privatised, too.

1023
British Steel has become a success story. Over the past three years it has received no money at all from the Government. Now it would like the commercial freedom to operate nationally and internationally that privatisation will bring.
Never again will British Steel be a charge on the taxpayer. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, it is now the cheapest producer of steel in Europe and possibly anywhere in the world. That is because management has been allowed to manage as it never was before—certainly not under a Labour Government. It will now build up wealth for its shareholders and for the nation. I am sad that Desmond Donnelly did not live to see the return of steel to the private sector. I feel that I am speaking for him as well as for myself in saying how delighted I am that this day has arrived.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wish to speak about the Scottish aspect of British Steel and the effect of these proposals on industry in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, surprised me because I thought there was, or had been, a finishing mill at Gartcosh which dealt with the strip from Ravenscraig. I had the impression that Gartcosh is in Scotland and not in Wales. It was only recently in the term of this Government that Gartcosh was closed and the strip has to go to Shotton for finishing. However, perhaps I am wrong and Gartcosh was always in Wales and we never recognised it.
The privatisation proposals appear to us to contribute nothing to the efficiency or competitiveness in the form that is proposed because, as has already been said, it is replacing a state monopoly with a private one. As noble Lords will be aware, there is a deeply-held view in Scotland that the Government and the present management of British Steel—perhaps also the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford—wish to close Ravenscraig.
In another place, on Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister responsible said that that view had no basis in practice and that the management of British Steel was not hostile to the Scottish steel industry. However, if one looks at the facts it is very difficult to substantiate that view. The management has said again and again to committees in another place and elsewhere that they see no long-term future for more than two flat product mills. There are, of course, three; namely, Port Talbot, Llanwern and Ravenscraig. Over the past few years Port Talbot and Llanwern have benefited from major long-term investment at very high cost. There has been very little investment at Ravenscraig. What there has been has been investment which would pay for itself over
two or three years and which was necessary in order to keep the plant going. The major investment that is required on such items as the coke ovens is not forthcoming. Investments that would require 10 years to pay for themselves are being ignored.
Because of the lack of investment in the coke ovens, Ravenscraig is using up its coke at a greater rate than it can produce it and so is diminishing its stock. It is difficult to see that management consider that Ravenscraig has a future. The guarantee that the
1024
Minister gave when he announced the privatisation is only that the hot mill at Ravenscraig will exist until 1989, which is when the continuous casting plant at Llanwern becomes fully operational.
In the debate in another place the Minister at no time denied that the hot mill at Ravenscraig is to close next year. He has never denied that without the hot mill there is no long-term future for either Ravenscraig or Dalzell. There is no possibility of keeping those plants going merely to produce slab steel. It is for those reasons, which I have briefly summarised, that the Scots are very anxious indeed about these proposals.
Assuming that privatisation is to go ahead what are the alternatives? There is the possibility of introducing competition. British Steel will be a virtual monopoly in the production and marketing of steel. Why not introduce competition—a concept to which the Government so often pay lip service? They only pay lip service to that concept because this measure is not introducing any competition.
The Arthur Young report suggests that a Ravenscraig, Shotton, Dalzell combination as a separate entity competing with the rest of British Steel would be a viable proposition. That has been attacked by the Government because it is opposed by the unions at Shotton. It is rather new for the Government to suggest that they are dictated to by the unions. It also seems to ignore the views of the unions at Ravenscraig. Are the unions at Shotton to be regarded as more valuable than the unions at Ravenscraig and, if so, why?
The report is also attacked because the Government and British Steel refused to give Arthur Young confidential information. I agree with what the Conservative Member from Eastwood said—that that really is no defence when the Government will not reveal any of the information or say that any part of the Arthur Young report is wrong. It is also no defence when Sir Ian MacGregor whom the Government seem to regard as having had some experience in the steel industry and perhaps having done a good job, says that cost estimates can be synthesised from standard industry sources. That is just what the Arthur Young report has done.
But even without competition British Steel at the moment is running all its plants at full capacity and it has been doing so for some time. In addition it has been importing large amounts of strip plate and processed steel. It seems that at the moment British Steel can produce only about 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom's strip needs. That is partly due, no doubt, to the European Community quotas; but they presumably will not last for ever.
The desire to close Ravenscraig hot mill is not based on a lack of demand, at least not so long as the pound stays at a realistic level. It denies opportunity for the quick responses that the Minister said that the privatised firm would have because it is really a minimalist approach. It is being assessed on the basis of the minimum production that British Steel considers at the worst level it will require.
British Steel sells steel to Scottish users on the basis of transport costs out of Glasgow. If Ravenscraig closes will transport costs still be assessed from there,

1025
or will they be assessed from South Wales? The demand for steel in Scotland is projected to increase from the 1990s onwards, largely due to an upturn in oil-related work. Will steel users turn to foreign steel? If so, what effect will that have on the balance of payments?
It may be suggested that Ravenscraig is far from the market and from the ports. But that is not true. Strip has to travel from South Wales to Shotton or from Ravenscraig to Shotton, and those are similar distances. Hunterston to Ravenscraig is a similar distance as Port Talbot is to Llanwern. But Hunterston is a deep water facility which can take far larger quantities of materials than Port Talbot ever could.
British Steel is already the largest importer of steel in the United Kingdom. In a monopoly position it will be able to exert tremendous power on other steel stockholders. Why should it continue to manufacture steel at all if it can increase profit from its stockholding by not producing but by importing? Is that in the best interests of the United Kingdom? Is it in the best interests of industrial users of steel in Scotland?
If steel has to be privatised, surely it should be done on the basis that it is creating competition and not a monopoly? Surely the Archbishop of Canterbury is right to say that while wealth creation is good it should be for the service of the common interest. If we are going to ignore the interests of Scotland altogether, is that not a bad reason for doing it this way?
Even on purely economic grounds, if the Government do not care for any other grounds, is it not necessary to take into account the figure of 12,000 who will be unemployed if Ravenscraig is to close, because that has a sheer obvious economic cost to the Government? That should be taken into account. On the basis of this privatisation there is deep worry in Scotland.
12.25 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this has been a debate which shows that we shall have a most interesting Committee stage on this Bill. I look forward to that. A great deal of material has been produced both in another place and by outside bodies on the whole question of this privatisation. Some of the speeches we have heard today were very knowledgeable on the subject. After the speech of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna there is little that needs to be said about Ravenscraig. He has been most analytical and he made a very powerful speech altogether.
British Steel and steel has always been an emotive question in Britain to all parties. It was at one time very high on the present Government's privatisation list. But it was not even mentioned in the election manifesto or even, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said in the Queen's Speech. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, and having been there on the night when he and Desmond Donnelly refused to vote on the issue, it makes me wonder how he fought the 1964 election. That issue
1026
certainly appeared in the Labour Party manifesto in 1964. At that election he won his seat, but after that he soon changed his mind about this matter.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Lord can suggest that I changed my mind. In 1962 I wrote a long article in the New Statesman and Nation saying that on no account should steel be nationalised as it would be a disaster for the country and for Labour. I made it quite clear to my constituency party and to the voters in my constituency that I was going bitterly to oppose the nationalisation of steel because it was ridiculous. I did not deceive anybody, nor did I change my mind.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am in no doubt that the noble Lord did write a pamphlet about this subject. I have one or two of the pamphlets that he wrote for Tribune just a little earlier. They made interesting reading too. The noble Lord fought the election undoubtedly on the 1964 manifesto. I do not know whether that manifesto contained an opting out clause. I certainly did not have one when I fought the 1964 election.
But when British Steel announced good half-year profits of £190 million the Government made clear their intention to privatise the industry. That profit of £190 million for the half year followed a whole year profit for 1986 to 1987 of £187 million. The profit had more than doubled. As the Minister for Trade and Industry made clear in his statement in another place on 3rd December:
"This is an impressive improvement in the corporation's performance".—[Official Report, Commons, 3.12.87; col. 1107.]
The Bill before us today does not tell us a great deal about how the Government see the future of this basic industry, except to say that the corporation would be floated as a single entity. The Ministers on the Front Bench opposite will be familiar with our bemusement that, when an undertaking has become successful, usually by the injection of a great deal of public money, the Government decide that the private sector can then take over and reap the benefits.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, dealt with that aspect of the matter very fully when he said that as the industry was doing so well he did not see the need to privatise it, unless the money received from privatisation—as it has been put in other cases "selling the silver"—will be ploughed back into the pocket of the nation.
We suggest that British Steel is more than just another company. It is in every sense of the word a strategic industry which despite 1992, and our greater involvement in Europe by that date, must remain within the control of the United Kingdom Government. We do not know in detail what will happen to the quotas in 1992 in Europe, although this is probably something that will come out. They may even be totally abolished. However, I find it most difficult to believe that Germany, Luxembourg and France will completely accept the elimination of such quotas. Nevertheless, the Minister will be able to tell us whether any of the European steel-producing countries have allowed, or are likely to allow, any

1027
meaningful part of their steel industry to be controlled by outsiders. However, I think that theme has already been dealt with by many other noble Lords in today's debate.
The House will perhaps remember the debate on the privatisation of the British Airports Authority, when the issue of the golden share was discussed and an amendment was put forward by my noble friend Lord Underhill and myself. The arguments raised in that case apply equally to the case of steel privatisation. Briefly, it was felt on all sides of the House, and reinforced by a most powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—unusually in support of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and myself—that a foreign owner of the British Airports Authority, who also had interests in major Continental airports, could make the decision to cut back on investment—an example was given of Heathrow or Gatwick—in order to make his own personal neighbourhood airport. It must be recognised that such people are swayed by political pressures just as much as people on this side of the Channel. It was further suggested that such a person could allow British airports to deteriorate so as to make the neighbouring airports—such as Schiphol, Paris or Brussels—more profitable and desirable.
In my view, the same argument applies to steel. It would be quite easy for a sufficient foreign ownership to obtain control of British Steel and allow it to run down to their benefit and most certainly to the great detriment of the British people. In another place the issue of the Kuwaiti stake in British Petroleum was raised. It was suggested that the Government's apparent indifference to what was happening to British Petroleum was not a good omen for this type of flotation. The suggestion was made that something more akin to the Rolls Royce solution should apply—namely, the possibility of using the 15 per cent. limit on overseas shareholding—which would be much more likely to be effective. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raised the matter and I think it is one that we shall undoubtedly return to.
We should like to know whether the Government accept that proposition as an important protection to allow this industry, which is vital to our defence and our industrial interests, to remain within British control. The steel industry has always been cyclical. We must endeavour to produce a solution, whether or not it is within privatization—which in any case the Government, with their majority, will obviously have—to ensure that in the long term the investment needs of the industry are secure.
I now return to the speech of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. He pointed out the problems of Ravenscraig and the fact that the coke ovens are producing only because of the heroic efforts of the workforce and the technical people involved in the works. It would be so easy for Ravenscraig to be undercapitalised and therefore become a candidate for closure. I suggest that that could happen to the rest of the steel industry in Britain if it so suited a private ownership and if they were allowed to sell their shares in British Steel abroad and thereby lose control of the British steel industry.
1028
I think that is just as doctrinaire as was the suggestion that we were anxious to nationalise in 1964. It has been said by many people that the 14 companies were in an absolutely chaotic state and therefore it was vital that they should be pulled together. I am open to the idea that now that British Steel is in a much better and healthier position, because of an enormous investment of taxpayers' money and great effort on the part of management and workforce, new methods other than the Morrisonian method of overseeing are necessary. I think we all realise that there were great deficiencies in that method. Looking back to the time of those chaotic industries, such as British Steel and British Rail, it was the only way to solve the problem. However, we have moved on from that stage and we should like to discuss some of those methods in Committee.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate this morning and I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have participated in it. The British Steel Corporation has often been the subject of debate in this House and, all too frequently, at times of difficulty for the industry. However, I am happy to say that the Bill now before us will be the first step in taking British Steel out of the hands of politicians and returning it to the commercial domain where it truly belongs.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned several issues to which we shall no doubt return in Committee. Of course they are important issues and will be explored here as indeed many have been explored in another place. However, I should like to respond especially to the noble Lord's question concerning the reasons for privatisation. The noble Lord intimated that in his view there was no other reason for privatisation than a matter of ideological theory—ideological dogma. I cannot agree with him. I sincerely believe that the history of the steel industry over the past 40 years represents the clearest possible reason for the Government's desire that this great industry should sit in the private sector. On the one hand, the industry must be spared the burden of political interference; on the other hand, if it is to prosper and flourish, it needs the freedom and the flexibility of the private sector. The Government fully accept the vital importance of the nation's steel industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, mentioned that he believed steel to be a strategic industry; of course it is a vital industry. It is our strong belief that a return to the private sector will enable it to play the fullest part in continuing the wealth of our nation. The sooner the steel industry is no longer a football between government control, the private sector, back to public ownership and now privatisation (its fourth move), the better. In our view the industry should sit in the private sector where managers can manage and where they are freed from the constraints and other pressures of government.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am most grateful to him for his praise of the industry: producing good steel, a good level of

1029
exports and good results. The noble Lord asked whether there were any alternative methods of privatisation, perhaps to avoid what he described as a "private monopoly". I must say that in the steel industry in this country there is considerable competition, and British Steel will remain subject to the discipline of competition. After all, consumers will continue to be free to buy their steel from foreign producers.
Where appropriate, regulatory regimes have been set up in other privatised industries whereby the company concerned has had a legally protected monopoly. However, British Steel has no such monopoly, and a regulatory regime is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary. British Steel is already subject to European Coal and Steel Community rules. Within the Community we are working hard towards greater liberalisation of the steel market in Europe. This is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it not the case that British Steel plc will control more than 25 per cent. of the production of steel? Is that not under the law as it stands a monopoly?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the production of steel in itself I do not believe to be a monopoly under the law. There are other overseas producers which are already well represented in this market. It is a completely different case from that of the earlier privatisations such as British Telecom.
I was about to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, with regard to his point about 1992, that all steelmakers are subject to normal Community rules and our own competition rules. Therefore I believe that there are adequate safeguards. I should like to say that 1992 is going to impose challenges for the industry and for British Steel. We believe that taking away the restraints of government from the industry will help in the industry's preparation towards that very important date.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made a point which I have heard him make on a number of previous occasions about the Chancellor of the Exchequer needing the receipts and using them in order to reduce taxation. I believe that the way the economy of this country has improved in the last few years is an excellent example of the very great benefits from lower taxation. The economy is going again and it is going because the people that are the shakers and the movers are motivated and doing what they are best at.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, about the Scottish position and that that concern is uppermost in his mind. British Steel has given its commercial assessment of its requirements based on an honest and thorough assessment of future market demand. In the December statement British Steel said that it expected that, subject to market conditions, there would continue to be a commercial requirement for steelmaking at Ravenscraig and at the other integrated plants for at least seven years.
1030
At the end of the day employment is ultimately only protected by successfully meeting the changing requirement of the market. British Steel is profitable now because it has taken the necessary steps to produce good quality steel. It needs to be free to continue its efforts to be as efficient a steelmaker as possible if it is to maintain its present position. We can be quite sure that its foreign competitors are not standing still.
The corporation has made it clear that subject to market conditions there will continue to be a commercial requirement for steelmaking at Ravenscraig for at least the next seven years. The exact level of output will obviously depend upon the exact level of market demand that has to be set, but the assurances given in the December statement stand today.
I should like to add one further important point with regard to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. He asked about investment in Ravenscraig. British Steel has invested steadily in all of its plants over the years, including the recent £15 million investment in coal injection facilities at Ravenscraig. There is no question of there having been a deliberate run-down of Ravenscraig.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, will the noble Lord not accept that that investment at Ravenscraig is merely a stop-gap measure and cannot he regarded as a long-term future for the coke plant, where much more basic renewal is required than this stop-gap which will hold together for only a few years?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is a matter for British Steel to come to a decision on what is required by way of investment in the plant, but even the Arthur Young report confirms that there is no need for any substantial capital expenditure in Ravenscraig, in Dalzell or in Shotton over the next five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, brought to our attention a number of important points. He particlarly mentioned the timing of privatisation. At the moment it is far too early to give him any assurance as to when that might happen, but we have made it clear in the past that our policy is to return the corporation to the private sector as soon as practicable. British Steel is now in a position where privatisation is feasible and it is right to take the necessary steps to enable that to happen. That is what we are doing today. The Bill, as has already been said by my noble friend the Secretary of State, does not dictate a time for privatisation but our intention is that British Steel should be privatised within the next two years and as soon as is practicable within that timescale.
I should like to welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for the measures that we are taking today. I am well aware of his past involvement and of views that he has expressed. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that he hoped that this privatisation of the industry would be the last time in our lifetimes that there would be any tampering with the status of the industry. This has been going on for quite a long time. The first nationalisation was not in my lifetime. I am not that young, and no doubt the

1031
noble Lord will probably outlive me. I believe that the industry will rest better where it is now going to be as a result of the Bill that we are debating today.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question about the draft articles of association of the new company which I mentioned. As he is aware when the Gas Bill was before your Lordships' House, we had draft articles at the time that notes on clauses were distributed. Will that be the case now?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I understand that that will not be the case but I shall look into it and let the noble Lord know the full reasons for whatever the decision will be.
The Bill is a short and largely technical one but there is no doubting its importance. I wholly agree with noble Lords who say that steel is an industry of great significance to the economy. That is not in doubt. We do not, however, consider that because an industry is important it in some sense follows that it should be in public ownership. As my noble friend the Secretary of State said when he opened this debate, public ownership of the productive sector of the economy has not delivered the success which was promised of it. Indeed the reverse is true. It has been very clearly demonstrated that government intervention cannot keep market forces at bay.
The nationalised industries would have undoubtedly been better able to cope with the changing demands of the market if they had had the commercial freedom and discipline imposed by the private sector. Steel is no exception; 30 years of movement in and out of the public sector brought it to the edge of an abyss and made it an enormous drain on the nation's resources. Happily, recent years have seen a renaissance of the commercial spirit of this country. British Steel has shown what can be achieved. The corporation has worked hard to produce what the customer wants at the right time and at the right price. It has dramatically improved its efficiency and the quality of its products. As a result, British Steel is now a world leader. The time is now right for British Steel to return to the private sector.
The private sector is the right place for a successful and dynamic commercial organisation, and that is where it would be best placed to meet the challenges which lie ahead as competition in the steel market increases. While a privatised British Steel will be owned by its shareholders, the prosperity which I have no doubt it will enjoy will benefit the whole nation. The Bill paves the way for privatisation of the corporation. I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Health and Medicines Bill
12.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
1032
Back in November last year I was privileged to repeat a Statement in your Lordships' House about the publication of the Government's White Paper on primary health care, Promoting Better Health, and announcing the introduction of this Bill in another place. The publication of the White Paper marked the first major review of the primary health care services since the start of the NHS 40 years ago. It set out our plans for radical improvements in the pattern of primary care services. It is aimed at achieving a shift in emphasis from the treatment of illness to the promotion of health and the prevention of disease; raising standards of care and making services more responsive to the needs of the consumer; and improving value for money.
The White Paper set out the strategy for a radical transformation of the primary care services. The Health and Medicines Bill takes forward this strategy in two important ways: first, by providing powers to implement specific proposals (for example, to reimburse GPs for the costs of training practice nurses); and, secondly, by allowing us to introduce the new arrangements for the dental and optical services which will provide the resources required to allow many of the proposals in the White Paper to go ahead.
The Bill of course goes wider than primary health care but I should like to begin by discussing the Government's strategy for radical change in the primary care services and the way in which this Bill takes forward that strategy.
The White Paper plans for promoting the better health of the nation will require substantial extra resources. As the White Paper states, we now spend over £5 billion on the primary care services. That is in real terms £1,500 million more than in 1978–79—a full 43 per cent. What this means is, for example, that in Great Britain since 1979 we have seen an increase of nearly 4,000 in the number of GPs to 32,000; an increase of over 50 per cent. in the number of GPs' support staff, with the number of practice nurses nearly trebling; a 19 per cent. increase in the number of courses of dental treatment to 37 million; the computerisation of all 90 family practitioner committee patient registers, and the implementation of computerised call/recall systems for breast and cervical cancer.
The number of community psychiatric nurses has doubled in the past five years and we expect this trend to continue.
These figures show the Government's commitment to primary care. Published plans continue this trend and show very large real-terms increases for the future. By 1991, we plan to spend 11 per cent. more on these services—some £600 million of additional funds.
Prevention of illness and promotion of good health are central to our primary care strategy. Planned prevention measures, which I wish I had time to dilate upon at length, do not need legislation. However, the effective development of a preventive approach depends not only on the doctor but on other members of the practice team. Our concern to strengthen and improve the practice team lies behind Clause 16 of the Bill. We propose to release more funds to enable GPs

1033
to take on staff with skills which could extend the range of services provided by a practice. This could mean additional practice nurses, counsellors, chiropodists or physiotherapists. In some inner city areas, linkworkers with people of ethnic minorities could be recruited.
But obviously, for the new developments to be useful, the arrangements need to be flexible and geared to locally determined needs and priorities. We propose to remove current restraints on the type and number of team members whose salaries can attract direct reimbursement, and Clause 16 will replace these rigid constraints with a new and more flexible system under which each local family practitioner committee or health board determines its own needs and allocates funds according to its priorities, within a cash limited budget. As I said, more money will be available in this area. Through Clause 16 we aim to ensure that it is targeted efficiently and effectively in each locality.
Clause 15, meanwhile, will strengthen practice teams by clarifying and extending the scope for reimbursing the cost of training staff. We intend, for example, to arrange for GPs to be reimbursed for the training costs of practice nurses and for financial recognition to be given to those who provide clinical training for undergraduate medical students.
These changes will establish a substantial shift towards prevention and an improvement in the quality of services. The standard of GPs' premises can also help enhance the quality of service to the consumer. To achieve this we will increase the assistance available to doctors in improvement grants and under the cost rent scheme. Again, we will look to FPCs and health boards to direct the extra funds to the areas of greatest priority within an overall budget allocated under Clause 16.
Also of relevance to GP premises are Clauses 1 to 6, which concern the General Practice Finance Corporation. As we announced in the White Paper, our intention is to change the constitution of that body in order to allow maximum use of private sector funds. These clauses give effect to that intention. We see no reason to maintain the existence of a public sector body to lend to GPs when the private sector has in recent years shown itself perfectly capable of doing the job.
I have dealt at some length with health promotion and prevention and improving the quality of services. Another central plank of our strategy is to make services more responsive to the needs and wishes of the consumer. I can be briefer here because our proposals do not require primary legislation. We want to increase the quality of service and choice for the consumer. This will come in part from the changes I have already mentioned, but also through our proposals for publication of more information about services through practice leaflets and annual reports, from making it easier to change doctor and easier to complain if services are not up to standard.
Before leaving the family doctor services I should like to mention Clauses 8 and 9, which deal with the retirement of practitioners. One of the effects of the proposals we are discussing is to add to the already exacting responsibilities of GPs. The Government
1034
have come to the conclusion that it is not reasonable to expect doctors to carry on working under NHS contracts beyond an age when they are able to continue to bear those responsibilities fully. The Bill therefore gives powers to introduce a compulsory retirement age. It also gives powers to end the 24-hour retirement provision under which doctors can retire at 65, draw their pension, and return to work a day later without any reduction either in pension or pay. Both these proposals are widely supported and should lead to higher standards of service and increase opportunities for younger, vocationally trained doctors, who are generally more willing to work as members of primary care teams, to enter general practice. The provisions also apply to dentists.
The themes of prevention, quality of service and
consumer power are equally relevant to dental services. Recent years have seen a dramatic improvement in the dental health of the nation. In the 10 years to 1983 the proportion of 5 year-olds with no dental decay almost doubled from well under a third to well over half.
For 12 year-olds the proportion nearly trebled. In
1968, 37 per cent. of adults had no natural teeth. By
1985, only 22 per cent. of adults had no natural teeth. We believe that putting into effect the White Paper policies could help towards a further major decrease in dental disease especially dental caries.
Preventive policies are best directed toward the young. The general and community dental services are playing an increasing role in dental health education with individual patients and providing preventative therapy such as fissure sealants. We want to see this work continue to expand. Clause 10 of the Bill takes a major step in this direction. It helps broaden the scope of the community service and gives it discretion to redirect resources away from routine treatment of schoolchildren—who can generally be looked after in the general dental service—towards providing health education. They will also be able to concentrate more on providing services for groups with special needs such as elderly or mentally handicapped people.
We will also be launching, in conjunction with the profession, a campaign to promote dental awareness and regular attendance. This campaign will be directed particularly at young people in inner cities where the standards of dental health still lie some way behind those in the rest of the country. These steps will, we believe, have a major impact over the years ahead. Dental health will continue to improve and the amount of disease will fall.
The second theme is again quality of treatment. The department has long helped patients by monitoring the quality of service provided. This will be ever more important in the future. Clause 12 of the Bill provides increased powers for the newly named Dental Practice Board to survey and research and to deal with those dentists whose work appears at variance with those standards. The White paper also announces our intention to consult the profession about a new counselling and monitoring service of dental practice advisers. They should provide a valuable additional resource at local level to assist

1035
practitioners and to enable family practitioner committees to promote better dental services in their areas. In addition, the major expansion of postgraduate education and training announced in the White Paper should assist dentists in developing the use of the most modern preventive and therapeutic techniques.
I turn now to consumer power. To increase consumer power, we intend to encourage dental practices—like medical practices—to provide leaflets about the services they provide. We will be discussing this with the professions. In these ways, and with greater liberalisation of the advertising restrictions agreed by the General Dental Council earlier this month on dentists, we are confident that patients will be better informed and will be able to make an informed choice of dentist. And we might hope to see dentists competing on service, if not price.
We will also be spending more money to improve eye care services. For example, we will be extending the voucher scheme to adults who frequently break their glasses because of mental or physical disability, and providing a domiciliary sight-testing service to the housebound of modest means. The value of vouchers for those who require complex and hence more expensive lenses was given special consideration in last April's review to ensure that these people are not placed at a disadvantage. And the voucher can now be used towards contact lenses if the patient wishes.
A recent NHS disciplinary case has demonstrated that the present legal provisions may be inadequate to protect consumers against sight tests in which no proper eye examination is carried out. Although we believe that the vast majority of optometrists do both test for the need to wear spectacles and for the general health of the eye, we accept the need for ensuring consumer protection. As a result, the Government added to Clause 14 in another place. This now also allows for regulations to specify what tests should be carried out in a sight test. Such regulations will, of course, be discussed with the profession, but I can assure your Lordships that we are not envisaging a rigid set of rules which would constrain professional judgment.
In describing the improvements to the primary care services, I have naturally concentrated on those services covered by the Bill, but more will be spent across the whole primary care field. These additional resources have to be found from somewhere. The White Paper made clear that, after a careful examination of priorities, we feel that it is reasonable to find some of them from within the general ophthalmic and general dental services.
On sight tests, the effect of Clause 13 is to confine free National Health Service sight tests to particular groups, broadly those entitled to vouchers for glasses. Others would have private sight tests. About one-third of the population—some 19 million people—will still be automatically entitled to a free National Health Service sight test. And in another place my right honourable friend the Minister for Health announced the Government's intention to provide help to people on incomes just above the automatic qualifying levels.
1036
The removal of the restrictions on the sale of glasses in 1984 had what I can only call a wondrous effect. Greater competition in this field has benefited consumers as prices have fallen. For example, budget-priced glasses have become increasingly available, some for as little as £10 to £12. The opticians, too, have benefited as sales of glasses have increased by around 10 per cent. and the number of sight tests by about the same. The number of registered opticians has increased by about 500.
On this evidence, we would expect any charge to be very modest. But even if the charge were as high as, say, £10, most people go to the optician only at intervals of two to three years. We do not believe that for those not entitled to a free National Health Service sight test, such a sum would deter them from having their sight tested. It amounts to a little more every two or three years than the average family spends on alcohol in one week.
Nevertheless, concerns have rightly been expressed in relation to diabetics. Diabetics are at risk of developing diabetic retinopathy and need to have more frequent eye examinations to pick this up at the earliest possible stage. My right honourable friend announced in another place that we intend to offer free National Health Service sight tests to diabetics referred to an optician by a doctor. Similar arrangements will also be made for glaucoma sufferers. On glaucoma, I can report to the House that I have sought the advice of the Association of Optometrists and the British College of Optometrists on an agreed programme involving a slightly longer timescale than we are likely to have for this Bill. This will add around three-quarters of a million people to those eligible for free National Health Service sight tests.
I have said that we also intend to generate extra income from dental charges. But we are doing much more than that. We are carrying through a major reform of the dental charges structure. Part of that reform is already in place. Since April, the situation where treatment might be charged to the patient at anything between 25 per cent. and 100 per cent. of cost has ended. The effect of the changes introduced in April is that all charges will be at or about 75 per cent. of cost, subject to a maximum charge of £150. In relation to charges for dentures and bridges, Clause 11 will allow us to do this much more simply by relating charges directly to cost.
The change to this new system is something for which the profession has been pressing long and hard. A recent British Dental Association press release summed up the position rather well. It stated:
"The new system will be simpler and easier for patients to understand; and fairer for regular attenders who require little routine dental treatment … The Association is pleased to see that its recommendation to Government for a proportional charge system has finally been adopted."
The other major element in Clause 11 is the introduction of a charge for the dental examination. The dental examination is an increasingly important part of the service provided by the dentist, and includes advice on prevention and oral hygiene. For one-quarter of courses—about 8 million—it is the only service needed. Many of these patients can afford to pay a small contribution towards the

1037
service—some £3 at current rates. And for those who do have some minor treatment, the examination charge will in many cases be at least offset by no longer having to pay the full cost of treatment up to £17. We estimate that about 2 million courses a year will be cheaper than they would otherwise have been.
I would also remind the House that we will only expect those who can afford it to contribute towards the dental examination. All the existing exempt grounds will be maintained. Very nearly 40 per cent. of the population—21 million individuals accounting for nearly half of dental treatments—will be exempt from all charges. And as a result of the recent changeover from family income supplement to family credit, which has a much broader coverage, the numbers exempt as recipients of this benefit will nearly treble to over three-quarters of a million. Help will also continue to be available to people just above the threshold for automatic exemption.
There is one further point I should mention before leaving Clause 11. In response to concerns expressed in Committee in another place, the Government were pleased to put forward an amendment which exempts 16 and 17-year-olds in work from charges for dentures and bridges. As a result, this group will be exempt from all dental charges.
I should like to move outside the sphere of primary care measures to cover the remaining clauses. Several of these are rather technical or tie up loose ends. Clause 17 anticipates the integration of the artificial limb and appliances service into the NHS in 1991 and ensures that staff who choose to transfer to the health authorities as a result of the reorganisation maintain continuity of employment—clearly a good thing. Clause 20 confirms the current structure of fees for licences that are issued under the Medicines Act 1971.
Clause 19 fills a gap in the Secretary of State's rather limited powers to make grants for the training of local authority social services staff in England and Wales, and will enable us, for instance, to put resources into training for dealing with child abuse—a matter much in our minds at present. Clause 18 puts into legislation an agreement, made in 1974, that local authorities should not charge health authorities for the use of hospital social workers. The resources were transferred at that time, and there is no reason why the anomaly should continue in legislation.
Finally, I should like to turn to Clause 7. This is directed at giving health authorities more freedom to raise income for the good of the health service. It will also give health authorities more freedom in the way that they set private patient charges, and give them responsibility for setting charges for overseas visitors. We expect income generation eventually to raise at least an additional £70 million for health authorities to spend on improved services. When our proposals were introduced there was a good deal of suspicion about them, but most informed opinion seems to have come round to our view that it makes sense to increase the resources available to the NHS in this way. NUPE, for example, now sees much to commend the proposals. I think the Health Service Journal got it absolutely right recently when it said
1038
there was little chance of reversing the move towards increased income generation because,
"The opportunities to improve life for patients and staff are just too great".
In conclusion, the White Paper set out our strategy for promoting better health in this country by increasing consumer power and improving the quality and quantity of services and, most of all, by moving from the treatment of illness to the promotion of health and the prevention of disease. The Government believe that the Bill before us forms an important part of this overall strategy, gives health authorities more freedom to generate income to improve the NHS and makes important changes in the social services and medicines fields. I therefore have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
1.13 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I start with a small apology. I am at the moment under treatment for a chest infection and should not be here. I was very determined to be here but if by any chance I have to leave before the end of the debate, bearing in mind that my noble friend is replying, I hope that those speaking in the debate will understand.
When the Government published Promoting Better Health on 25th November I thought it was a fairly hopeful document, designed to make the service more responsive to the needs of the consumer, to promote health, to prevent illness, to raise standards of care and to improve value for money—to quote the statement made by the Minister.
The Bill before us today frankly does the opposite. Most of the good ideas are not in the Bill though I hope that they will reach fruition. Because of the cash-limiting of primary health care and the imposition of charges for most sight tests and most dental examinations, it will make the service less responsive to the needs of the consumer. It will lead to lower standards of dental and optical care, and in those respects it will lead to lower standards of care and reduce value for money, exactly the opposite of what the Minister said. Only time will tell.
Of course there are certain decisions which I welcome. For instance, the decision to introduce a statutory retirement age for doctors and dentists in Clause 8. That is a very sensible proposal. I certainly welcome Clause 17 about the continuing of employment for the purpose of employment protection, as the Minister has outlined. I welcome the statement made by the Minister in another place, Mr. Newton, on Second Reading that there would be £600 million additional expenditure on primary health care; but I have to admit my doubts about any such promise if it is a real-terms increase. I notice that the Minister, unless I missed part of his speech, did not allude to a figure for additional expenditure.
If one checks the figure against a real-terms increase and sets against it the additional revenue for charges for dental treatment and sight tests and the decision to cash-limit each family practitioner committee, one asks whether more money is really

1039
going to be spent. Certainly cash-limiting, in the experience of the health authorities, does not produce as much money as they want. It may produce as much money as the Government decide they ought to have, but it is not as much money as they want.
When I heard this statement from the Minister about all this extra lovely money, I naturally turned to the Financial Memorandum, and perhaps I may quote from it:
"the changes relating to Family Practitioner Services … are expected to produce significant net savings on public expenditure despite some expenditure on compensation to be incurred under clause 8 and a potential postponement of liability to Corporation tax occasioned by clause 6. These savings include considerable savings on the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement arising from the provision within clauses 1–6 relating to the General Practice Finance Corporation. The manpower implications are not expected to be significant".
I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will try to square this strange circle. The Financial Memorandum says that money will be saved and the Minister says that more public money is going to be spent. I wonder which is actually the fact. No doubt the Minister will make it clear when he comes to reply.
There are a number of neutral items on which I should like to ask for more information before coming to the more controversial points. Clause 16, concerning reimbursement of expenses, provides for a cash-limited grant to family practitioner committees from the DHSS to reimburse those providing family practitioner services for various expenses—presumably principally taking on additional staff within GPs' practices, as was suggested in the White Paper. One would welcome that; I do not object to it at all.
The Minister may well know that the Royal College of Nursing is seriously concerned with the potential implications of this clause as it affects nurses. The White Paper clearly sets out the intentions of the Government to encourage primary health care systems based around GPs' surgeries. The provisions of this clause will encourage GPs to take on extra primary care staff, chiefly community or practice nurses, as outlined in paragraph 3.45 of the White Paper, though that is in some contradistinction to the statement on manpower in the Financial Memorandum.
The difficulty for the nurses—and I hope the Minister will answer this question—arises over what I think are very imaginative proposals in the Cumberlege Report for nurse-based teams, which may well deal increasingly with the elderly, infirm or terminally ill patients who find it impossible to get to the surgery. One asks whether they will benefit from the clause dealing with reimbursement of expenses.
Another nursing problem is that of nurse prescribing. The primary health care White Paper states:
"The Government also sees merit in giving nurses more freedom to prescribe a limited range of items (such as dressings, ointments or medical sprays)… The Government will consult the Professional Standing Advisory Committees about the professional and ethical issues of prescribing by nurses".
As I understand it, most of the bodies which have been consulted warmly support that suggestion. We
1040
on these Benches also support it, and I think it will become even more apparent, as the qualifications of nurses increase, that nurses will have a professional qualification for prescribing in certain limited sectors. I had hoped to find something in the Bill about that matter. Perhaps the Government will produce something at a later stage of the Bill. If not, perhaps we can help them by doing so on their behalf.
The Minister touched on income generation. I have no argument in principle against health authorities raising additional revenue by offering goods and services to patients and their visitors so long as it is extra money which is to be on top of their cash limit. However, I do not wish to see health authorities busy themselves raising money by some means—hairdressing, shops and so on—and then finding that because they have extra money their cash limits are reduced to ease the burden on the DHSS. I hope that we can be assured that that will not be so.
There are also some methods of raising money which I should oppose. It has been suggested that there should be advertising on nurses' uniforms, rather like that used by some football clubs. Although that might well be attractive, I do not think that it is advisable. I would also object to the selling of tobacco products on hospital premises. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that he will also get his fags somewhere else! More seriously, perhaps I may ask him what sort of body will be established to vet the many different proposals. We do not want our hospitals and their entrance halls to look like tourist attractions or local bazaars. There must be standards and I should like to know how those will be maintained.
Turning to Clause 15, which deals with the remuneration of GPs for clinical teaching and training of their own staff, I do not object to that proposal. However, I ask why it should be a perk which is confined to GPs. If there is to be an additional payment, should not that be extended to other teachers in primary health care, whoever they may be? Surely nurses should be included. If it is limited simply to GPs, that would seem to be an anomaly which we would seek to remove in the Committee stage of the Bill.
Perhaps I may turn for a few moments to the two issues which have created concern throughout the country and have led to a major revolt of Conservative MPs. I was going to say that it has led to "revolting Conservative MPs", but perhaps that would be misunderstood. There is certainly a revolt in another place concerning sight test charges and charges for dental examinations. However, I should first like to raise a question about Clause 10 which removes the community dental service's statutory duty to screen schoolchildren for dental disease. We are very worried about that matter.
The community dental service carries out a screening service in schools which is acknowledged to be cost-effective and efficient. It promotes dental health at an early age and therefore stimulates demand in children which carries forward into adulthood. The community dental service also has an important role in health education, in preventative medicine and the epidemiological monitoring of dental health changes. Increasingly health

1041
authorities, faced with difficult choices in expenditure, are making cuts in the community dental service. Many authorities have admitted that and have agreed that their proposals are not concerned with patient care but only with saving money.
While those authorities recognise the importance of the CDS, financial pressures have forced them to make economies, and in some cases the cuts are now as much as 40 to 60 per cent. Several health authorities are considering abolishing the CDS completely. With the removal of the statutory obligation to screen shoolchildren for dental disease which is proposed in the Bill, it seems certain that that sector will be the one to which health authorities turn for savings. Can the Minister give some guarantee that the community dental service will be properly retained in a statutory form? The most important age in dental care for children is when they are at school and anything which takes away the obligation upon local authorities is to be very much regretted.
Clause 10(2), states:
"the Secretary of State has the power to provide"—
he has the power but he need not necessarily provide it—
"for the dental inspection at appropriate intervals".
The clause does not state what is appropriate or who shall determine what is appropriate. What about opted-out schools? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that matter.
Turning to sight tests and examination charges, in my view that is another serious inroad into the basic principles of the National Health Service which have stood over the past 40 years. This is the first change of that nature which has dug its way into the dental health services. I suppose that we have all been wondering when it would happen in terms of both sight tests and dental examinations. The Minister quoted the British Dental Association on that subject. The BDA has said that dentists believe that free access to advice is one of the fundamental principles of the National Health Service. Charging for examinations will deter some patients from having regular dental care and their dental health will suffer as a result.
It is also important to remember that dentists are not merely concerned with teeth but are experienced practitioners in all forms of oral health. Serious general health problems with oral symptoms are often identified for the first time at routine dental examinations. Among the general health problems which dentists may diagnose are AIDS and other severe immunological diseases, cancer of the mouth and of the bone, serious blood disorders, food allergies, severe skin diseases, salivary gland diseases, infections of the mouth, and so on. A whole range of important conditions may be diagnosed in a patient who may not have had any symptoms of those diseases. I submit that to impose any charge, be it only £3 for those who live on modest incomes (it should not be assumed that all those who are on modest incomes are covered by exemptions), is not justified. The dentists believe that that would act as a deterrent. The Minister must argue that view with the
1042
dentists. I also believe that it must be opposed in the strongest possible way.
That is especially true for the elderly. I have before me evidence which has been given by Age Concern. It says that:
"Regular dental inspection is needed for all elderly people to identify pathological changes in tissue, and for those with dentures to check for wear and detect changes in tissue and bone structure which in time will affect the fit of dentures".
They feel very strongly about that and have sent me a number of publications, studies and surveys which I believe strongly argue their case and that case will be argued from this side of the House. I hope that the Minister will listen to our arguments because those views are held not only by us but also by those who are concerned with the needys of need people and especially by the profession itself.
The parallel mischief affects the free sight test. I shall not say a word about ready-made spectacles because I think that that is something which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will do. I am likely to support some of what he says. I say "some" because I have not yet heard him.
I am very worried about the likely effect of the proposed fees for sight tests. They have been bitterly opposed by the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians, the Association of Optometrists, the BMA, Age Concern and the Royal National Institution for the Blind, who have written to say that there are about 146,000 registered blind people and 82,000 registered partially sighted, of whom 40,000 are on income support and 75 per cent. are pensioners.
I believe that this is an extremely important issue. For the past 40 years the principle of free access to the National Health Service for primary care has stood without challenge. In this proposed legislation the Government intend to maintain the free eye test for children, people receiving social security benefits, the blind and partially sighted as well as the additional categories which they introduced in another place, of diabetics and those with glaucoma. One welcomes that move. The effect will still be that almost two-thirds of the population will in future have to pay for their eye tests. That includes 6½ million of the country's 9 million old age pensioners. Most of them watch their expenditure. I do not say that they are all on the bread line, but certainly they do not want additional expenditure.
Approximately 12 million eye examinations were carried out last year under the National Health Service. Approximately 1 million of those eye tests resulted in either referrals or notification to the patient's own GP because of the suspected presence of abnormality or disease.
There is very strong feeling among those who know best. It is the practitioners who have the daily experience of dealing with patients, and that applies both to dentists and opticians. It seems to me that that provision offers a second indication in the Bill, or maybe a third, that the allegations made that the government are an uncaring government are true. I think it is miserable that, in terms of sight tests and dental examination charges, they should particularly pick out those who are most needy. I deeply regret that.

1043
I have read all the replies given by Ministers in another place on both of those major issues and I find none of them satisfactory. I hope that your Lordships will take the same view. From these Benches we shall oppose these discriminatory measures with all the power that we can muster.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I must begin by following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with an apology. Shortly before I entered the Chamber I discovered that I had left my diary in somebody else's office about two miles away. I am paralysed if not actually speechless without my diary and I hope that noble Lords will understand if I absent myself briefly during the course of the debate to retrieve it. I hope that it will be accepted by those noble Lords of whose speeches I shall be deprived the pleasure of hearing, that no disrespect is intended.
I must also follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the Minister for such a clear exposition of the purposes of the Bill and for doing so so very briefly. The noble Lord will know that I welcome warmly many of the steps which he has outlined. I think that he will agree with me that I would not be serving the best interests of this House if I now went over all the points about which we are in agreement.
It seems to me from all the correspondence that I have had on this Bill and indeed on others—I have had a great deal, and I have here just a small selection—that there is a widespread impression outside your Lordships' House, and occasionally, I feel, shared by some noble Lords in your Lordships' House, that we cannot raise amendments at later stages of the Bill on various points unless we have flagged up all those points in the Second Reading debate. Nothing is further from the truth. We are entirely free to move any amendment about anything at later stages. I do not think that it is necessary for us to outline or detail them or to have a first go at the arguments during Second Reading. Nevertheless, I think that it is a matter of courtesy that I should list some of the points of my anxiety so that the Minister is forewarned.
To get a general impression of the nature of a Bill—and I have read this Bill very carefully right through—I feel that one cannot do better than to take a careful look at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which comes at the beginning of the Bill. That indeed I have done. Studying the financial part of that opening memorandum, if I may paraphrase it, I found that broadly speaking it says that this Bill will, in the end, clearly be beneficial to the public sector borrowing requirement. When dealing with health and the National Health Service my suspicions are aroused when someone tells me that the measure will be of great benefit to the public sector borrowing requirement.
I understand what the noble Lord has said about the prospects of income generation. Much of it I applaud and welcome. I also understand that it is wise to make the best use of those resources we have, and that if we can save money we should do so. I shall
1044
just make the general point that what the National Health Service needs is more resources and more money; it does not need an exercise to protect the public sector borrowing requirement.
That leads me back to my main concern, which has been mentioned in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals; namely, the general question of cash limits contained in Clause 16 and other parts of the Bill. I accept that that is in a limited sense only, but it seems to me that this could be the thin end of a very thick and damaging wedge.
Cash-limiting family practitioner services seems to me a very difficult principle. I do not believe that this Government or any government can predict with accuracy what illnesses which people will have, and at what cost in future years. It is an exercise which is doomed to failure. We know what has happened in the past. When the family practitioner committee services have overspent or spent more than the Government expected, the Government had to make savings. The only place they could make savings was in the cash-limited part of the service, so they made a 5 per cent. cut in the hospital budget. The inevitable consequence was that greater burdens were laid on the family practitioner committee services, so that the following year they were overspent by even more; then one had another 5 per cent. cut in the hospital budget.
That is a ludicrous situation; one which, I entirely agree with the Minister, could not be allowed to continue. The logical development of it would be that, in the end, there would be no hospital budget left from which to make a 5 per cent. cut in order to compensate for the loss. I wish to make the general point that I see what is being done and that it is being done to a very limited extent. But I hope that it will not turn out to be merely the thin end of a much thicker wedge. I think that there are great dangers with regard to cash-limiting family practitioner services and the domiciliary services.
That leads me to some of the correspondence I have had. I was interested in correspondence which has taken place between Sir Mark Richmond, the vice-chancellor of my former university, and the Secretary of State in Sir Mark's capacity as chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of United Kingdom Universities. It deals with Clause 7 of the Bill, which proposes changes with regard to research conducted in universities which has been funded by the Department of Health and Social Security.
I have always been very proud of medicine in that medical research is open. I would say to noble Lords that if today in the Soviet Union they discovered a cure for AIDS, tomorrow we would all know about it. That is what should happen with regard to medical research. However, now I think—or so Sir Mark Richmond appears to think from his correspondence with the Secretary of State—that we have a different arrangement. When some important medical discovery is made as a result of research which is conducted in a university and which has been funded by the DHSS, there may be some kind of "freezing" of the results of that research until the DHSS has decided how much it can make out of it before it is finally released. I shall not say much more about that

1045
matter now, but I have drawn the noble Lord's attention to the correspondence and I hope that at a later stage he will study it carefully.
The Minister mentioned that Clause 20 refers to the Medicines Act and certain matters related to it. A number of pharmacists have alerted me to the fact that Section 66 of the Medicines Act, which gives pharmacists greater freedom in relation to what they can do as regards drugs, has never been implemented. Since certain sections of the Medicines Act are related to this Bill, I wonder why Section 66 has not been implemented. It is something that pharmacists feel would be very helpful and would give them, as professional people, greater freedom with regard to certain drugs.
That remark leads me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as to why we are not enabling nurses to prescribe more freely than they now do. I know that there was a time when the nursing organisations did not care for such a suggestion and did not want the responsibility. However, I have recently received letters from the Royal College of Nursing stating that that is something that the college would like to see done. It seemed to me, when I was in general practice, to be quite a ludicrous situation that if I had an elderly patient who had a varicose ulcer which was being dressed regularly by the community nurse, that nurse would come round to my surgery, ask me for a prescription for A, B, C or D—for this that and the other, and would tell me what to write. I would write that prescription and she then would go round to the pharmacy and obtain the prescription and apply the medicaments to the ulcer. He or she is a professionally trained person so why should they not be able to prescribe? That is the point made by the Royal College of Nursing. I am sure that in the course of our discussions on this Bill it will be considered further.
I too am much concerned about the question of charges. I shall not say very much about the dental service because I am absolutely certain that if I am here during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn—and I think that I may be—I should agree with every word that he says. He has explained his anxieties, and as a professional person I agree with everything that I think he will say. No doubt he will be supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, but we must wait to see.
As regards dental inspections, there appears to be a contradiction to which the noble Lord was recently alerted by his noble friend Lord Trafford. There is now a situation in which we are encouraging screening. If a general practitioner undertakes certain screening practices he is paid for them, but if a patient goes to be screened then it is the patient who is charged. There is a contradiction there which has already been drawn to the attention of the Minister and I am sure that he will look further into the matter. However, I am sure that I shall agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will have to say to the House shortly.
With regards to eye tests, I welcome the Minister's remarks on the subject of diabetics, which is a very important concession. It is a matter about which many diabetic patients have been extremely worried. Noble Lords are aware, I think, that I intend to move
1046
an amendment in regard to eye questions about which there may not be total unanimity, even on my own Benches. As I have explained before to noble Lords, I have always taken the view that to require an elderly person, who merely wishes to have magnifying lenses and nothing else, to have a full ophthalmic examination before being able to buy those lenses, seems to me to be exactly the same as requiring someone to have a full orthopaedic examination being being allowed to buy a walking-stick.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I greatly value the services of opticians. As a general practitioner I relied very heavily on my local optician and I had a close professional relationship with him. He carried out detailed examinations of my patients with great efficiency, which I am sure was to both their benefit and mine. I should like that to be fully understood.
I also believe that some of the examinations that were done were, while I am not critical of them, nevertheless quite cursory. I welcome steps that will make sure that the ophthalmic examination carried out by the optician is a fuller one so that it will become more of a screening process than it is now. Nevertheless, I think it wise to give notice to the House that I shall be tabling an amendment at a later stage to provide that spectacles which contain identical lenses of certain diopters which are purely for magnifying purposes, should be exempt from the controls which now exist. I also wish to consider facilitating the ability of people to obtain a spare pair of contact lenses without going through the present difficult administrative procedures which are an obstacle to them.
I have merely listed one or two matters with which I am concerned. I shall be speaking more fully about them during our discussions at later stages of the Bill. I come back briefly to what I said at the beginning of my speech. Initially I cannot be totally happy with a Bill concerned with the National Health Service if I am told at the very outset that it will be immensely helpful to the public sector borrowing requirement. That is not my main concern, and I am quite sure that it is not the main concern of the noble Lord, either.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I also should like to apologise to the House since I may have to leave before the Minister replies to the debate. Unfortunately I have an important engagement in Birmingham which I feel I must not miss. I should like first to congratulate the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—who, I see, is fast disappearing from the Chamber—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for what has been a very comprehensive review of this subject. The question that arises in my mind is whether there is anything left to talk about.
When I read the Government's White Paper Promoting Better Health I was most attracted, as others have been, to the proposals contained within it. It seemed right that the Government who in 1973 had damaged the organisation for the delivery of public health by removing the medical officer of health should take some steps toward putting right that damage. Having spent a little of my life in

1047
medical education and realising what a skilled job it is, I began to wonder, having read the document, where the people were to come from in family practice who would discharge some of the new and important functions when the doctors' terms of service with relation to their role in the provision of health promotion services and prevention of ill-health were introduced.
Nurses have been mentioned, and I wonder whether it means that a greater stooging role is envisaged for nurses or a new specialised job for them and others. That is something which is in everybody's mind and which is central to the success of the whole issue. The Bill that we are discussing does not help in any way. I should like to ask the Minister a question which he may partially have answered earlier: will the proposals of the White Paper be implemented as proposed, even though some of them are not considered in any way from the financial point of view in the Bill that is concerned with health and medicines?
I realise that one is dealing with lumps of money and independent contractors, but this is a whole area which is very vague and it is the area on which the success or failure of those proposals will depend. An important part of the White Paper's proposals which is not mentioned in the Health and Medicines Bill concerns the reorganisation of the family practitioner committees so that they will have a more active role in the organisation of primary care services, recognising that their new status enables them to collaborate on equal terms with other agencies. What does that mean?
The Bill that is before us deals with additional powers for financing the health service and the dissolution of the General Practice Finance Corporation, which has not yet been mentioned in this debate. The Bill discusses the provision for private medicine, which I welcome, and considers the controversial proposals which it is claimed will save money. The proposals concern both the optician's responsibility for eye testing and the dental services. I propose to say something about the first matter but to make only a very brief mention of the second.
I am told by the experts that if free eye testing does not continue, the patient may complain to his doctor about eye problems and then be sent to the hospital out-patient department where treatment is given free. The writers of this document seem to see the hospital services and general practitioner services as operating in different compartments.
A brief examination of what has happened in the
hospital ophthalmology department will I think show the relevance of their interdependence. There has been a revolution in the past 20 years in eye departments with laser technology and corneal transplants and other changes. There has been an enormous improvement in the help that the departments can give the seriously ill; and there is more in the pipeline. Under these circumstances, it would seem that any patient who can be dealt with outside the hospital should be so dealt with, and the best people to do this are the opticians. All available resources in hospital ophthalmology should be
1048
concentrated on developing these new services. There is an urgency about this because there are people who can now be cured who could previously not be cured.
I was interested that the White Paper talked at some length—and rightly—about the pharmacists and their new role. I believe that the Government are losing a very great opportunity in not extending the use of opticians in relation to eye problems. My experience is that they are absolutely first class at quickly detecting anything that is wrong. They are, and should be, the general practitioners of the eye services. Every step should be taken to have patients adequately examined by them away from the hospital which, as I have said, must be primarily concerned with resources for the treatment of the sick. I would therefore question the wisdom of the proposal to save money on eye testing. Do the people who have drafted this Bill really understand about this revolution and the urgency of using the skilled professions allied to medicine? I ask the Minister: do the Government see domiciliary eye services as part of the whole provision of optical services or as something separate from the hospital activity?
On dentistry, as has been said, it is vitally important that the school dental service continues to teach the young about the care of their teeth and to detect any defects that they may have. They have to have a good diet and a good toothbrush; and they have to use fluoride toothpaste.
On several occasions in the past three years I have expressed my regret in this House that family practitioner services are not firmly linked with the district health authority. We now have a situation where the Government are proposing to increase substantially the powers of the family practitioner committees. I have to admit, however, that the increased status and authority given by their direct link to the Secretary of State has resulted in remarkable improvements in the conduct of affairs in many areas. There would seem to be two possible ways to go. However, there are certain basic factors which must be met which are vital to the situation. The first is co-terminosity with local authority boundaries of responsibility. Recent events—the Griffiths Report, for example, make this even more important. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has spoken eloquently in support of this. This automatically existed until 1973 in the days of the medical officer of health. We must somehow or other achieve co-terminosity of responsibility between the health authority and the local authority so that they can work hand in glove.
The second important factor is the greater involvement of nurses, pharmacists, opticians and others in the delivery of diagnostic and therapeutic services in practice. This means to me a substantial transfer of responsibilities. One does not hear about this when one hears about the practice nurses. Can the Minister tell us whether there are plans, proposals, or educational programmes arranged; or will it be left to the independent contractor who is employing these people to decide what their responsibilities are; or what they are to do?
There are so many activities that they can now undertake which allow the family doctors time to continue their central task of assessing and advising

1049
their patients. We all know that in recent years the doctor's ability to talk to his patient, to assess the case to make the very important decisions, and to discuss them with the patient has become threatened. It is better that he hands over many of his technical responsibilities to allow time for this task.
The third factor is this. The team has to deliver a better and quicker service, as the Minister has said. We must now resolve the problem which was so clearly understood by Lord Dawson of Penn's report in 1920 entitled Future provision of medical and allied services. This report proposed the establishment of health centres as part of a comprehensive programme of community and personal services involving doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, health visitors and opticians. Whether this should come about under the district health authority or under family practitioner committees is the question. But in my mind there is little doubt that it should happen and would put us in the best position to progress into what could be a cheaper, as well as a more effective, service than the traditional approach. I ask the Minister whether he agrees.
1.56 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it seems that apologies are in order this afternoon. Mine are that I missed the first part of the Minister's speech. However, I assure him that I shall stay to the end although I shall slip out for a sandwich, having missed my lunch.
In general, I am supportive of the main provisions of this Bill, in particular those parts which should encourage preventative medicine and health screening, and those in which I have a special interest as a practising dentist which directly affect dentistry and the provision of dental care.
Out of five speakers on this side of the House this afternoon, two are practising dentists. My noble friend must therefore be prepared for some fairly heavy arguments against Clause 11 which proposes charging for dental examinations for the first time. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that my profession believe that free access to advice is one of the fundamental principles of the National Health Service and that paying for dental check ups would deter patients from having regular dental care.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, but this afternoon I drew the short straw and my noble friend, and dental colleague, Lady Gardner, will deal with this aspect of the Bill in more detail. I look forward to hearing her speech, and I feel sure that most noble Lords will agree with her.
I agree that no government have done more for the funding and organisation of the NHS—despite the fact that it is clearly a fallacy to believe that the injection of ever increasing cash will provide all the resources that are required.
Your Lordships will know that, since the inception of the NHS, the contractual service—the general dental service—has provided the great majority of dental care very economically. However, the high street dentist has no ability to look out or to seek out needs. This means that there are a number of groups of patients for whom the general dental service, as presently structured, cannot readily provide the
1050
treatment. These include some pregnant and nursing mothers, the elderly and the handicapped or housebound.
Fortunately, these groups are provided for by a complementary service—the community dental service. This community dental service grew up out of the old school dental service which provides for the screening at appropriate intervals of all children in maintained schools. It also provides treatment for the children of non-attenders. Screening has been a significant factor in the overall improvement of children's dental health which is acknowledged in the White Paper.
The screening process is cost effective, promotes dental health at an early age and so stimulates demand in children and then in the adult years. This happens irrespective of whether treatment after screening takes place in the general dental service or the community dental service.
In addition, as a public health service, the community dental service collects epidemiological information on disease levels within the community. It also provides prevention and health education both on a group and an individual basis.
The way forward for dentistry and for the future provision of dental care has been investigated carefully during the 1980s by a number of groups. The Nuffield inquiry and the dental strategy review group immediately spring to mind. The British Dental Association developed a paper on the future role of the service. In all of these reviews there was general agreement as to the way forward. This was that the community dental service should continue to develop as a complementary service; and that it should direct its role towards those areas where services are needed most.
I join the British Dental Association in recognising that the Government's long-term aims for the community dental service are very similar to those held by dentists. However, I am concerned over that part of the Bill which seeks to remove the statutory duty to provide school screening. The Government's view appears to be that it would be beyond their scope of authority for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to health authorities to target the community dental service towards care of priority groups, and towards a complementary role to the general dental service, unless the present duty over screening is removed. However, I believe that this well-intentioned change would cause more problems than it would solve.
Increasingly, health authorities faced with difficult choices in expenditure are trying to make cuts into their community dental service provision purely to save money. Many have openly shown this and some have admitted that there was little or no regard to the needs of patient care. Some 40 authorities, seeking to go down this route over the past two years, have been persuaded to modify inappropriate cuts because of the statutory duty. With the removal of the obligation to provide dental screening in schools, it seems inevitable that health authorities will turn to the community dental service savings.
In those parts of the country which are well supplied with general practitioners, the community

1051
dental service already concentrates more on services other than the routine treatment of children. It would thus be those areas with a shortage of general dental practitioners which would be hardest hit if authorities cut back on their community dental service.
Since the publication of the White Paper Promoting Better Health the BDA has been alerted to more cases of health authorities appearing to want to disregard the statutory responsibility. There have been clear statements that their motive is to save money and that they accept that problems with patient care could arise. In some cases the planned cuts are massive, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals said. They are in the region of 40 to 60 per cent., and at least three authorities would like to be able to abolish their community dental service completely.
If some health authorities are taking this form of action now, the removal of the statutory duty would send a clear signal to them and to others to proceed with cutbacks. The problem could then become worse and more widespread. Should this occur, there might not even be sufficient community dental service staff to maintain the new direction for services proposed in the White Paper.
I believe that the statutory duty should remain but be modified to permit the targeting of the community dental service desired by government. This could permit the restricting of screening to areas shown to have real dental needs. The Government would then have targeting, while health authorities would be inhibited from making inappropriate cuts. I think there is much agreement all round on the need to target the community dental service more effectively and to continue with school screening where necessary. The remaining difference over the need for a statutory power is relatively minor.
I am sure that it is essential to retain the statutory powers while enabling the Secretary of State to provide guidance to health authorities on how to target the service. I plan to bring forward an amendment on this point at the next stage, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give me some encouragement to do so.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, it does not seem to me that this is the right Bill on which to raise a wide-ranging discussion on the future funding of the National Health Service. But it is valid to criticise the introduction of the new charges under the Bill at a time when a major government survey of the methods of funding the service is under way. There are many views and variants in the air which we shall, no doubt, discuss at length on future occasions. That is my first point.
Any radically new policy on charging, as this is, should have waited until the review had been widely and properly discussed. That is a criticism of the timing. But the charges for dental examination and sight tests are also objectionable in principle. I cannot for the life of me see on what principle we are able to have free examinations of any part of the body—throat, chest, rectum, elbow or knee—but not
1052
of eyes and teeth, as if these were some curious kind of optional extra not essential to the health of the whole. It defeats me how such discrimination can be logically or morally justified.
Furthermore, these charges appear to be at distinct variance with the Government's often-stated policy, which we all support, of stimulating preventative medicine and primary health care with the object of reducing the burden on hospital services by detecting conditions at an earlier stage and perhaps thus avoiding them altogether.
On the dental side I will say little. Those issues are in the capable hands of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and also of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is yet to speak. As both speak from the Government Benches (therefore, all good dentists appear to be Conservatives) I am sure the Government will pay a great deal of attention to what they have to say. But I cannot refrain from adding my voice—the third or fourth, I believe in this debate—to the general concern about the removal of the statutory requirement for dental inspection and treatment of schoolchildren. I regard that as an especially retrograde step.
The British Dental Association has suggested that if the Bill goes ahead up to 50 per cent. of schoolchildren in the United Kingdom may miss out on dental care. I had always thought as a layman that this service was largely responsible for the improvement in children's dental health and thus of dental health of the nation at large, to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred with some pride, I thought. I cannot see that injunctions to hard-pressed health authorities, looking around desperately for savings, will fill the gap.
Even if the Government will not yield on examination charges for adults, I hope to hear from the Minister that they will think again, particularly in view of the concern expressed on all sides of your Lordships' House about this particular proposal.
I regard the proposed charges for sight tests as even more objectionable. Loss of teeth can be compensated; loss of sight cannot. Apart from the savings which the Government seek, the argument is really about the value of opportunistic screening. The profession
points to the fact that 70 per cent. of positive referrals in respect of glaucoma come from high street optometrists following a free National Health Service eye test. As at present most people over the age of 40 have their eyes tested for one reason or another, one would expect that that generalised sift was fairly efficient, as it appears to be. I would much prefer not to tamper with a system which is working well.
On the other hand, disregarding professional opinion, the Government argue that it is a wasteful and random form of detection and it should be scrapped in order to plough the money back into other branches of the primary care service. That has given rise to such widespread concern that the right honourable Tony Newton came forward with a number of concessions at Report stage in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has referred to them. He also mentioned new arrangements to provide help for those with incomes

1053
just above the qualifying level of incomes support and family credit. Can the Minister tell the House when the proposals will be introduced and on what scale? Can he also say whether that will be provided for by a regulation under the Bill during its passage through Parliament?
The right honourable Tony Newton and the Minister also spoke of discussions with the profession about a new process for the screening of glaucoma. He mentioned that modest additional funds will be available for that. From what he said I am unclear whether the new arrangements are likely to be in place or agreed before the Bill leaves Parliament. Those are two points that I should like to raise about the particular arrangements.
The most important issue appears to be the large questionmark over the amount of saving which will be achieved. As the honourable lady Dame Jill Knight pointed out in another place, where the Government have been paying approximately £10 to an optometrist to test a person's eyes, in many cases they will now be paying £35 to a London hospital. If a GP advises an eye test and the patient does not have the money to pay, he will refer that patient to the hospital. Even in a general hospital outside London the process could cost £25 or £30. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has said, such things should be done outside the hospital service wherever possible.
I am extremely doubtful about the amount of net saving which will be achieved as the result of the Bill. Fewer dental and sight examinations will mean less early diagnosis and detection. Eye disease will add to the burden on hospitals and the whole exercise may turn out to be counterproductive, even in cost-cutting terms. That in turn will presumably affect the Government's whole strategy of redeploying the money elsewhere. That is an issue to which I shall return.
To introduce a new note into the discussion, I should like to point out that there is a much better way of saving money, of which the Bill makes no mention. I refer to more general generic prescribing of medicines. The Government have already demonstrated their concern about the size of the NHS drugs bill by introducing the limited list. I understand that it has now settled down and is delivering most of the saving expected of it, which is in the region of £75 million a year. That cannot reasonably be further pruned because there must be a range of choice available to doctors in the different therapeutic areas. Further substantial savings can be achieved by the extension of the prescribing of generic substances for branded products.
When the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, introduced a Bill early last year, which was the forerunner of the section repealing licences of right in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, I introduced an amendment based on the Greenfield Report on effective prescribing. It would have made it obligatory on chemists to supply a non-proprietary medicinal product, if one existed and was properly approved, unless on the form the GP insisted on a proprietary brand by putting a simple tick in a box.
1054
I should like to emphasise that I was not opposing the abolition of licences of right for which the industry has made out a reasonable case. My amendment would have bitten only on products which had enjoyed their full 20 years' patent protection. I did not press that amendment, however, because it was not wholly appropriate to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which fell in any event.
That amendment, or something similar, is highly appropriate to this Bill, especially in view of the much less acceptable cost-cutting devices proposed by the Government. On those grounds I shall be proposing a new clause to the Bill at the Committee stage. It will have the object of promoting generic substitution with its attendant savings. I do not believe that it should be wholly unwelcome to the Government who are bound to be permanently cost-conscious in this field. If they will come forward with something of their own I dare say that many noble Lords will be happy to rally round that.
However, it is important that a major boost should be given to effective prescribing—which is Professor Greenfield's phrase—either through generic substitution by pharmacists or by some other means. I do not expect the noble Lord to give a detailed comment on that today but I hope for some sympathetic noises towards the idea in principle. The details can be discussed in Committee.
There are other parts of the Bill which we can support. Among them is the compulsory retirement age which opens the way to younger doctors. We have advocated that for a long time. With regard to Clause 7, I have no objection in broad principle to the Government's aim to raise additional revenue for the health service. However, I tend to agree with the National Association of Health Authorities that that will be rather marginal and should not be allowed to consume too much management time.
However, I have three specific concerns on which I should like some reassurance from the noble Lord: first, whether Clause 7(1)(d) would operate to allow a pharmacy with a NHS dispensing contract to be opened on hospital premises or, indeed, for the hospital itself to run one. If so, that would seem to go against the spirit of the recently renegotiated pharmacists' contract which I believe should be given time to get into its stride. At the very least it would seem that any such development should be subject to the normal process of application to the subcommittee of the FPC so that the Government's policy of a more even spread of pharmacies is not adversely affected. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could comment on that.
I should also like to support the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that Clause 7(1)(f) allows the Secretary of State:
"to develop and exploit ideas and exploit intellectual property".
There is concern about this, which is linked to unhappiness over the recent changes in the DHSS research contract. It is not clear from the wording of the Bill whether this subsection is intended to cover the results of research work commissioned by the department or surgical techniques developed within the hospital or what its scope is intended to be. I hope

1055
the noble Lord will help us to decide whether the alarm is justified.
On Clause 7(7) relating to accommodation and services for private patients, I should say that I am not opposed to private beds in NHS hospitals as they can generate valuable income, and I welcome the power of the Secretary of State to charge for them on the appropriate commercial basis. But if private beds are to continue to command general public support, it is vital that all criticism of sloppy and even dishonest collection of private charges is laid to rest once and for all. To that end the mechanism for collection must be foolproof. I know that the BMA has worked hard with the department to produce a code of conduct designed to end the administrative confusion over private patients. However, there is apparently a technical hitch in that the definition of "private patient" as written into the 1977 Act has been, inadvertently I am sure, removed from the Bill, which could create problems of collection for health authorities. I am sure that was not the Government's intention and therefore I hope they will bring forward an amendment in Committee to remedy the defect.
Clause 16 on the reimbursement of doctors' expenses is one of the most important clauses in the Bill and I believe it requires some clarification. The Government's commitment to continued development of relevant primary care teams in the White Paper is marvelous—vaccination, immunisation, screening, chiropody, physiotherapy, in-house social workers, a wide range of expertise, and reduced times in the waiting room. You name it the practice should provide it. Indeed, the noble Lord Lord Skelmersdale, almost waxed lyrical on this theme.
He referred to more money becoming available, but along with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I am not clear how this will be reconciled with cash limits or whether it will be an increase in real terms, a concern also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. The difficulty is that although doctors at present may claim 70 per cent. of the cost of a maximum of two full-time staff, the national average of staff employed per doctor is still only 1·2 full-time equivalents. While honouring existing arrangements, as I understand the Bill does, it removes the ceiling of two employees qualifying for reimbursement and puts the control of all future funding for ancillary staff and premises under the control of the FPC.
The ostensible idea is to encourage, in collaboration with the district health authority, locally agreed strategies for the more effective use of primary teams. That is a splendid idea in principle. Indeed it goes a long way or could go a long way to satisfying those of us who for years have advocated closer links between FPCs and DHAs, and their ultimate amalgamation. However, unless additional funds or new money is made available, it is hard to see how all these practice improvements can take place in needy areas such as the inner cities, other than—and this is the point—at the expense of any continuing improvement in the national average of ancillary staff.
1056
From the Financial Memorandum to the Bill my reading was that the Bill was intended to be cost neutral. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that it was intended to save money on public sector borrowing but I read it as intending to be cost neutral. That means that savings from the abolition of free tests will be ploughed back into the primary care team. However, what will happen if these savings do not materialise? Will the Government still add the savings they originally calculated from the abolition of free tests to the primary care budget? How is this going to work on the ground?
I believe it will be very helpful to all of us if the Minister can say a little more about this rather complex area when he comes to wind up. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that one should not go into too much detail on Second Reading but by asking these questions it may help to clear the ground about the attitude that we shall take at later stages of the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to satisfy us on many of the points that I have raised, in which case we shall not need to put down amendments in Committee.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I agree entirely with other noble Lords who have mentioned the extension of charges to dental and eye examinations. We still have the right to general examination of the body by a medical practitioner, so why exclude teeth and eyes? Routine examination of the eyes can often yield evidence of disease and referral to a doctor for treatment. I have personal experience of this, not with myself but with a member of my family.
The main point I wish to make concerns income
generation, so briefly referred to by the Minister but which, frankly, was not referred to at length by anyone else. Naturally my noble friend Lord Ennals did his stuff, but it is a point that has to be examined more carefully. First, there is the effect of income generation on hospital management. At the moment management is already involved in schemes which have nothing to do with hospital management. It is far better that hospital managers concentrate upon the real job of hospital management and not waste valuable time on negotiating and promoting schemes which are quite outside the remit of their duties. Such schemes call for the business tycoon or someone of that kind.
Recently, in a Question to the Minister, I asked who would be responsible for carrying out schemes which in the main have no connection with the health service. They are simply money-raising ideas with a view to providing extra money for the service both locally and nationally. The Minister will recall that he replied that presumably someone would have to be appointed.
My experience so far is that the poor old managers, some of whom are doing the job quite happily because it is a relief from their other work, are involved in getting these schemes going and they are not adequately carrying out their hospital management duties. It seems therefore that the hospital managers are carrying out the job at the

1057
present time. As I said, that constitutes a further burden of work and the lessening of patient care.
I do not object to the National Health Service providing and selling such of its medical services as may be necessary to private hospitals, and so on. However, I object to the provision of services such as advertising, mini-supermarkets, flower stalls, catering services and many other facilities which are provided elsewhere. Car parking charges seem to be a natural for exploitation among managers. But what about the staff? There are volunteers assisting in many ways. Will they have to pay? In some cases charges are already being put forward to them.
Another important aspect is that of the out-patient. For example, an elderly out-patient may call upon a friendly neighbour for a lift to a hospital which is difficult to reach, as is so often the case because there cannot be a hospital in every area. Will ambulances be available to deal with that situation if car parking charges stop individuals offering lifts?
One needs only to look at Clause 7 to realise the extent to which the health service is being committed. Clause 7(1)(a) states that the Secretary of State shall have power:
"to acquire, produce, manufacture and supply goods".
That covers a tremendous amount of services. Clause 7(1)(b) states that the Secretary of State shall have power:
"to acquire land by agreement and manage and deal with land".
Are we going in for property development or something of that kind! Finally, Clause 7(1)(g) states that the Secretary of State shall have power:
"to do anything whatsoever which appears to him to be calculated to facilitate, or to be conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any power conferred by this subsection".
Those provisions give the Secretary of State a complete free hand to do what he likes. Those are just a few examples of the sweeping powers which are far more extensive, and need more careful checking, than appears to be the case at the moment.
I happen by chance to possess a copy of the National Health Service Management Board's letter which was sent out to hospital managers. It is dated 5th April 1988. I recommend the Minister to read this document. It is informative—far more so than the legislation because it is written in ordinary language—and it appeared before the Bill was available. Some of the letter is most interesting, written as it was by a former NHS manager. It states:
"The Management Board does not wish to see schemes developed that run counter to general health policies, that might be regarded as being in poor taste or that involve undue risk. Authorities will also need to take account of any existing activities by voluntary organisations and discuss any changes fully with them with a view to ensuring that their services are channelled into those areas where they can be of most benefit. In short, we expect health authorities to act sensitively over the way in which they undertake or introduce commercial activities".
I wish that Ministers had had recourse to that management letter before they drafted the Bill. The legislation before us makes no mention whatever of the quotation to which I have referred. I am president of a league of friends. Such organisations, and many others, do valuable service for their respective hospitals. The league to which I belong raises at least £30,000 to £32,000 or more per year, which goes
1058
directly to the local hospital. There is no argument about that. The hospital is guaranteed that income.
The point simply is that the National Health Service hospital is part of the community. That is something that no private hospital ever is or can be. That is perfectly true, as we know. It is because of that fact that hardly any appeal goes unanswered for a local hospital.
In the early days of the National Health Service leagues of friends were only expected to cater for the comfort of patients and staff. Today we are busy in many directions raising money for valuable equipment needed for the health service, and we are getting it. This work will go on unless the income generation scheme interferes with and upsets volunteers.
We need voluntary service. We have always needed it in the National Health Service. We need it to be extended, and yet no word whatever about it is placed in the legislation before us. I challenge the Government to introduce an amendment to the Bill on the lines of the management board letter, drawing attention to the valuable work of the voluntary organisations and the need to consult them before schemes are carried out. Of course that consideration applies to local schemes, but does not refer to the larger national ones. Unless that is done, I can see that in many cases there will be conflict and loss of voluntary action. In other words, the whole matter needs to be handled with great care.
Finally, should such schemes go ahead, I ask that someone else should be appointed in place of the manager. It has never been the job of a health service manager to deal with such matters. His job is hospital organisation and out-patient care; it is not that of a part-time industrialist. Further, what arrangements are to be made for accounting? Does all the money raised locally go to the hospital or to the local health district? Other monies raised go to the Ministry, or does the Treasury have something to say on the matter? In any event separate accounts must be kept in the best traditional business manner. Such administration will prove expensive and will require additional staff. There may be a case for medical and nursing sales but the rest is just a waste of time, as much of the work is already being carried out by voluntary effort. It will only clog up an already exhausted machine with too much management at all levels. Why not clear up existing management and leave the extra bits and pieces where they properly belong?
I frankly admit that there is room for improvement in the National Health Service, without going into the side efforts just to raise money, which is the case with Clause 7 and much else. That is not brought about by legislation.
2.33 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as a practising national health dentist, who has been in practice for a long time, you would of course expect me to speak upon dental matters. However, before doing so, I wish to make a few points on behalf of the general practitioners and, interestingly, a slightly reverse point on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing.

1059
The general medical practitioners are most concerned about the cost of premises and ancillary staff, especially in the big cities and the inner-city areas where the costs are high. There is genuine concern about the future of such services—which are now provided so well by practices—which have adequate ancillary staff and which have taken over great responsibility from the local hospitals, because patients are now able to receive treatment in the general practice.
The Royal College of Nursing has also written to me putting forward another point. Their concern is that the general practitioners will receive all the money and they may not receive anything for the services being run by the nurses in the community services. Therefore both points are highly relevant and both directly related to the cash limits. I found it difficult to reconcile the most interesting speech of my noble friend the Minister, when he told us how much more money will be spent on primary care services, with what I read in the Bill; namely, that the financial and manpower effects show that Clauses 1 to 6 and 8 to 16 are:
"expected to produce significant net savings on public expenditure".
I should like the Minister to reconcile for me how we can be spending so much more and yet, at the same time, be saving so much on public expenditure. It is somewhat difficult to follow.
I should also mention that dentists have always longed for some form of direct reimbursement, such as doctors receive. Dentists in the expensive and inner-city areas are experiencing great difficulty in even surviving in some cases—certainly if they provide a large proportion of National Health Service dentistry. Anyone running a practice with, say, 85
per cent. national health dentistry is in grave trouble. That is why patients, especially in London, Birmingham and the big cities, are finding it harder and harder to obtain national health treatment, because the amount paid by the National Health Service does not match the costs involved. I know from experience in my own practice that for the time taken, our costs amount to something like twice the cost of the examination fee presently paid. Therefore with every patient one examines—even when that patient does not have to pay—one is still really giving him a present for walking in one's door. One tends to survive only on the actual treatment provided.
Dentists are victims of their own success. As the Minister points out, 8 million patients now require examination only. That is due to the fact that over the years the effective dental treatment given to patients has so improved dental health in this country that the dentists are the very ones now suffering.
The story with regard to younger patients is different; it is a case of fluoride, prevention and dental health education. We talk about the community service but the day may come when general dentists desperately need to examine schoolchildren—who will not have to pay—as a source of income. The rest will always have to stop and think twice about what it is going to cost them.
The deterrent effect of a charge for dental examination cannot be overestimated. Over 30 years
1060
in practice, I cannot claim to have found more than six life-saving conditions that were visible when patients came to the surgery; but I would certainly say that there have been six such cases. I remember very clearly one man who had shown great courage; he was terrified of visiting the surgery. His income was very low income and if there had been a charge, I do not think he would have come for perhaps another six months. That would have been too late. He had an obviously nasty lesion which we picked up. We referred him for treatment.
That man, who had two children, is still alive over 20 years later. The children have grown up and their lives have been changed completely. His case seems to me a highly relevant argument for having free dental examinations. It might have cost the Government much more to support the widow and those children over the 25 years that the man has continued to be able to support them. That could have been quite expensive.
Our practice has picked up six similar conditions in 30 years. One can multiply that for every practice in the country. One sees that there are patients whose lives have been affected by a decision whether or not to put off going to the dentist. That argument, I believe, outweighs anything else.
The other aspect of whether or not people can afford treatment is different. A great number of people could afford to pay and indeed could pay more than the Government presently pay. I do not think it is entirely a financial matter. Those at the very bottom end of the market, who need assistance, receive assistance and can have free treatment. Therefore I am not so concerned about those people. I am really concerned about the patient who is terrified of going to the dentist. Even the slightest additional deterrent will be enough to stop a visit.
Mention has been made of the possibility that the Government do not intend immediately to implement charging but that they want to have the powers in advance. If that is true, I oppose it. Let them come for the powers when they want them rather than at any other time. There is nothing more insidious than obtaining powers in advance of need. It is rather like the case of the M.4 motorway into the middle of London. Nobody thought about it because it had all been approved 15 years previously. But the day cars were roaring past their windows, they suddenly noticed. I do not on any account want us to agree to it if it is not going to be implemented, any more than if it is to be implemented.
The Minister mentioned that one can now obtain glasses for £10 to £12. I wish he would give me an address or two. I find that the cost of reading glasses has more than doubled. I am hanging out for as long as I can. I shall have to make my writing larger to put off going for another pair. I think there are many people like myself who are deterred from having new glasses until they really cannot do without. I have spoken about the desirability of dentistry from the life-saving and from the dental health points of view. However, in considering the health aspect I am more concerned about eye tests than I am about dentistry. If a person loses a tooth, the dentist can give a form of replacement; but it is different if something disastrous happens to one's eyes. I am no expert, but

1061
I should be terrified by losing my sight. That aspect has all my sympathy.
My noble colleague has spoken about the educational role of the community dental service. I agree with the point about its importance. As I said, his point about targeting services is a good one. We must see what will happen about that.
Retirement is another issue that comes up in the Bill. Clause 8 seems to cover retiring age. I fully approve of a top age for retirement, especially in London. There are too many medical practitioners working single handedly in inadequate practices who are unwilling to take on patients especially if the medical practitioner has an expensive address. It means that people are being deprived of national health medical treatment in large areas of our city.
It would be good if the Government would consider early retirement facilities. I ask the Minister whether that point is covered by the Bill. We have too many dentists now. We are reducing recruitment; we are not training so many dentists. However, we still have too many. There is not enough work for them to do. As I have said, they are victims of their own success. Instead of trying to share out whatever work there is among them, would it not be better—even if it meant paying up their superannuation—to allow some to retire early to make room for some of the others?
I approve of a ceiling on the retiring age but I should also like to see options for voluntary earlier retirement. Many people who retire early find that retirement opens up a new life for them. There is certainly plenty to do in life now.
The Minister said—and it is a fact—that different dental charges have already come into force. The profession has always believed that the regular patient was prejudiced and so proportional charging is a good thing. That is the point that the Minister made.
The profession is less happy about the fact that dentists are unpaid tax collectors. This has gone on for many years now. They all handle money and do calculations. I think that I made the point some years ago—it is still relevant—that we are back to handling coppers again. We now have to take in a handful of small change. Instead of dental charges being rounded to the nearest 5p, one now has to give a few pence change. That is a terrible waste of professional people's time. It is difficult to find professional or ancillary staff to help in a practice in central London. It is not good to add those unnecessary and irritating burdens.
The Minister said that we want dental awareness and regular attendance. There has been a great growth in dental awareness. Years ago people would come in, and the only statement they made was, "It might as well come out now, because it has to come out sooner or later". No one in London says that now, although I believe that it is still said a little in the North. People now want to have their teeth until the day they die. It is on that point that the comment about Age Concern, made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is more relevant than it was.
A year or two ago, I should have said that examinations for elderly people were less important
1062
because so many had dentures; but they are now becoming more important. I believe that the Government have retained free domiciliary visits for the elderly. It is important that they should have such visits. A call-out charge for a dentist to see a patient at home could be expensive. It is one of the better paid elements of the health service, perhaps because it is so difficult to get the dentist to visit.
It is a very good thing to have improvements in the primary care services, but I find it impossible to reconcile the statements in the speech of the Minister with the facts as they are in the Bill. I think that this is a worry for people. I hope that as this Bill progresses we shall be able to look at things again.
Everyone says that dental examination is free now. That is true, but only on a time-limited basis. You can only go for a free dental examination once in six months, and for children it is once in four months. There might be some possible compromise point at which you could have a free dental examination once in a year, or something of that type, and for most adult patients something of that kind might be an answer. But if instead all free dental examination is thrown out, then I believe that the patient most in need of it may be the very one who will not attend.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is very interesting how much agreement there is between the working professionals in health on both sides of the Chamber on quite a number of issues which we discuss in your Lordships' House. I must apologise to the noble Lord the Minister for arriving rather late; it was for the same reason as was given by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I may have missed some of the points he made and if that becomes clear from my speech, I apologise in advance.
This is a short but quite complex Bill, but very little of it deals with the positive aspects of the White Paper Promoting Better Health. It has 20 clauses and I calculate that these cover some 14 separate topics, only three or four of which are, I feel, moves in the right direction. These include Clauses 8 and 9, dealing with the retirement of GPs to make room for younger doctors. There may be some parts of Clause 10 dealing with community dentistry which are beneficial towards dental education in children, but I am not sure of the full implications of the whole of that clause.
Clauses 15 and 19 relate to training—reimbursement of GPs' expenses in training staff and students, and increased government support for social work training. Both of these are steps in the right direction towards improving services and, of course, I fully support those. I take on board the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on the concern of nurses at not being mentioned in Clause 15 about the reimbursement of training costs.
There are five areas which seem to be relatively neutral in their impact. They are probably necessary but not exactly earth shaking and some of them, I admit, I do not fully understand. I do not think I would have understood some of them even after the noble Lord's explanation, because some of the clauses are a little obscure.

1063
That leaves six measures which in my view will be damaging in their effect. They are Clauses 1 to 6 dealing with the privatisation of the General Practice Finance Corporation; Clause 7 dealing with income generation by health authorities—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in his reservations about that clause; Clause 10 in the part that diminishes the scope of community dentistry; Clause 11 where it ends free dental inspections; Clause 13, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, dealing with the ending of free eye tests, and Clause 16 dealing with cash-limiting family practitioner committees.
I shall concentrate on eye tests and cash limits, but may I first put in a word about the General Practice Finance Corporation? This was set up in 1966, mainly to enable GPs in unattractive or underprivileged areas to improve their premises. It is a self-financing organisation charging interest at the prevailing rate. For this reason it is only technically a charge on the public sector borrowing requirement.
Some aspects of the privatisation proposals cause concern. First, if doctors have applied to use the General Practice Finance Corporation's facility for acquisition and subsequent lease-back of their premises, is there any assurance that the successor body will honour this? This is rather a complex subject on which to speak in the House and perhaps the Minister will read what I have said and write to me later.
Secondly, have the Government yet decided how the General Practice Finance Corporation's assets and liabilities are to be transferred to the private sector? Lastly, if the corporation's portfolio of leases and loans on the premises of GPs are sold, what protection would be offered to existing mortgagees and tenants, since the loans are categorised as commercial and not as domestic?
My main concern with the ending of free eye tests is that, as many other noble Lords have mentioned, a valuable screening service will have been made less effective. I consider that the Bill will promote worse and not better health in regard to eyes and also to general medical conditions, as I hope to point out. There are a number of medical and ophthalmological conditions which cause eyesight to deteriorate. Two of the commonest are diabetes and glaucoma. It is important to recognise both at an early stage in order to prevent complications, to avoid the condition itself and to prevent blindness. Opticians themselves may not be trained to diagnose eye pathology in detail, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said, they can detect that something is wrong if vision cannot be corrected with the use of suitable glasses. Many will have a very good idea of eye diagnosis because they will have been trained in optometry—that is testing the pressure in the eyeball which is necessary to detect glaucoma—and funduscopy, which means inspecting the back of the eye, which is necessary to detect diabetic retinopathy. If they are in any doubt they will refer to a ophthalmologist, usually through a general practitioner.
If the optical complications of diabetes are detected early enough, blindness can be prevented in
1064
60 per cent. of the cases by laser treatment. But only about half of known diabetics actually attend out-patients' clinics, where they are screened regularly for early eye disease. GPs, who see the other half, are often not so good at funduscopy. I admit to not being expert, and many opticians and optometrists have more practice and are better at it. Therefore it is a great relief that the Government agreed at Report stage in another place to insert Clause 13(4)(b), permitting those with certain diseases still to be entitled to free eye tests.
As Dr. John Yudkin, a consultant physician and diabetologist at Whittington Hospital, pointed out in a letter to the British Medical Journal in January, if 1,000 diabetics are screened 12 cases of early retinopathy will be detected and seven of these can be prevented by laser treatment from going blind. He shows quite clearly that the exercise is cost-effective, let alone the immeasurable benefit of saving sight.
However, of more concern to me is the fact that many previously unknown diabetics are picked up by opticians. Their high blood sugar results in refractory changes in the fluids in the eye and the lens, which result in a deterioration of vision. This leads people to seek an eye test, from which I feel they may be deterred if there is a charge. Also 8 per cent. of diabetics already have retinopathy, the condition which leads to blindness if not treated early, when they are first diagnosed. The ending of free eye tests will have an adverse effect on the initial diagnosis of diabetes and glaucoma, which may lead to blindness if untreated.
Clause 16, which brings family practitioner committees into the cash limited sector of the NHS, seems, as other speakers have pointed out, a curious non sequitur, given the stated intention of the Government to expand the role of primary care. The Government justify that on the gound of the need to control total expenditure while encouraging certain aspects of the service to develop. One aspect of expenditure which the White Paper encouraged was the employment of more ancillary staff by GPs—that is, clerical, nursing and management staff—70 per cent. of whose salaries are reimbursed by the FPCs.
At present, a limit is set of two staff per GP. However, the national average of staff employed at the moment is only 1·2 per GP. That ranges from 0·72 in Oldham to 1·59 in Cornwall. Some more ambitious and enterprising practices, wishing to increase their services, may go quickly to two staff and above. However, if there are cash limits, will those practices which apply later find their applications blocked because the cash limit will have been reached? The main task is surely to encourage the less forward-looking general practices in the country to expand their services. How can that proposal help them?
We are in the dark about how cash limits will be administered. For instance, how will family practitioner committees decide which practices get funded and which do not? Will maximum standards for premises be set if numbers of reimbursed staff are allowed to expand? What about the salaries of reimbursed staff, some of whom are skilled professional people? At present, ancillary staff are very poorly paid—well under the national average. Will cash limits tend to stop them being paid

1065
adequately? Will the 70 per cent. level of reimbursement remain or is there a thought that it might be reduced? Those are some of the worries which many of us in primary care have. It is reasonable to seek some clarification. I hope that the Minister will be able to oblige.
In the section of the Bill which relates to financial and manpower effects, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and others, it is made clear that the changes proposed will not only involve no additional public expenditure but will result in net savings. The White Paper is entitled Promoting Better Health. Do the Government feel that that can be done as part of an economy drive? I am afraid that the only kind of health that the Bill will promote will be healthy scepticism.
2.59 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the National Health Service has been very much before us recently. Noble Lords will know that I have not been reticent in keeping it so. I have had very good reasons, for I do not believe that the health of any individual should be sacrificed to Mammon. I believe that both the healthy wealthy taxpayer and the sick should receive value for money and that all the resources, be they men and women, medical and scientific equipment or buildings and land, should be carefully husbanded.
The Bill conceals a number of carrots and sticks among some fairly innocuous clauses. Those which cause most concern, such as provisions relating to dentistry and the optical services, have already been thoroughly aired by previous speakers. Therefore, I do not propose to dwell on them for very long.
The General Practitioners Finance Corporation was an obvious target for privatisation or dissolution as the process is described in the Bill. My only reservations about Clauses 1 to 6 are that the financial stability given by the GPFC to general practitioners for building or extending surgeries and health centres should continue and that current loans to GPs should not be altered. Agreements should be honoured under the original contracts. Is the Minister able to give such an assurance?
I think that we would all agree that the Secretary of State must have the power to ensure that the assets of the National Health Service are fully exploited. That is part of good management. However, the peripheral activities must not be allowed to detract from the main objectives of management—service to patients. Once again fears are being voiced over the Secretary of State's powers regarding intellectual property. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter mentioned that point. Clause 7(1)(f) will have to be very carefully scrutinised.
There has been a long debate both within the medical profession and outside it about a compulsory retirement age. Is the Minister able to say whether there will be any flexibility? I am thinking particularly about some practices in inner cities and rural areas where a doctor has been practising single-handed and where the family practitioner committee may have some difficulty in finding a replacement.
1066
The arguments for and against charging for initial optical and dental treatment have already been thoroughly rehearsed. The effects that the charges levied will have on the take-up of these services are an unknown quantity. I know that the Government have promised to exempt certain groups of people who are regarded as vulnerable but the preventive aspects should be paramount—a stitch in time. I am sorry to see that the Government do not consider the school dental service sufficiently important to warrant the imposition of a duty upon the Secretary of State to continue its provision. Not all parents ensure regular visits to a dentist for their children.
I am delighted to see that Her Majesty's Government recognise the need for ancillary staff to be trained and are prepared to reimburse training costs, although to what extent is not clear from the Bill. The Dispensing Doctors Association—of which I am patron—has long been exploring the means to ensure that their dispensary staff are qualified. I am hoping that the provisions under Clause 15 will give them the means to attain their objective; or will they be only for practice nurses? I wonder whether the noble Lord will be able to answer that question. Can he also say whether the Government will be prepared to reimburse all or only a part of reasonable training expenses?
That was the carrot: now for the stick. Clause 16 enables the Secretary of State to impose cash limits on general medical services. We have already seen the effects of cash limiting on the acute services. In very many instances the savings achieved by district health authorities have been achieved only at the expense of family practitioner committees. Longer waiting lists, early hospital discharge after surgery, discharges from psychiatric hospitals, closures of family planning clinics and a reduction in drugs dispensed by hospital pharmacies have all imposed a considerable burden upon the family practioner committees. There is no question of general practioners having carte blanche at present. Their expenses claims and prescribing habits are closely scrutinised by the FPCs.
The Government have outlined their objectives for expansion of preventive medicine and for community care in various papers recently. Constraints on funding of FPCs will undoubtedly lead to restrictions on the rate at which those objectives are achieved. The general practitioner is the first and often the last post for the patient and provides a backstop for the acute services. It is essential that patients should have free access to their GPs and that GPs should be free to provide the treatment considered reasonable and necessary.
There is no evidence to show that GPs are extravagant in their demands to FPCs for reimbursement for improvements to premises or employment of ancillary staff. The existing incentives to economy are successful. It could even be argued that fewer and not more restraints should be imposed to encourage GPs, particularly those who practise in the inner cities where property is disproportionately costly and the current reimbursement schemes have failed to bring about necessary improvements.
At what levels will those limits be imposed? If they are to approximate to current spending levels it is

1067
likely that some GPs and patients will receive more favourable treatment than others. If they are to be higher, what would be achieved? I believe that the current constraints on extravagance work well and that we should vigorously oppose Clause 16.
I am very grateful to the Minister for so clearly putting the Government's point of view, and I hope that he will be his usual co-operative self when we go through later stages of the Bill.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I propose to concentrate my remarks on Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill which are concerned with the subject of optics. I declare my interest as president of FODO (the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians).
The main thrust of the Bill and the White Paper Promoting Better Health has in general been warmly welcomed. The dental and optical clauses are quite inconsistent with it. I have noticed that so far there has not been a single speaker in support of the Government's plans contained in the dental and optical clauses. I thought that one of the most interesting speeches today came from the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and I look forward very much to reading it later.
It seems that during the public expenditure review the Treasury told Health Ministers that they could only obtain increased resources for promoting health care if corresponding savings were made elsewhere in the department's budget. I believe that it would be morally and economically wrong in principle for dental and eye care to be sacrificed in that way. I question whether the savings to be made will be spent more effectively elsewhere, if indeed savings are actually made, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, disputed.
Neither of the proposals on dental or optical care were mentioned in the Government's election manifesto, so I hope that it will not be suggested that your Lordships cannot look at them and if necessary revise them. I do not intend to weary the House over the many signs of physical ailments that can be detected during the course of an eye examination. Many of them develop very gradually and are often discovered in their early stages only when a person goes to see an optician for a check-up. Much concern has been expressed by the BMA, the RNIB, Age Concern, Help the Aged and many other organisations to the effect that the withdrawal of a free sight test from about two-thirds of the population will deter a significant number of people from having eye examinations.
For some reason Ministers do not accept that there will be any long-term deterrent effect. Even if they are right about that, there will obviously be a short-term effect. Since the publication of the White Paper the volume of sight tests has risen by 25 to 30 per cent. Clearly, a corresponding fall will follow when people have to pay.
I understand that about 1 million people annually are referred by opticians to GPs when signs of glaucoma, hypertension and diabetes, etc., have been
1068
spotted. We have been told that under the provisions of this Bill about two-thirds of the population will no longer receive free sight tests. I doubt whether my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will think that none of those 667,000 people will be deterred by having to pay the optician's charges for a sight test.
The Government's answer came in another place on 16th February in Committee when my honourable friend Mrs. Edwina Currie said:
"Doctors normally see about three-quarters of the patients on their list within a 12 month period. On average, people visit their doctors four times a year and the frequency rises for elderly people. However, people usually have sight tests every two or three years, or even less frequently. It follows, therefore, that if we are looking to deter conditions which may be detected through the eye or in other ways, the GP is the appropriate person from whom one should seek advice and assistance".
It is even more illuminating that on 16th February my right honourable friend the Minister for Health said:
"We believe that in general the increasing resources that we are making available to primary care services would be better employed on developing systematic screening arrangements—basically through GPs—than on the random issue of whether people happen to go for eye sight tests".
He went on to say that he did not agree that,
"what we are proposing in respect of the development of, among other things, screening activities for general medical services is something that is vague or distant".
Then, believe it or not, my Lords, he continued:
"Admittedly I cannot give as much detail as I would like because that depends, for example on detailed negotiations with the BMA which are now under way. Therefore, it is not possible for me to give details of where we shall end up".
I have the greatest respect for the Minister for Health but I wonder where some of the patients will end up.
I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, does he visualise a doctor, visited by a patient with a sprained ankle, or a cut, in his very busy surgery, thinking that this is a heaven-sent opportunity to carry out a thorough examination of his patient's eyes? Secondly, would it not be wiser to defer the restriction of free eye tests at least until negotiations with the BMA have been satisfactorily completed? It will be no surprise to me if the BMA turn down the idea flat. Before Easter I met the chairman of the General Medical Services Committee of the BMA, Dr. Michael Wilson, who assured me that far from any such negotiations being under way they had not even started. Last week I enquired again. No discussions, let alone negotiations, had begun. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell the House whether these negotiations have now commenced and, if so, how far they have progressed and what they are intended to achieve.
I understand that there are about 30,000 GPs. Are they all to be given specialist training in ophthalmology and are they all to be supplied with the equipment used by OMPs and OOs? I am told that the minimum cost of such equipment to carry out eye examinations would be about £4,000. Apart, therefore, from the cost of training GPs and the provision of adequate space for this additional activity in the GP's premises, the cost of the equipment would be £120 million. So much for the £80 million savings anticipated by Ministers and the Treasury.

1069
None of this makes sense to me. And what happens if GPs make it quite clear that they do not wish to undertake these additional responsibilities which are currently being very well carried out by OMPs and OOs? Even if they are willing, I cannot think how they will find the time.
I very much welcome the ministerial review which I understand is taking place but I do not know why dentistry and optics have to be dealt with in isolation and why we could not have waited until that ministerial review was completed. Once having pushed through dental charges, and removed the general entitlement to a free sight test, I suppose it could be argued that it would be logical to make other charges for visits to GPs, hospital accommodation and meals, and so on. If that is what is in the Government's mind, why not say so? The Government have a majority of over 100 in another place and they have grasped many nettles since 1979. Why will they not say what their intentions really are? So far the Government have not enlightened us about the ministerial review of the NHS. What a good opportunity this is for my noble friend to do so.
As already mentioned, some concessions have been announced that promise retention of a free sight test for diabetics and glaucoma sufferers referred by a GP or a clinic. However, this is really too little, too late; it does not address the problem of how to encourage people who may be suffering from a symptomless condition to have the regular eye examination which might detect it in the first place.
The RNIB has welcomed the concession for diagnosed diabetics which is intended to ensure that price will not deter them from visiting the optician until it is too late. It points out, however, that this is a tacit acknowledgement by the Government that some people will be deterred by the charge from having a sight test.
On the subject of glaucoma, the RNIB urged the Government to go further. Glaucoma is known to run in families. It is therefore important that people over 35 who are related to a glaucoma sufferer should have regular eye checks. It urges the Government to allow free sight tests to first degree relatives of glaucoma sufferers on referral from a GP. I should like strongly to support this suggestion. I hope that my noble friend will give it sympathetic consideration.
It is well known that early detection of these conditions is vitally important—and no more so than in the case of the elderly. Surely if any group is in need of special consideration in regard to teeth and eyes, it must be the elderly. FODO has estimated that 6·5 million of the approximately 9 million pensioners will cease to be eligible for free sight tests if this Bill becomes law. We all know that elderly people are reluctant to ask for help and tend to regard deteriorating eyesight as an inevitable part of the ageing process. It is therefore particularly important that we should give them every encouragement to have regular eye examinations, since they are the group with by far the greatest need.
I really do not feel that it is necessarily an answer to say that there is no precedent for doing this. After all, the precedent is that the elderly have in fact been
1070
entitled to a free NHS sight test ever since 1948 and are still so entitled as of today. The Government are proposing to take away an existing entitlement and the onus of proof is upon the Government to justify it. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of including pensioners within the NHS eligible groups entitled to free dental and eye examinations.
Whatever changes come out of this Bill, it seems to me obvious that if we are to have competition for sight testing services, then opticians must be completely free to advertise the whole range of the comprehensive services which they have to offer. I should like to see the existing publicty rules of the General Optical Council made in 1985 revoked entirely and replaced by provisions giving opticians a positive legal right to advertise all their services. I see no reason why there should be any restriction on the giving of information to the public, provided that it is not misleading and is subject to the existing law and the code of the Advertising Standards Authority.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the Government that the withdrawal of the free sight test will have no long-term deterrent effect. I believe that the short-term deterrent effect will result in many people suffering from disease—even blindness—which would have been detected if free sight tests were available to all. I ask the Government seriously to consider withdrawing Clauses 13 and 14, at least until they have agreed with the BMA how to implement their plans to have eye examinations carried out by GPs.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is with considerable pleasure that I immediately follow the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, who was very reasonable and very controlled. Yet I detected that there was a great deal of, if not anger, considerable unease about the impact of the Bill.
Although many of those who have spoken have congratulated the Minister and his colleagues on aspects of the Bill which they recognise will to some extent improve the primary care services, I would simply underline what has recently been said: that there is not a friend in the House who supports what the Bill and the Minister and his colleagues intend to do by the institution of charges for eye tests and dental expenses.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I disagree; I am afraid that I am a friend to it. Therefore the noble Lord is speaking for me before I have spoken.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am obviously speaking about what has been said up to now, and the situation is that the Minister does not have a friend. However, I have flushed one out before the noble Lord has risen to his feet. To that extent the House can anticipate some support for the issue. No doubt the Minister will tell us of the imperatives which have driven him and his colleagues to this particular aspect of good housekeeping or reorientation of priorities.
I am interested in and grateful for the support for my general point of view which I heard from the

1071
noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. On many issues and on many occasions she and I have had different points of view. However, on this issue and others she speaks with an authority and professionalism which I do not pretend to have. One of the facets of this debate has been the fact that some noble Lords have spoken not from general experience or with a gut reaction but from seeing the situation as it is. The noble Baroness was a good illustration of that, as were the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Rea. They and many other noble Lords practise in the field and they will see the impact of the Government's actions.
I have a common interest with Dr. Ian Twinn, Mr. Tim Eggar, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Bernie Grant, Sir Hugh Rossi, all Members of another place, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We all received a letter from the family practitioner committee of the Enfield and Haringey area. Mr. Boris Whycer wrote to us indicating that at its recent meeting members of the committee received copies of Promoting Better Health, the Government's programme for improving primary health care. The depth of feeling of members at the meeting resulted in the following resolution being passed unanimously:
"On the grounds of basic preventative health care, this FPC condemns the proposed introduction of charges for sight testing and dental examination contained in the Government White Paper, Promoting Better Health".
No doubt all the people I listed found their own way of bringing to the attention of the Minister that which they were invited so to do. I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that the committee is responsible for the small part of London in which I live, and at that level it is the unanimous view. The Minister will know that there is no political animosity in the make-up of the committee. Serving on it will be politicians and those with strong political views and no views at all.
The issue has been raised of what is stated in the financial memorandum and what has been stated by the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that there are people who will delay visiting the dentist, doctor or optician if there is a possibility of an additional deterrent, apart from their reluctance to do so. A charge which has not been levelled before is an additional deterrent.
It is not my intention to introduce or regurgitate the statistics that have been used but they are a very powerful argument. One sees the consequences of the diseases which are discovered at the first stage of an examination, and I wonder whether the Minister and his colleagues appreciate what they are doing.
I fully understand the Government's search for savings and their desire for efficiency and value for money. However, it is demonstrated by practitioners in the field and not someone who has conducted a survey, not someone who is in the Ministry, not someone who has written a paper, but people who tell it as it is, that in time any savings will be lost by the extra costs on the taxpayer. I wonder whether the Minister can help us; if not today, then in Committee. In Committee amendments will be moved that will be designed to be helpful to the Minister and his colleagues without damaging the full purport of the
1072
Bill. I cannot believe that the full purport of the Bill is to damage the coverage of primary health care in respect of eyes and teeth. I cannot believe that that is the purpose of it. I hope that we can convince the Minister to amend the Bill before we go too far down a particular road. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, has pointed out a useful amendment. Other amendments will be moved along those lines.
Several bodies have written to me. I must confess that I rely almost entirely not just on a gut reaction, which is that I am in favour of a free service as far as possible, but also on those who write to me with their views. The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians has written to me. It represents not only the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies, which it has replaced, but it incorporates the British Guild of Dispensing Opticians and also the Co-operative Optical Services. I must declare a slight interest. The House knows of my deep and long association with the co-operative movement. Co-operative societies with their own optical departments are saying to the Minister that they recognise that there are good provisions in this Bill. I have made inquiries which confirm that there are good measures in the Bill, but there are also damaging and detrimental measures. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer all the quesions, but I hope that he will listen carefully to many of the ways suggested to safeguard the primary health care of a great many people and, in particular, our children. I cannot get the drift of the Minister's intention to lift the duty to provide this care.
The Minister must know, because of his experience in other places, that on the margin there will be local authorities and health authorities which would say that in a perfect world they would wish to provide a good and satisfactory service to cover all eventualities. However, they will say, "Lord Graham, there is a limit on the budget. There is pressure from this quarter or that quarter and we have to make priorities". They will genuinely wring their hands. They do not want to do that, but in many instances they will be forced to do so, and we too shall hold up our hands. They will do those things because the Minister is saying that they now have the ability to do that. I hope the Minister will listen. In my view, the Government have a reputation for not listening to those who disagree with their views. The views heard from behind the Minister today are those which support him and his Government. I hope he will respond.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, whatever defects this Bill may have, at least it has one thing in its favour: it is mercifully brief. According to my reckoning, it has only 21 clauses and two schedules, unlike some other major and controversial Bills in this Session. With the advance of modern technology, the DHSS and an ever-expanding National Health Service are almost in a "no-win" situation. To that extent, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister and his department, because obviously the most controversial part of this Bill concerns the optical and dental charges. Having thought this out very carefully, I do not necessarily criticise these charges per se for certain people.

1073
I take a view which perhaps even Mr. Enoch Powell may have taken in his distinguished days as a Member of the other place. If one has to have these charges they have to be realistic. Under the terms of the Bill and the charges which have been bandied around—I do not believe that anyone is certain what they will be—the Government have the worst of all worlds. Rather like prescription charges, the charges themselves are such that the revenue to the National Health Service will be very small. By the time the administration is operating it would appear to a layman such as myself that the revenue will be smaller still. Those of us who have an interest in the health service, whether serving on hospital committees, as members of a League of Friends, or anywhere else—and there are many noble Lords in that position at present—genuinely want legislation to work.
I agree with noble Lords who said that the cart before the horse is the problem. So far as I can ascertain there was not proper discussion with the British Medical Association and other bodies before these measures were taken. We are now in times when, under all governments, legislation is brought in without proper discussion with those who have to apply it. I believe this to be true of the Local Government Finance Bill, and we have all had enough of that for the time being—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is more to come.
Lord Auckland: We have had the Education Reform Bill as well. We are living in times when there is insufficient consultation with those who have the duty to implement the legislation. Ministers and civil servants have a very important part to play but ultimately it is the doctors, dentists, health committees and others who have the job of putting all these provisions into practice.
Perhaps I may say a little about Clause 7, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred. It contains some very sweeping powers. I should like to ask the Minister a question though I have not given him notice of it. Perhaps he will write to me and other noble Lords as regards Clause 7(1)(b) which states:
"to acquire land by agreement and manage and deal with land".
I was surprised to see that in a Bill of this kind. I live in an area where there are seven large dental hospitals and there is a great deal of land available. There is local concern as to what will happen to this land. Perhaps the Minister can say precisely what paragraph (b) means. We know that when the Department of Health and Social Security requires new nurses' homes and other establishments for people who administer the health service it is in a position to acquire land, perhaps through compulsory purchase.
It seems that while Clause 7 might be wholly in order, it is drafted in such a way that the ordinary person looking at it will see that it has draconian powers. I refer also to subsection (1)(a);
"to acquire, produce, manufacture and supply goods".
These are enormous powers and they have not been spelt out in the Bill. If they had been, it might have been much longer.
1074
I believe too that the suggestion that nurses, and in particular senior nurses, should be able to prescribe certain drugs and other medical appliances is a very good one. I think so particularly in view of the recent upgrading of student nurses, who will now be much more professional in their nursing than before.
This will take the strain off a number of general practitioners who, as the letter from the Royal College of Nursing suggests, often see their patients much less than the staff nurse and the sister who have received considerable training. This Bill will need to be examined very carefully in Committee. I believe that the purport of the Bill is a good one, but the powers in it need considerable further scrutiny.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too must begin by apologising to the Minister in that I missed the beginning of his speech. The previous debate ended much sooner than I thought it would. One of the advantages of speaking as late in the debate as I am is that most of the points that I would want to make have already been made, and probably better than I could make them. I therefore wish to say how much I support the points that have been made about the wrongness of charging for eye testing and for dental examinations. That is a retrograde step.
I believe that the department decided on a good strategy for primary care in the White Paper. Then the gremlins of the Treasury got their hands on it and said that the costs must be reduced. So the department was forced into making these kind of proposals in order to reduce the cost.
I notice that the Minister shook his head. I am glad to see that. I hope that, having heard the arguments in the debate, he will now agree that the charges should not be introduced. They do not go well with the proposed objective of improving preventive medicine. If we are trying to improve preventive medicine, one of the things we want is the early indication of the presence of any disease. One would get that from these examinations, and that is the vital importance of them.
The Government seem to be at cross-purposes with themselves. In one breath they speak about increasing preventive medicine, but in the second breath they talk of charging for the kind of examinations that would help in that direction. I hope that this provision will be reconsidered. If the Government will not recognise their mistakes perhaps your Lordships will correct them by rejecting those clauses. I hope that we shall not hear from any side of the House during this debate that it would be unconstitutional for this House to reject certain clauses.
I want to use my time to comment on two matters. One is in the same vein as eye testing and dental examinations, but it is not quite the same. It is the attempt to cash limit the expenses of doctors through the FPC. I recognise what the Government are trying to do. They have agreed that there should be an expansion of the support scheme for general practitioners, but they want it to be a controlled expansion. I can see that that is the motive behind it. However, there are dangers in that approach. Indeed,

1075
many previous speakers have already mentioned some of them. It seems to me that once you cash limit, then what you have done is reduce the availability of resources for dealing with the matter. Therefore if you expand—that is what the Government say they want to do in their White Paper—then cash limiting is again a contradiction. So I hope that the Government will also look at that point because—although I am not castigating their motives—I believe that they are mistaken in their approach.
However, I want to use my time to indicate why I differ from the rest of my profession on the issue of compulsory retirement at the age of 70, which is proposed by most people. When a doctor has been practising for 50 years, as I have, he has developed a certain amount of expertise which should not be wasted. I have many friends who are accountants. When they reach my age they become consultants for their firms. Similarly, I have friends who are architects and the same applies to them. Indeed, it also happens in the case of solicitors. Therefore I cannot see any reason why the same should not apply to general practitioners.
I believe that what should be proposed is not just a blanket age at which they must stop practising, but an age at which they cease to be principals. In that case their practice will be permitted to keep them on as consultants, although it must be said that not all ageing practitioners are worth keeping on. If that is to be the approach, then I agree that the 24-hour retirement procedure should not be allowed. On the other hand, if we are to have the fixed age limit at which to retire, then I personally believe that early retirement, with full pension, is an invaluable way to make an early transfer from an elder doctor to a younger doctor. It would reduce the elder doctor's workload and, at the same time, bring in a new partner.
For example, often you have a practice which currently has more than the maximum amount of work but not quite enough to take on a new partner. However, if the eldest practitioner retires at, say, 65 and subsequently takes on a lower workload, the practice will then be in a position to take on an additional partner. Indeed, there have been several practices which as a result of the 24-hour retirement—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, speaking out of curiosity as an octogenerian, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Lord would set any limit on that. It must be said that there are Members of this House who are active in their nineties. Does he consider that they should be allowed to go on practising?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, no, I would not set any limit. I am leaving that aspect to their partners. They can decide whether it is worth while keeping such practitioners on. In fact, age is not the point. If the other partners think that a certain doctor, at the age of 70, can still perform a useful service to the public, then they will keep him on as a consultant. However, if they do not think so, then they will not. I am talking about a permitted activity.
1076
I believe that this cut-off, so to speak, at the age of "X" because one has reached a certain age, is not the best way to use accumulated resources. In fact the expertise that the doctor had accumulated over the years is a resource. Surely such a resource should not be wasted merely because the doctor has reached a certain age.
People over the age of 70 are often—I am not quite sure how to put this—more skilled than younger people, not only in terms of the expertise and the knowledge that they have accumulated over the years, but also in the way they function. We have plenty of examples in your Lordships' House of the various ages at which people can become old. Therefore I genuinely believe that this is a serious point. Consultants have always had to go at 65 but they do not retire; they start in private practice and are working all the time. I do not believe that this is desirable.
What will happen when GPs retire at 70? They will start private practices. I do not believe that is the way to proceed, because if they are not fit enough to have a general practice in the National Health Service, they are not fit enough to have a private practice either. However, they will do so because there is nothing to stop them. The suggestion that I should like the Government to think about very seriously is that in addition to the clause which will permit the Secretary of State by regulation to decide at what age doctors should retire, there should be an additional clause giving him the power to enable practices to appoint a retiring practitioner as a consultant if he can be of service.
There is an additional argument in favour of that. Most doctors over the years establish a rapport with certain patients and those patients are very loathe to give up their doctor when he reaches the age of retirement. I know that only too well. If my suggestion is accepted, while a doctor may not be seeing 1,000 or 2,000 patients, he will still be able to see the 100 or two who want him and nobody else. At a time when we are deciding at what age GPs should cease to be principals in the National Health Service, this is also an opportunity to open it up so that the expertise and knowledge they have accumulated over the years, and the experience and rapport they have established with patients, can continue. That is my text for the House this afternoon and I hope the Government will give it careful consideration.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his presentation of the Health and Medicines Bill, and I too will address myself to Clauses 13 and 14.
We are looking at the issue of whether the public should now pay for an eye test and a prescription without which they will not be issued with an optical appliance. The argument hitherto has been that the test is necessary because it screens the customer for all kinds of diseases. My Lords, since the practitioner is not medically trained it is not surprising that there is no accountability whatever as to the validity of that test. If one goes for a medical test to somebody who is not medically trained, I would take that to come under the heading of quack medicine.

1077
In the words of 1927 report which was commissioned by the Minister of Health, Neville Chamberlain, it was stated,
"By practising ophthalmoscopy and prescribing glasses for patients, who consulted them directly, opticians were claiming a degree of medical knowledge which they did not possess and positive harm might be done by prescribing glasses, where an error of refraction was accompanied by some disease which they could not detect. This is a positive danger to the public were Parliament to pass such a measure."
I hope that that aspect will be taken into account in regard to this new Bill. That fact was maintained in the later report by the Minister for Health, Aneurin Bevan, when similar findings were made known which cannot be ignored.
Those reports also serve only to highlight the recent case brought in the European Court which stated that the provision of spectacles was not a medical service. Therefore, we have three reference points. That ruling has been accepted by the United Kingdom Government.
How can it be a medical service when the optician is not a fully qualified medical person? He has direct links with the commercial pressure selling of his own medicines where spectacles are synonymous with medicines within the definition of the Act. Surely that was the very conflict of interest that the Act was supposed to remove.
Section 21 of the Opticians Act refers to a defect of sight. Does that mean a defect or abnormality of the eye? If so, that should be the wording. Using the word "sight" in that context is as indefinable as the hypothetical length of a piece of string. There is no such thing as perfect sight. Therefore an optical appliance may be deemed to be within the Bill and be entirely misinterpreted for commercial reasons.
The optician is equipped to deal only with the refractive capability and quality of the eye, and to provide compensating lenses for abnormalites where he is specifically instructed by the client. Sight is one of the most marvellous, precious, personal and private of all human senses. It can be assessed objectively against certain standards; but it cannot be defined. Section 21 has tried to define "sight" legally. It has failed. If anyone tried to define my sight, I would tell him that that was impossible. If I tried to define anyone else's sight, I should be guided by that old adage:
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
It is my hope that freedom to use whatever optical appliance we wish to obtain should be allowed to us. Such interference in the enjoyment of our own sight is clearly contrary to the charter on human rights, and any provision within the Act and future legislation on restrictive trade practices should be responsive and subservient to the morality and intention of that charter. Present laws relating to the availability of reading spectacles descriminate against one age group.
Perhaps I may conclude on an historical note. In 1299 a writer in Florence is recorded as saying:
"I find myself so pressed by age that I can neither read nor write without those glasses they call spectacles (senza vetri appellati ociali)".
I apologise for my Italian but I extol that inventor.
A few years later Alessandro of Pisa died. His tomb states that he had learned the secret of how to make
1078
spectacles, the great gift to mankind by which our learning and civilisation came to be distributed all over Europe. Civilisation is eternally grateful to that man.
Despite that incalculably munificent gift to the human race, throughout history various charlatans and cheats have been able to latch onto and monopolise the invention for their own exclusive use in the full knowledge of the enormous riches which can be amassed therefrom unto themselves. It is inconceivable that it can still be dressed up in yet another guise and sold to the gullible with exclusive marketing rights accorded to the vendor. With that in mind, whatever the merits of Section 21 as currently interpreted, it goes only to prove the other side of that old adage:
'There's many a rotten tune can he played on an old fiddle."
I should therefore like to ask that compulsory eye tests should become voluntary eye tests, without obligation of any sort to buy from the person who carries out the test, and that reading spectacles—since such provision is highly discriminatory against the middle-age group—should no longer be provided under compulsory sight tests or prescription unless specifically requested. Sight does not come from optical appliances. It does not come to us by courtesy of opticians. It is sacrosanct between ourselves and our creator. No man-made laws can alter that.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I always find it sad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, on these occasions, because he has this extraordinary bitter and implacable opposition to opticians and to their valuable contribution to health care in the modern day. To quote, for example, from Mr. Neville Chamberlain over 50 years ago when things were rather different, and even to go back to the Greeks, is not particularly relevant now. But if the noble Lord will allow me I shall not pursue that now as I have other things to say, and we can perhaps return to it at Committee stage. But it is very sad and I hope that one day he will come to see that his view is rather excessive in a very narrow direction.
My noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill with his customary skill, but I have to ask him whether it is necessary. This Bill is yet another example of patching the NHS before tackling the much more important task of radically modernising it. I have had the good fortune to read a very recent book entitled National Health Crisis: A Modern Solution by Mr. Ray Whitney, who was the Minister for Health in 1985 and 1986. I will not delay your Lordships by explaining the modern solution, though I strongly commend the book especially to noble Lords opposite, as well as of course to my noble friend.
It is interesting that one of the more wise speeches that we had, from the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, drew our attention to the report of the committee of Lord Dawson of Penn in 1920 and the book to which I referred also commends that report very highly. The point of mentioning the book in this debate is that it makes clear that the problem of providing adequate health care for all our fellow

1079
citizens can no longer be solved by patching the NHS as this Bill does. Something much more radical needs to be done. We as a nation—that is, government and private citizens—dedicate only about half the per capita sums towards our health care compared with most other major Western nations, and the other half is necessary. But the other half cannot come from within the present system and we have to have a radical new one.
In answer to questions in recent months my noble friend the Minister told us that a searching review is currently being conducted within the DHSS, and the Government will be announcing their proposals as soon as they are ready. If these proposals are as radical as Mr. Whitney has convinced me they must be, they will subsume this small Bill with its mini-tinkering. I therefore strongly suggest to my noble friend that the best think to do with this Bill is quietly to let it die and to free time for other important government business. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said much the same when he addressed us.
In the event that my noble friend does not take that sensible advice, there are some points in the Bill on which I must briefly comment. They relate, as has been the case with other noble Lords, to Clauses 13 and 14, which introduce charges for sight testing—a matter on which I am advised by the Association of Optometrists in which I have to declare an interest as a vice-president and on which certain other noble Lords have commented. I particularly call to the attention of my noble friend and of other noble Lords the wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington.
It is significant that all the experts, whether they be doctors or dentists, have commented so clearly and so wisely on this subject. Those of us who are laymen on the whole have been supported by a great deal of expert advice to which I hope my noble friend will pay particular attention.
I appreciate that the Bill will permit free eye tests for children, people who are receiving social security benefits, the blind and partially sighted, diabetics and glaucoma sufferers. But this will leave almost two-thirds of the population to pay for eye sight tests in the future. Those paying will include 6·5 million of the country's 9 million old age pensioners, of whom I am one. Out of 12 million people undergoing eye examinations last year, approximately 1 million were referred to their
individual GP by the optometrist or opthalmic medical practitioner because of suspected abnormality or disease. In their turn, GPs refer patients to optometrists to avoid unnecessary referrals to hospital. In that sense the two professions are acting in a complementary way. It seems strange that somebody may go to his GP and at another stage to a hospital and not pay anything. However, when part of the chain, all too frequently, is the optometrist, you have to pay unless you are in the exempted categories. That seems to me to be spoiling what has become quite a good chain of exchange of information between the optometrist and the GP.
As people get older, especialy after 60, according to a recent survey by the British College of Optometrists, they are, not surprisingly, more likely
1080
to have abnormalities or disease which the eye test reveals and, importantly, of which they were unaware. In recent years, based on the experience of several elderly relations, I have learnt that anything—other noble Lords have said this too—which stands in the way of their seeking primary health care is all too often latched on to as an excuse not to seek such care. It is a peculiarity of the old, which I expect will happen to us all: maybe it is already happening. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was talking about 70 year-old doctors. Perhaps at 80 years of age he will find that he too is resisting care from other doctors.
Although many old people can readily afford the £10 to £12 which an eye test may cost, that is just the sort of impediment that will put them off having a test for as long as possible. Then it will be discovered that some of them have an advanced state of, say, glaucoma which is irreversible—I repeat, irreversible.
Turning now to younger people, your Lordships will know that I am much concerned by the fact that faulty eyesight makes a greater contribution to road accidents than is generally accepted. The difficulty has been to persuade transport Ministers to conduct the necessary scientific study to determine whether my supposition, and that of many others in many parts of the world, is true. For example, a survey in California indicated that probably some 4 to 5 per cent. of road accidents were mainly caused by defective eyesight.
In this connection I was pleased to learn from a BBC radio programme only last Monday that drivers in some parts of Britain are being stopped and given random eye tests by the police. The resultant surveys suggest that more than 3 million drivers might have defective eyesight. Some senior police officers accordingly think that a full eye test should replace the 25-yard numberplate test. That is just what I have been advocating. It is a welcome step in the right direction and I strongly commend the police for taking this initiative. I sadly note, however, in today's issue of The Times that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, no doubt encouraged by transport Ministers, warned chief constables yesterday not to overdo the introduction of that sensible practice.
The relevance of that matter to the Bill is that it is important that drivers of all ages, and not just elderly people, should not have the extra excuse of having to pay for a proper test to put them off taking that extra measure to help make their driving safer. Thus, one wonders whether there are sufficient advantages to the Government in introducing eyesight testing charges to offset the fact that they may inadvertently be contributing to a delay in necessary health care for elderly people who are not on social security and who may be failing to take a necessary precaution to make our roads safer.
The saving to the Exchequer of not paying the £9·75 which is charged for each sight test is estimated to be £80 million per year. That must be measured against the cost to the National Health Service of extra health care for the elderly, which might have been avoided, and the cost of road casualties. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and other noble Lords have mentioned that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, commented upon it and we heard the moving true story which was told by my

1081
noble friend Lady Gardner of her experience in the field of dentistry.
There is to be a charge. The question is: What will that charge be? It can be shown, based on the current referral rates, that if only one elderly person in a thousand fails to have a potentially blinding condition arrested as early as is currently the case, the subsequent NHS and care costs could well eat up over half of all expected savings made on the chargeable eye tests of a thousand people. The other half of those savings might well be exceeded by accident casualty costs, not to mention the extra costs which my noble friend Lord Cullen mentioned in relation to equipment.
One way and another, one potential unnecessary delay in arresting disease in one person out of a thousand could eat up half the savings which the Government believe they are making. The other factors could well eat up more than the other half of those savings, and all because people delayed having eye tests or did not have them at all.
The one elderly person who fails to have a potentially blinding condition arrested as early as is currently the case will also be left unnecessarily blind. There is sufficient evidence to show that that can happen. My noble friend may say that it might not happen. I reply that in time it certainly will. I say to my noble friend: Is it worth it? I think it would be best to let the Bill die. If not, the Government should take the initiative in leaving out Clauses 13 and 14.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, although the Bill is a short one, many of its provisions are far-reaching. My noble friend Lord Ennals has made it clear that we welcome some of the provisions. On the other hand, the Bill is strangely silent on a number of issues which have been identified. But the debate has clearly brought out genuine worries on all sides of the House about the most far-reaching of those provisions.
The area of greatest immediate concern to most people is scrapping the free sight test and free dental examination except where concessions are made. I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised at that concern. We have heard strong criticism of the charges from quarter after quarter.
Yet on the need for the charges the 1986 discussion document was silent. It contained no suggestion that the Government were contemplating the imposition of charges for sight testing and dental examination. Accordingly, no opportunity was given to the consumers to make such representations as they may have wished against the introduction of the charges. Can the Minister help the House. Why was the document silent on that point?
Although it is late in the afternoon I should like to try to summarise the objections to the charges. I think that they can be brought under three or four main headings. First, it has been said by speaker after speaker that they would be inconsistent with the philosophy of the discussion document and also of the November 1987 White Paper with its central emphasis on the prevention of illness. Indeed they are inconsistent with the theme which dominated the Minister's speech. That objection has been
1082
powerfully voiced this afternoon by many speakers and there is no need for me to develop the argument further.
I move to the second objection. It is feared that the charges will make preventive health care in some fields less effective because more people will be deterred by the charges from applying for an examination. For many people diagnosis of diseases which show themselves in the eye or the mouth will be delayed and possibly detected too late in the day.
I accept that it is probably true that most people
who are in good financial circumstances will not be deterred by the examination fees. But I understand that the available evidence indicates that there are many people in relatively poor financial circumstances—just above the income support level—who will be deterred from applying for examination or test which they ought to seek from the NHS. I understand from the experts that there is evidence from the United States of America in particular which shows that the effect of introducing charges for access to primary health care was to reduce the uptake by 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. We are often subjected to homilies about the American experience. Has the department studied the evidence from the United States?
I turn to the third objection, which rests on the judgment that the introduction of charges will impose an additional stress on the already overburdened and expensive hospital service. That is particularly true of the hospital eye service. As I understand the position, the GP will still have the option of referring a patient free of charge to the hospital consultant for examination but at a cost to the NHS of about £25 to £50. I understand from the experts that that referral is likely to happen.
So any financial gains which will be achieved by the introduction of charges ought to be weighed against the additional costs to be borne by the hospital eye service. Moreover, the out-patient lists and the waiting time for the hospital eye service will lengthen and there are already very substantial waiting time problems in many health authorities. I repeat that one has to judge the introduction of the charge against that wide background, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, in particular, in his wise counsel to the Government.
Let me be fair to the department. We must look at the case for introducing these charges that has been made out. The November 1987 White Paper—because there is no reference to it in the 1986 discussion document—advanced a specific case in support of the dental examination fee and a specific case in support of the sight testing fee; it then advanced a general case in support of both charges. The Government's specific justification for scrapping the dental examination fee is that they believe it is reasonable for patients to pay for the test. That is purely an assertion. That statement is made without further argument to show how or why it is reasonable to pay for the test. There is no recognition that there are objections to the test and no attempt is made to weigh the pros and cons.
The Government's specific justification for scrapping the fee for sight testing is based on their belief that the principle of increased competition

1083
should be extended to sight testing. That is to be found at paragraph 5.4 of the White Paper. Is that an acceptable explanation? In paragraph 2.10 of the White Paper, which has been conveniently overlooked until now, there is a significant hint that the Government half expect the opticians to absorb the cost, or part of the cost. It is put in an interesting way:
"Competition between opticians may well result in the cost of the sight test being wholly or mainly absorbed by opticians".
Has that suggestion been endorsed by the opticians or is it pure speculation? If the Government seriously hope that the costs will be wholly or mainly absorbed by the optician, is there not a small risk that some opticians will cut corners, rush the test notwithstanding the regulations to which the Minister referred in his opening speech, and only undertake a standard sight test in order to improve vision and not make a fuller examination which would detect the silent and early symptoms of the onset of illness? Are we right to subject people to that kind of risk?
However, the real reason for introducing charges for dental and eyesight tests—and it is acknowledged in the White Paper—is that the Government are determined that developments in primary health care, which otherwise would require £600 million of additional expenditure, are in part to be financed by the £170 million which it is said those charges will produce. The noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock, Lord Auckland and Lord Mottistone, have questioned whether the net savings will be anything like £170 million.
As the underfunding of the NHS continues, we fear that in the future, on the basis of this precedent, the Government may be tempted to introduce charges for other routine medical examinations, and that will eventually lead to charges made whenever one consults the health service. I say to the Government that the importance of this precedent has not gone unnoticed. This could be regarded as the fourth ground of objection to the charges.
I accept that Ministers do not often take advice from this side of the House. We should therefore be very grateful if they would pay full regard to and accept the convincing advice tendered today by their friends on the opposite side of the House, from the noble Lords, Lord Cullen, Lord Mottistone, Lord Auckland and Lord Colwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner and from the Cross-Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I hope that they will reflect on that advice and will widen the exemptions to include all groups which have been identified in the course of this debate.
I should like to say a few words about the important Clause 16. Through the mechanism of this clause cash limits will be imposed for the first time upon the ingredients of the FPC budget. This has been referred to more than once in the course of the debate. As my noble friend Lord Ennals pointed out, to this we are firmly opposed. Nevertheless, I wish to add a few words because some of the things which have been said by the family doctors show that there is within the medical profession a considerable uncertainty and apprehension about the working of
1084
Clause 16 and its implications for family doctors and the family practitioner committee.
We have had the benefit of listening to the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, about the future of the FPC and the strategies which he believes are called for. I thought that the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Cullen, had a very fair point when they suggested that these proposals, if not the contents of the entire Bill, should be referred to the ministerial review. Can the passage of this Bill be delayed for six months so that the ministerial review may reflect upon its implications? Perhaps the noble Lord can offer us guidance.
My noble friend Lord Rea concentrated much of his speech on Clause 16 and addressed a number of precise, well thought out questions to the Minister. Each question has fundamental practical implications. Thus it would be helpful if doctors knew how cash limits are to be administered. It would be helpful if they knew what criteria the FPC would be required to apply in the administration of cash-limited budgets for staff and premises. It is important that there should be no possible basis for misunderstanding about what the Government intend to achieve through the machinery of Clause 16. It would therefore be helpful when the Minister replies if he could clarify the practical implications of the clause in terms of the use of resources, the rule of the FPC and the relationship between the FPC and the doctors.
Before sitting down, I wish to mention one other matter with has been referred to by a number of speakers in the course of the debate. It is the matter of concern to university medical research workers referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, a very powerful committee, has today expressed publicly its concern about the application of the sweeping powers of Clause 7 to medical research. Among other things this clause will authorise the Secretary of State to exploit research work carried out by university staff and funded by the DHSS. It will authorise him to give directions to university departments which undertake the research and to impose conditions which would be binding on the departments. In his helpful speech the Minister was silent on this power when he introduced the Bill. It is an important point because the front on which medicine has advanced during the last 40 years has been predominantly scientific and based on research in the laboratory.
The achievements have been brought about without the powers which the Secretary of State now seeks for himself in the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain what is wrong with present arrangements. Will he confirm that it is agreed in the department and by Ministers that no steps should be taken which would create an environment which could deter good research workers from entering the service of medicine in this country?
This short Bill raises many worrying issues which have been identified in the course of the debate. We promise to return to those issues when the Bill is in Committee.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should like to begin, perhaps rather to his surprise, by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he said that the debate has largely focused on three issues: the dental examination charge, sight tests and cash limits. This reply will take some time to explain, but noble Lords will appreciate that this is only the Second Reading of the Bill and I anticipate other stages. I was grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made his speech. He explained the thinking behind flagging possible amendments in committee, which I believe is contained in Standing Orders.
I spoke about these three issues and I do not find it surprising that there are genuine concerns about them. In my opening speech I tried to set these proposals in the context of our strategy for the primary health care services. I do not intend to repeat myself, although I observe that there has been a fair amount of scepticism about it during the debate. Certainly the professions have welcomed the shift towards prevention and health promotion and accept the new emphasis on quality of services and the importance of the consumer. All round the House today I believe that the thrust of the White Paper has had an overall welcome.
As I said, we have been spending more on the primary health care services—43 per cent. since 1979. We all want more money for the health service. We can accept that across the political divide and even within parties. The great divide comes in deciding from where the money is to come. The Government believe that the time is now right for it to come both from patients when they can afford it and in well-trailed and specific instances, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The question therefore is, can they afford it? I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for speaking. She agreed that they certainly can afford it. One only has to consider the experience of four years of National Health Service spectacles which have proved the point. Furthermore, it is well known that many people who have free vouchers for spectacles actually spend more than the voucher value on those spectacles.
The review has been mentioned. Although I cannot pre-empt anything which may be decided in the course of the review, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the health service review as such is outwith the central functioning of the primary health care services. It may be clearer if the sentence was turned round, but that is the fact.
How can I reconcile the comments that I have made with the Financial Memorandum? The answer is, quite easily. By no means all the White Paper proposals need legislation, although many of them cost substantial sums of money as I explained in my opening speech. But the proposals for the General Practice Finance Corporation on dental charges and sight tests need legislation and they happen to be proposals for saving money which will be spent on primary care development.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, by 1990–91 we plan to spend 11 per cent. more in real terms on primary health care; that is approximately £600
1086
million. That provides both for forecast growth and demand for additional funds for the development of primary care services along the lines of the proposals contained in the White Paper.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was a little mean about our White Paper proposals. I refer him to page 1 of the White Paper, which states:
"Health Ministers took a number of steps to encourage full public debate on their proposals. They set aside 8 months for the consultation period, which ended on 31st December, 1986".
They are hardly untrailed proposals—may I finish the thought and I shall then allow the noble Lord to interrupt?
A little later paragraph 2.8 of the White Paper states:
"The Discussion Document outlined various ways in which the primary care services could he improved but"—
and this is the important point—
"pointed out that developments which cost money would have to be funded through better use of existing resources. In the comments made during consultation"—
so there was no hiding this fact in the consultation—
"no one who supported such developments suggested where economies could be made to finance them. As a result the Government has considered how the substantial extra sums needed to pay for the changes it intends to make should be found".
I shall now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the point that I was seeking to make was that the option of scrapping the eye test and the dental test fee was not set out in the 1986 discussion document. On that point the document was silent.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point but I stated what the White Paper said. It made clear that the resources would have to come from somewhere. In the absence of any suggestions, the Government produced their own proposals. The proposals are in the—I am sorry?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not intend to intervene. However, I should like to know why in the White Paper the Minister did not say, "and one of the things is charges".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, White Papers take a little time to produce and it is not possible to anticipate all the reactions. However, I am saying so now and I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. Of course it will not, but I am trying.
Two of the areas where we propose to spend more are on family doctors' practice premises improvements and extending and improving practice teams. The money available to family doctors through the cost-rent scheme and improvement grants will be increased. We shall also remove the restrictions on employment of members of the practice team to allow people to decide local priorities rather than dictating from the centre. That is something which I am sure the whole House will agree is right. More money will be available for family doctors to employ more staff, and that is the important point.
We are proposing to offer more flexibility, more local control and more money to improve the quality of services. In management terms it is simple

1087
common sense that this increased delegation of larger sums of money should be matched by increased accountability through the introduction of cash limits. That is the purpose of Clause 16.
Today I can give two assurances on the part of the Government that may help those noble Lords who have expressed concern about the issue. First, the overall cash limit will be higher in real terms than the current spending in these areas. How much higher will depend on our negotiations with the professions. Secondly, we intend to introduce cash limits in two, and only two, areas: that is, direct reimbursement for improvement of premises of family doctor practices and practice team development. We have absolutely no plans for introducing them in any other areas of the family practitioner services.
The two remaining areas for concern are the dental examination charge and sight tests. As I have said, the White Paper proposals for improving primary care have received widespread support. Many people who responded to the discussion document supported proposals which cost more money. Many people suggested new ideas which could cost still more money. But no one suggested where economies could be made to finance them. Following a careful review of priorities we concluded that it was right to find additional resources for primary care development from within the general ophthalmic and dental services. We feel that those who can afford it should be expected to pay a modest charge for dental examination and should no longer be entitled to a free National Health Service sight test.
I was interested in the comments of my noble friend Lord Auckland. Last night I was considering what I would say to your Lordships on the subject of people paying for their eye tests and teeth examinations and the first two lines of Hilaire Belloc's Tarantella flitted across my mind:
"Do you remember an inn, Miranda?
Do you remember an inn?"
The party opposite clearly do not. The date of my "inn" was 1951, the "inn" itself prescription charges. Exactly the same arguments as have been advanced today, which boil down to the primary health care of the nation, were advanced against that proposal. What has been the result in the last 27 years? People who cannot afford them—about 40 to 50 per cent. of GPs' patients—do not pay prescription charges. And the primary health care of the nation has never been in better fettle than today.
Prescription charges are part of the medical scene in this country. No government, either Labour or Conservative, in recent years has sought to remove them. So will it prove in the case of payment for eye tests and dental inspections. We have maintained all the existing exempt groups so that only those who can afford it will be expected to pay. Help will be available for those with incomes just above the qualifying level.
The charges involved will be modest. On dental charges many simple courses of treatment will be cheaper. Therefore, we do not believe that there will be any significant deterrent effect. The evidence of past changes in dental charges and of the competitive market for glasses does not support the deterrent argument.
1088
I listened with great interest to the arguments of my noble friends Lord Colwyn and Lady Gardner of Parkes. I appreciate that their speeches were based on the advice of the whole dental profession and not just the private sector. I believe, however, that I should be failing in my duty if I did not ask my noble friend Lord Colwyn one question to which he need not respond now although I hope he will during the later stages of the Bill. Over the past 10 years in which he has practised privately, has he seen an increase in patient treatment and, indeed, patient numbers? If, as I suspect, the answer is yes, it really damages the general argument that people will not pay for dental examinations. I say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that children will certainly receive both free sight tests and teeth inspections because it is in childhood that good habits are formed. Early corrective work in children saves, as we all know, not only time, trouble and expense later on but also provides comfort at the earliest possible moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn will agree with me that we do not want duplication in the provision of dental services. Therefore, if the Secretary of State has a duty by law to duplicate, that most emphatically would be wrong. However, I am prepared to look at another formulation to see whether it is possible to avoid wasteful duplication in another way if such a proposal is presented to me at a later stage of the Bill.
As a matter of information, at present the community dental service in England provides annually 1.5 million courses of treatment and the general dental service 8 million. I hope that that information helps the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. As regards the deterrent effect of charges, I believe that my noble friend Lady Gardner dealt very effectively with that point. It is important to put the question of deterrence into perspective.
Charges have increased each year since 1976 by as little as 5 per cent. to as much as 35 per cent. This did not lead to any reduction in the demand for dental services. On the contrary, there has not been one year—not even one—throughout this period in which the number of courses of treatment has not increased. The increase in Great Britain over that period was 6.9 million courses, from 29.9 million to 36.8 million, which is an overall increase of 23 per cent. and an average increase of 2.3 per cent. Therefore, I do not expect the measures we are taking to alter that trend, particularly bearing in mind that, even after the examination charge is introduced, in current terms many courses will cost no more and many will cost less.
On the subject of prevention, which has exercised the minds of your Lordships as regards eye tests and dental examinations, in my view the suggestions that our proposals on charging for NHS dental examinations or ending NHS sight tests are inconsistent with preventive policies in dentistry and eye care simply do not hold water. With regard to dentistry, the essence of prevention is to ensure that children's teeth remain as free from disease as possible. To ensure that, the Government are taking a number of positive measures.
More resources are to be made available to facilitate implementation of new fluoride schemes

1089
which are being proposed by health authorities. Clause 10 will enable health authorities to deploy more of the resources of the community dental service to preventive and educational programmes. More money is to be devoted to training programmes which concentrate upon prevention and techniques of minimal intervention.
Noble Lords may recall our recent consideration of the new dental video on this subject. The Government are also funding a three-year study of a capitation system of payment for treating children in order to see whether that system offers a better incentive to provide preventive services. Noble Lords should not overlook the fact that the Government intend to maintain the free National Health Service dental services for children and young persons. Once the Bill is enacted no one under the age of 18 will pay for any treatment. Taken together, those incentives must amount to a major contribution to prevention in the child health dental field.
That is not to say that prevention, through advice on matters such as oral hygiene and diet in the field of adult health, should be overlooked. This service will continue to be available and we hope that dentists will continue to devote more chairside time to this important activity. The question at issue is whether or not patients will be deterred from attending the dentist because of the proposal to charge for the examination. Dental charges have existed for 37 years and there is no evidence worth the name that increasing patient charges has any real effect on the uptake of treatment.
Turning to the ophthalmic services, we are ensuring that those people in the community who are most vulnerable will still get a free National Health Service test. As I explained, vulnerability does not apply only to financial vulnerability; it also applies to eye health vulnerability. I have repeated the measures announced in another place for diabetics and for sufferers and potential sufferers from glaucoma. The GPs' role in screening for diabetes has been called slightly into question by my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. But I do believe that we have to get sight tests into proportion. No one says, for example, "Oh, today is Thursday. I shall go and have my free National Health Service sight test". People go because they want to determine whether or not they need glasses. So I have a great deal of sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby.
Opticians can in the course of the test notice signs of such diseases as diabetes and refer patients on for medical care. We would of course expect this to continue. But the overall responsibility for a patient's health rests, and will continue to rest, with his or her general practitioner who has ample opportunity to detect such diseases.
We made clear in the White Paper that we shall discuss with GPs' representatives ways in which family doctors can increase their involvement in preventive care generally. I do not want to go into detail about what we have or have not yet discussed with the BMA's General Medical Services Committee, but discussions are indeed under way. I should like to say a few words about the unregulated—
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, am I correct in saying that these negotiations have started in the past five days?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the specific negotiations to which my noble friend referred have indeed started in the past five days. The more general ones have been going on for some time. So to an extent I think my noble friend would agree that we were both right. But I am not sure that that gets us very much further.
I should like to refer to the unregulated sale of reading glasses. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, argued the desirability of permitting the uncontrolled sale of reading glasses, as I understood it, without prescription. I have listened carefully to the arguments and I have to say that I do not throw up my hands in abject horror. Noble Lords may snort, but they might also listen to what I am about to say. One cannot hold the view that the eye health of the nation will suffer from charges for eye tests and the view that the uncontrolled sale of reading glasses should be allowed.
Time is getting on but I should like to refer to people on incomes just above the qualifying levels, because obviously that is a new consideration which interests noble Lords. The people on income support and family credit will of course continue to qualify for a free NHS sight test. In addition, we are aware that there may be difficulties for people whose incomes are just above the qualifying levels. As was announced in another place on 14th April we intend to introduce arrangements to provide help for these people and, if necessary, to seek to amend the Bill for that purpose. I regret that I cannot be specific as regards the details of the arrangements at this time as they are still being considered.
Important questions were raised on income generation, on the General Practice Finance Corporation and on many other matters, but in all fairness to the House time does not permit me to go into them. I shall of course write to the noble Lords who raised those points. I believe, however, that I have covered the most important and wide-ranging thoughts of your Lordships.
We propose to redirect resources towards the proposals set out in the White Paper to permit the systematic development of the quality, scope and preventive nature of the primary care services in order to promote the better health of the nation. This Bill will enable us to do this and to make many other important changes. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Adjournment
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, before adjourning the House I should like to say a few, but very sincere,

1091
words of thanks to the staff of the House for the great support they have given your Lordships since the Easter Recess. It may not be customary to do so at this time of the year, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the past seven weeks have been especially onerous compared with similar periods during previous years.
We have had many late nights and that puts pressure on the Officers of the House, especially Black Rod and his team of Doorkeepers. In the enforced absence, due to illness, of the Clerk of the Parliaments, which we all regret, it has put pressure on the Clerks at the Table. It has also put pressure on the Hansard Reporters. They have all responded magnificently and I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that we owe them a great debt of gratitude.
However, in addition to all this, and as some noble Lords will have known to their cost, there was an outbreak of salmonella poisoning some three weeks ago. I do not believe that your Lordships will ever know the extent of the pressure which this put upon the Refreshment Department, but I can tell you that the staff responded so well that many noble Lords were unaware of the problems with which they had to cope. That illustrates just how well we are looked after by our staff. I should like especially to mention Mr. Bibbiani and Miss McWilliam, without whose
1092
initiative, improvisation and sheer hard work the whole operation of feeding Members of this House would have ground to a halt. I must point out that the other parties in the House, as well as the Cross-Benches, have naturally expressed a wish to be associated with those remarks. Therefore, on behalf of the whole House, I should like to extend to all our staff our special thanks.
Finally, to all of your Lordships and to our staff I wish a well-earned rest and hope that this short recess will enable all of us to recharge our batteries for the exciting days and nights which lie ahead.

Imperial College Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Northampton Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at ten minutes before five o'clock.

  RATEABLE VALUES: RIGHT OF APPEAL
  RATEABLE VALUES: RIGHT OF APPEAL
  RATEABLE VALUES OF LET PROPERTY: PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE
  RATEABLE VALUES OF LET PROPERTY: PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE
  VALUATION OF PROPERTIES IN ENTERPRISE ZONES
  VALUATION OF PROPERTIES IN ENTERPRISE ZONES
  PLANNING: EFFECTS OF NEW CHANGE OF USE PROVISIONS
  PLANNING: EFFECTS OF NEW CHANGE OF USE PROVISIONS
  MAGNOX FUEL REPROCESSING: REPORT
  MAGNOX FUEL REPROCESSING: REPORT
  FOOD PRICES AND THE RPI
  FOOD PRICES AND THE RPI
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: MODIFICATION OF TRUST DEED
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: MODIFICATION OF TRUST DEED
  SCHOOLS' APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT AIDED STATUS: POLICY
  SCHOOLS' APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT AIDED STATUS: POLICY
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  ERITREA AND TIGRÉ: AID
  ERITREA AND TIGRÉ: AID
  CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE AND THE POLICE
  CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE AND THE POLICE
  SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINY REPORT
  SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINY REPORT
  WAR CRIMES INQUIRY: ADVERTISEMENT
  WAR CRIMES INQUIRY: ADVERTISEMENT
  MR. LUIS GARCIA
  MR. LUIS GARCIA
  MR. WINSTON HOLLETT
  MR. WINSTON HOLLETT